6^th Journal Review:

International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation

Carl Botan

            There are two most common models out of four models that were identified by Kinzar and Bohn (1985) after studying the literature on management of multi-national corporations, which are ethnocentric and polycentric. Ethnocentric model is about home country assumptions about public relations and how it works is central, and they suggest this view is exemplified in business writings by Illman (1980), who assumed that there is no major difference between motivating and persuading people at home and in other countries. While the he polycentric model is in which host country PR practitioners exercise a high degree of autonomy. The practice of public relations is often controlled from the home country based on assumptions inherent to the home country, which resulting in they may not really be international public relations but might better be called trans-border public relations

            J. Grunig (1989) was discussing about the role of assumptions in public relations theory, although he called them presuppositions, which it is consist of assumption about the world and values attached to those assumption (p. 18) and one of them is whose interest’s public relations ought to serve. There are two harms cause by the failure to recognize underlying differences in assumptions about public relations, which are reduces the potential for using public relations as a lens for better understanding how organizations in other cultures use communication to adapt their relationship with relevant publics and also reduces the potential for using the knowledge and practical experience of other cultures to inform our practice and understanding of public relations. The key to effective and ethical international public relations is by understanding the role of the unconscious assumptions of both clients and practitioners.

            A literature review, whereas the existing body of literature addressing international public relations to be minuscule was found, that was conducted as part of an ongoing multi-year project comparing international public relations theories resulting in the public relations matrix. There were only 130 relevant citations found in seven languages about it using multiple key terms. The English language literature base included 62 article, books, and book reviews, whereas it suggested as discriminators of national public relations matrices at least the following four factors; level of national development, primary clients, legal/political context, and history of the practice, though it wasn't broad enough to justify an assertion that those are the best or only choices, but merely that they represent a starting point.

7^th Journal Review:

A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice

Derina Holtzhausen


It is better to have a brief review about the main philosophical differences between the modern and the postmodern in order to understand a postmodern critique of public relations. Postmodernism is a reaction of modernism, yet the focus here is about the study of public relations through a postmodern lens in order to help the practitioners to understand the contradictions in public relations and the reason of their well-intended practices don't give result as expected. There is two-step process of the application of the postmodern critique   here, which the first is the process to deconstruct the language of management that has led to the exploitation of organizational participants who have been ‘excluded, marginalized and exploited through the modernist project’ (Boje & Dennehey 1993:10) and its done through a process of discourse analysis, and the second is through the proposal of affirmative actions that support the postmodern stance against ‘racism, sexism, euro centrism, bureaucracies and colonialism’ (1993:10).

Although some scholars view postmodernism as a critical approach (Guba & Lincoln 1994:105-117), postmodernism is regarded by others as a distinctly different discourse, which focuses on such issues as the link between knowledge and power, dissensus rather than consensus, and 'micro political processes and the joined nature of power and resistance' (Deetz 1
2001:31). This article will focus on the postmodern lens to provide alter- native ways of practicing public relations. This lens should not only provide a different perspective on public relations practices, but could also be used to refute some of the modernist expectations of public relations practice mentioned before.

Although limited in scope, critical approaches to public relations have been around since the mid-1980s and focused on the practice of public relations within the context of the modernist approach to public relations theory and practice mentioned above. Lately, there has been an increased focus on using postmodern theory to critique public relations. Postmodernism focuses on the role language play in social construction, resulting in different forms of domination, particularly through knowledge and power.

At the beginning of the 1980s public relations was in the right place at the right time, and the management focus has generated numerous perspectives on the strategic management of public relations, with strategic as the key word. Postmodern philosophers do not believe in the rational subject who can objectively observe her or his environment and direct it strategically to a desired outcome. From a postmodern perspective, all strategies are futile exercises and are nothing but personal plans on how to proceed in a particular organizational function. They are not rational and also not representative of all organizational viewpoints.

Postmodernism is not against management per se but rather against managerialism, which is 'not merely an abstract shifting of control, but more importantly the development of a new logic and daily practice of corporations, which interpellates' managers as a particular type of subject, from the empirical individuals who hold management positions' (Deetz 1992:221). This postmodern critique of agency points to a dangerous position for the public relations practitioner. In the modernist context the public relations 'agent' is interpellated into the system to legitimate the knowledge of organizational managers by presenting it as objective knowledge.

Postmodernism generally highlights the role of signs and symbols in society, and interprets these signs and symbols as cultural artifacts with distinct political, ideological and social undertones. Through the efforts of public relations practitioners, organizations themselves become symbols. Thus public relations practitioners actively shape new ideologies and create hyper realities of those they represent, be they organizations, activist groups, politicians or entertainers.

This article 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. 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.

Bibliography:

•  Botan, C. (1992). International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation. Public Relations Review. 18(2). 149-159.
• Holtzhausen, D. (2002). A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice. Communicatio. (28)1. 29-38.

By: Putri Dena Ramadhania (135120207121025)