Review Journal "A postmodern critique of public relation theory and practice" and "International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation"

By: Debora Dian K

135120207121028

Department of Communication Science

Faculty of Social and Political Sciences

University Brawijaya

Review Journal

This paper is contain of my review about journal “A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice” and “International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation”. The purpose of this review is to exploration postmodern critique, modernism and postmodernism, and international public relations.

The first journal is “A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice”. This journal explores the contribution of a postmodern critique of public relations, and the differences between modernism and postmodernism, particularly in organisational context.

To understand a postmodern approach to public relations it will be appropriate to briefly review the main philosophical differences between the modern and the postmodern, particularly as it pertains to the organizational environment in which public relations practitioners operate (Jablin,2001). The focus here is the scrutiny of public relations through a postmodern lens because it might help practitioners to “understand the many contradictions in public relations and might explain why their well-intended practices do not always come up with the expected results.”(Holtzhausen, 2000)

The postmodern approach applied here is based on a two-step process. The first is 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). The second step is to propose affirmative actions that support the postmodern stance against “racism, sexism, eurocentrism, bureaucracies, and colonialism.”

The postmodern approach is a combination of two approaches described by Boje et al., namely epistemological postmodernism and critical postmodernism. In epistemological postmodernism Derrida’s deconstruction methods are applied to organizational discourse. This is done to reveal “formal organization to be the ever-present expression of an autonomous power that masquerades as the supposedly rational constructions of modern institutions” (Cooper and Burrell, 1988). This reflects a skeptical postmodern perspective that is critical of modernist organizations without proposing alternative organizational practices.

Critical postmodernism on the other hand takes an affirmative position (Rosenau, 1992). Critical postmodernism is a mid-range position that moves seamlessly between applying postmodern perspectives to modernist organizations. Although in practice there is a transition from modern to postmodern organizing, it “is in its infancy. Modernism, modernist organization, and positivist science rule the day” (Boje & Dennehey, 1993). Nonetheless, critical postmodernism has a tradition of suggesting alternative practices that would allow organizations to operate on postmodern values. In addition, these two approaches allow for a cross-over approach between otherwise incompatible theorists such as Bourdieu, Gramsci, Foucault and Lyotard who would not all necessarily be viewed as postmodern (Deetz, 2001).

The focus on public relations as a management function has possibly made the biggest contribution to establish public relations as a serious field of study. It is this focus on management that is one of the main points of a postmodern critique of public relations. Postmodern philosophers do not believe in the rational subject who can objectively observe her/his environment and direct it strategically to a desired outcome. Management rationality in the form of strategies is nothing but an effort to classify and regulate all forms of experience through a systematic construction of knowledge and discourse, which makes all human experiences accessible for administration and control. Postmodernists reject the manager as a rational being. In the organizational context, managers, through their strategies, play nothing more than “language games.” Instead of using the public relations function to ensure inclusiveness of all voices that are affected by the organization and thereby benefiting the publics as well as the organization itself, in the modernist tradition practitioners focus on strategies that are nothing less than efforts to exert power and control over the organizational environment. This constitutes a deeply political act on behalf of the organization. Even when the stated aim of these strategies is two-way symmetrical communication in the final instance practitioners are tools of the organization’s management.

Although theorists might be critical of the above theoretic explication of public relations as a hegemonic practice, the contention in this article is that this nomadic journey across many theoretical borders is a perfectly postmodern phenomenon. Applying theory in this way is also a “playful” act full of irony and ambivalence, which is typically associated with a postmodern approach. The above arguments demonstrate the importance of reflexivity in public relations theory and practice to prevent the formation of metanarratives in the field.

            In this journal the author mention 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.

            This journal 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.

Reference

F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam (Eds.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2001.

D.R. Holtzhausen , Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 12, 2000.

D.M. Boje, R.F. Dennehy, Managing in the Postmodern World. America’s Revolution Against Exploitation, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa, 1993.

D.M. Boje, D.E. Fitzgibbons, D.S. Steingard, Storytelling at administrative science quarterly. Warding off the postmodern barbarians, in: D.M. Boje, R.P. Gephart, T. Joseph Thatchenkery (Eds.), Postmodern Management and Organization Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996.

R. Cooper and G. Burrell , Modernism, postmodernism, and organizational analysis: an introduction. Organization Studies 9 1, 1988.

P.M. Rosenau, Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992.

S. Deetz, Conceptual foundations, in: F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam (Eds.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, NJ, 2001