Journal Review IV by Meryana Deasy Karina Sudarsono (135120207121004)

Review Journals

“A Postmodern Critique of Public Relations Theory and Practice”, 2002, 
written by Derina Holtzhausen

and

“International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation”, 1992, 
written by Carl Botan

By

Meryana Deasy Karina Sudarsono (135120207121004)

Departement of Communication Science

Faculty of Social and Political Sciences

University of Brawijaya

Malang

This review is based on my comprehension of two journals, there are “A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice”, 2002, by Derina Holtzhausen and “International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation”, 1992, by Carl Botan. Those journals explained about theory, practice, critique, and reformation.

            The first journal is about “A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice”, 2002, by Derina Holtzhausen. The goal of this journal is to know how public relations theory and practice get critique by postmodern and also concludes with suggestions for a postmodern research agenda and defends the simultaneous use of critical and postmodern theory. Holtzhausen (2002) said that public relations is defined as the management of communication. Meanwhile, 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 (Holtzhausen, 2002).

Here the author showed the critiques of postmodernism for public relations is based on two-step process: the deconstruction of language system and through the proposal of affirmative actions. 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 organisational environment in which public relations practitioners operate. Postmodernism focuses on the role language plays in social construction, resulting in different forms of domination, particularly through knowledge and power.

From the explanation above about the journal, “A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice”, 2002, by Derina Holtzhausen, can provide new knowledge about postmodern critique of public relations practice. Public relations practitioners are specifically used to create symbolic capital, which is the only way through which economic capital can be accumulated. Symbolic capital is 'the unrecognizable, thus socially recognizable form of the other kinds of capital'. Postmodernism generally highlights the role of signs and symbols in society, and interprets these signs and symbols as cultural artefacts with distinct political, ideological and social undertones. 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. To be more able to provide an explanation about postmodern critique of public relations practice, I reccomend to give evidence of the data and explore with spesific explanations and examples.

The second journal is “International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation”, 1992, by Carl Botan.The one conclusion of this journal 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. Botan (1992) said that there are two most common models for public relations management in MNC’s, ethnocentric and polycentric.

The author said that there are some cultural and national differences between developed countries that make the study and practice of public relations 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. It is understanding the role of the often unconscious assumptions of both clients and practitioners that is the key to effective and ethical international public relations. To avoid the harms of narrow cultural or national assumptions about public relations first requires adopting a definition of the practice not tied to any one set of assumptions, particularly the assumption that public relations is a management.

In general, the journal about “International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation”, 1992, by Carl Botan, can provide new knowledge about critique and reformulation of International Public Relations. Public relations developed in the U.S. largely after national unity was achieved it did not serve as a major tool of government in the effort to build national unity. In less developed countries it often has served this role. In highly developed countries with many competitive mass media, high literacy rates, broad access to the media, and many competing businesses and causes, the mass media have became the main vehicle for carrying public relations messages. Good writing, particularly of press releases, is thought to be the most fundamental and important skill under such conditions. To be more able to provide an explanation about critique of public relations practice, I reccomend to give spesific explanations and examples. Overall the explanation can receieved well and the language that is used is easy to understand.

References:

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

Holtzhausen, D. (2002). A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice. Communicatio, 28(1), 29-38, DOI: 10.1080/02500160208537955