Journal Review

Rulan Suciyanti
135120207121010

This paper contains of  journals review by Derina Holtzhausen “A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice” and “International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation” by Carl Botan.

First this journal told us about posmodern critique of PR theories and practices. However, the theory and practice of public relations are based on a modernist understanding of organization. Alternative perspectives on the societal and organizational role of public relations are limited. This article explores the contribution of a postmodern critique of public relations, and the differences between modernism and postmodernism, particularly in organizational context. To understand a postmodern critique of public relations, it is appropriate to review briefly the main philosophical differences between the modern and the postmodern, particularly as it pertains to the organizational environment in which public relations practitioners operate. This emphasis on the organizational environment in which public relations is practiced stems from the definition of public relations as 'the management of communication between an organization and its publics further defines this as 'communication managed for the organization by communication specialists (Holtzhausen, 2002, p. 29).

Organizational communication, therefore, may be either internal or external'. The management level of public relations, among other things, focuses on organizational effectiveness, the strategic management of the function through the strategic identification of publics, and issues management to prevent crises (Holtzhausen, 2002). In the section of distinctions between critical theory and pomodernism explain about  critical perspectives have, virtually without exception, focused on the practice of public relations within the context of the modernist approach to public relations theory and practice mentioned above. For example, Gandy (1982, 1989) in (Holtzhausen, 2002) critiques public relations practice from a Marxist perspective and argues that public relations dominates policy debates through its ability to mobilise information resources on behalf of powerful policy actors. Postmodernism focuses on the role language plays in social construction, resulting in different forms of domination, particularly through knowledge and power. As a result, postmodernists reject rationalism in favor of difference, fragmentation and plurality; metanarratives in favor of microanalysis and micropolitics, and dialectics in favor of fragmentation and empiricism, to mention a few.

In the section of PR as a strategic management function explained obout This focus on management and strategy, however, might well have brought public relations to the biggest crisis of its relatively short academic existence. While public relations scholars focused on establishing public relations as a legitimate discipline inbusiness, by the late 1980s a school of thought in organisation theory and organisational communication had started to emerge which challenges these dominant concepts, described as functionalist. Critical and postmodern theorists have begun to challenge the legitimacy of managers setting the goals for the organisation and the 'rationality' of management decisions . As a result, a number of texts  to mention but a few) challenged the very bases of the modernist (functional) paradigms on which public relations theory and practice have built their current foundations (Holtzhausen, 2002).

This jounal 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. Furthermore, this article also answers the question whether there is a role for critical theory in public relations 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 organisational player. It is a major societal force and should be studied as such.

The second jounal by Carl Botan, public relations is growing rapidly but unevenly with the U.S. and EC showing the greatest development. Multinational corporations based in the U.S. and EC 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.

International PR and the ethnocentric model  Kinzar and Bohn (Botan, 1992), a ft er studying the literature on management of multi-national corporations, identified four possible models for public relations management in MNC’S. The two most common models are the ethnocentric and polycentric. In the ethnocentric model home country assumptions about public relations and how it works are central. This leads to the assumption, for example, that what is known about public relations in the U.S. or the EC can be applied in less developed counties with only minor adjustments for the more obvious and superficial, language, legal, and business differences (Botan, 1992). The second common approach to public relations management in MNC’s is the polycentric model in which host country PR practitioners exercise a high degree of autonomy. With this model host country practitioners are entrusted with carrying out the MNC’s plans and programs based on their own experiences and contacts. While this model does use practitioners who know and understand the host country, the MNC’s plans and programs are often not brought into question and the underlying assumption-that the host country is merely a site for fulfilling the MNC’s needs- remains intact and problematic.

The role of assumptions in public relations theory and research was discussed extensively by J. Grunig (1989), although he called them presuppositions, Grunig said presuppositions “consist of assumptions about the world and values attached to those assumption” (Botan, 1992, p. 152)One key assumption that can differ between cultures is whose interests public relations ought to serve. In offering definitions of what public relations is many textbooks and some articles declare their own assumptions about what primary client public relations serves, or ought to serve. The public relations matrix was derived from a literature revievvr conducted as part of an ongoing multi-year project comparing international public relations theories. This review found the existing body of literature addressing international public relations to be minuscule. The search included several el ectronic and hard copy data bases and used multiple key terms.

International public relations is also always intercultural public relations because the process is characterized in different nations by different mixtures of national development, primary client, legal/political, and historical contexts. The demands which international economic and political events place on public relations practitioners and scholars are escalating rapidly. This will increase the risk of unintentionally imposing cultural and business assumptions on other cultures, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of internationalpublic relations.

Bibliography

Botan, C. (1992). Critique and Reformulation. International Public Relations(18(2)), 149-159.

Holtzhausen, D. (2002). A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice”. 28:1, 29-38.