5^th Journal Review

Inge Ade Zinnia

13512020712011

International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation

By

Carl Botan

&

A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice

By

Derina Holtzhausen

This journal talks about how public relation grow rapidly around the world but the headline is, it is growing rapidly but unevenly with the U.S and EC showing the greatest development. This happened because public relations practices and education are concentrated in the U.S, the European Economic Community (EC), among the emerging economic powers of pacific rim. It is also talks about the failure in recognizing the differences between nations and cultures which important and how public relations matrix can be used to critique the common ethnocentric perspective on PR.

The journal explained that it happened that way because both parties often engage in public relations practices in less developed countries but often do so based on ethnocentric assumptions about public relations that limit both effectiveness and understanding of other cultures. It may be concluded that international public relation is also intercultural public relations. Both practitioners and scholars naturally examine and approach it from their own ethnocentric models. By that, the authors suggest the ethnocentric view is exemplified in business writing by Illman (1980) who assumed that there is no major difference between motivating and persuading people at home and in other countries which it leads to the assumption that what is known about public relations in the U.S or the EC can be applied in less developed countries with only minor adjustments for the more obvious and superficial, language, legal, and business difference. But then there are some different perspectives like Kinzer and Bohn warn that practice of domestic public relations forged in the comfortable American marketplace are likely to be ineffective and even risky in some cultures. It is obviously possible that public relation professional trained and experienced based on current condition and situation of only one of their current culture. Other model is the public relations in management in MNC’s is the polycentric model in which host country PR practitioners exercise  a high degree of autonomy. By this model, the host country practitioners are believed to conduct all the plans and programs based on their own experiences and contacts but then it is only a kind of a site in order to fulfill MNC’s needs which is remain intact and problematic.

What can differ between cultures is that whose interest public relations ought to serve. As we know that there are many cultural and national differences between developed countries that make the PR study and practice somewhat different between them. However, these differences are minor in comparison to the difference between them as a group and the less developed and previously communist countries where the public relations function may not assumed to be primarily a business undertaking.

The authors then mentioned two harms that cause by the failure to recognize the underlying differences in assumption about PR which first, it reduces the potential for using PR as a tools or whatever for better understanding of how organizations in other cultures use communication to adapt their relationship with relevant public and how beneficial it is. Second, not only reducing the potential for using PR but it also reduces the potential of using knowledge and practical experience of other culture to inform our practice and understanding of PR.

The author mentioned several examples related to the topic which make it easier for  reader by giving real example and aligning the main point with the main topics’ discussions. As I can concluded that the norms and standards may be appropriate in one culture but not in other culture.  And PR function is ancient as it used in different ways by different kinds of organizations including governments, religions etc the PR function also has been called by various names, including education, outreach, community service, public information, public affairs and a variety of other. The authors used the public relations matrix which they think it can be used to critique the common ethnocentric perspective on public relations for its failure in order to define the importance the differences between nations and cultures.

This journal clearly stated that international public relations is also and always intercultural relations and how the process conduct by characterizing by different mixtures. Overall, it is a clear journal about how differences definitions of cultures and nations make a big effect on perspective about PR and its function to each countries in the world and how it affects the growth of PR which also as a based framework of how we determine international public relations.

The second journal talks about a postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice. As PR defined as the management of communication however the author find out that the theory and practice of PR are based on modernist understanding of organization. This journal explores the contribution of a postmodern critique of PR and the differences between modernism and postmodernism, particularly in organizational context. This journal also reviewed about the current debate between critical theory and postmodern critique. The author agreed that postmodern is a particularly critical of PR focus on strategy and management. This journal also concludes with suggestions for a postmodern research agenda and defends the simultaneous use of critical and postmodern theory. The author, in this journal talks about distinctions between critical theory and postmodern, public relations as a strategic management function, public relations practitioners as the agents of power, public relations and the crisis of representation.

The contention in this journal, is that this nomadic journey across many theoretical borders is a perfectly postmodern phenomenon. The author about the above arguments will hopefully demonstrate the importance of reflexivity in public relations theory and practice, namely the importance of continuously reflecting and overturning the theories in the field in an effort to prevent the formation of metanarratives. This journal holds that it is difficult to make sharp distinctions between critical and postmodern theory. A postmodern approach argues for the use of the most appropriate theory to view a particular situation, be it critical, postmodern or a combination of these. However, viewing public relations theory and practice through another lens is imperative if researchers and practitioners want to keep it relevant to today's society.

Simply, the author wants to answers the question whether there is a role for critical theory in PR and whether the focus should only be on the practitioner. A postmodern perspective would argue for bringing as many different perspectives to the field as possible. It should also not only be to the benefit of the practitioner. Public relations is much more that the technical role of an organizational player. It is a major societal force and should be studied as such. It is a good journal with pretty simple explanation to be understand. It gives us different perspective about the role of PR.