Resume of Journal By: Bela Dina Hakiki - 135120207121027

Resume of Journal

By:

Bela Dina Hakiki - 135120207121027

International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation

Carl Botan
JIA Press Inc, 1992

Vol 18 (2), pp 149-159

Abstract

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.

Results of a literature search conducted as part of a multi-year project intended to compare approaches to public relations from around the world are reported in this article. One conclusion reached is that international public relations is also intercultural public relations so practitioners and scholars naturally approach it from their own ethnocentric models unless a perspective not limited to business practices is specifically adopted. Dr. Botan is an associate professor and area head for public relations in the Department of Communication at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

And

A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice

Derina Holtzhausen

Communicatio, 2002

Vol 28 (1), pp 29-38

Abstract

Public relations is defined as the management of communication. However, the theory and practice of public relations are based on a modernist understanding of organisation. Alternative perspectives on the societal and organisational 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 organisational context. The current debate between critical theory and postmodern critique is also reviewed. Postmodernism is particularly critical of the public relations focus on strategy and management. It rejects the manager as a rational being who has the ability to determine organisational outcomes through strategies, which are viewed as discursive techniques used to enhance the power of some corporate actors. Modern public relations is a hegemonic practice that interpellates practitioners into the system to legitimise the perspectives and actions of corporate managers as objective knowledge, particularly through discursive practices in organisational media. Finally, the media relations role of public relations is critiqued for its creation of a hyperreality that leads to the creation of a hypercivilisation that has no factual existence. This article concludes with suggestions for a postmodern research agenda and defends the simultaneous use of critical and postmodern theory.

This paper consist of my summary from journal “International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation” by Carl Botan and A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice by Derina Holtzhausen. The purpose of my summary is to know how theory public relation and practice get critique from postmodernism and talking about international public relations.  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.

In the journal A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice, Pine Lodge Holtzhausen managed to play an important role in integrating the postmodern approach in the study and practice of PR (Holtzhausen, 2002). Theory and practice of modernists seek to create a single explanation, or metanarrative, which defines the social environment. PR comes from the modernist paradigm and PR theory, so far as they seek to present a single explanation or model for the practice of public relations, which embrace this worldview. Postmodern approach to public relations can accommodate cultural differences, ethnicity gender, and society in the analysis is more effective than the modernist metanarratives.

L'Etang (1996c) and Moloney (2000) echo, they say that PR is diverse and can not be defined in one sentence. Acceptance of postmodern plurality and diversity in the audience and the practice has particular consequences for PR. Holtzhausen (2000) also formulate activist organization: the person who brought about fundamental changes in the organization. Featuring three types of activism:

1.      Activist community: practitioners integrate alternative view of society organization into communication strategies and make management aware of their importance.

2.      Organizational Activists: Practitioners of this changed status from within,

3.      Public relations activities on its own as a form of activism, where a strategy designed to trigger a change in social norms or policies were dominant.

While in the journal International Public Relations: Critique and reformulation of International public relations describe viewed from one side, international public relations provides us with a window through the which to look into, and hopefully to better understand, another culture. That is, experienced public relations practitioners or scholars can learn about another culture, in part, by seeking answers to some of the same questions they ask about public relations in their home culture.

This will help them understand both similarities and differences quickly. Viewed from the other side, international public relations can function as a mirror. We study our own reflection to see how our practice [or culture] looks in comparison to others. This helps us to spot, through a kind of bold relief, underlying assumptions, cultural prejudices, hierarchies, and time honored bad habits that might otherwise go unrecognized

For Botan, “traditional approaches to public relations relegate publics to a secondary role, making them instruments for meeting organizational policy or marketing needs; whereas, dialogue elevates publics to the status of communication equal with the organization”. Note that international public relations is also always intercultural public relations (Botan, 1992)

Scholars interested in examining the concept of “relationship” in American public relations may benefit from understanding such variations of relationships in other cultures. Indeed, research that focuses on different types of relationships, and the unique ways that different cultures enact and maintain these relationships, may well lead to us to gain from the window and mirror analogy (Botan, 1992).

In 1992, C. Botan (Botan, 1992) pointed out that the tremendous growth of PR was concentrated mainly in the US. A PR matrix developed by him involved four factors:

– level of national development

– primary clients

– legal-political context

– history of the practice.

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.

L’Etang, J. (1996c) ‘Public relations and rhetoric’ in L’Etang, J. and Pieczka, M. (eds), Critical     perspectives in public relations’, London: International Thomson Business Press, 106–   123.

Moloney, K. (2006) Rethinking Public Relations? the spin and the substance (2nd edition),

            London: Routledge.