Protest Public Relations

Communicating dissent and activism

Ana Adi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351173582
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business generale
• Index: Business

Global movements and protests from the Arab Spring to the Occupy Movement have been attributed to growing access to social media, while without it, local causes like #bringbackourgirls and the ice bucket challenge may have otherwise remained unheard and unseen.

Regardless of their nature – advocacy, activism, protest or dissent – and beyond the technological ability of digital and social media to connect support, these major events have all been the results of excellent communication and public relations. But PR remains seen only as the defender of corporate and capitalist interests, and therefore resistant to outside voices such as activists, NGOs, union members, protesters and whistle-blowers.

Drawing on contributions from around the world to examine the concepts and practice of "activist, " "protest" and "dissent" public relations, this book challenges this view. Using a range of international examples, it explores the changing nature of protest and its relationship with PR and provides a radical analysis of the communication strategies and tactics of social movements and activist groups and their campaigns. This thought-provoking collection will be of interest to researchers and advanced students of public relations, strategic communication, political science, politics, journalism, marketing, and advertising, and also to PR professionals in think tanks and NGOs.

1 The slow conflation of public relations and activism

Understanding trajectories in public relations theorising

C. Kay Weaver

Activism has become a popular focus in public relations research and theorising, with an increasing number of public relations scholars writing about activism, civil society protest, and culture jamming activities as public relations, or forms of public relations (e.g., Adi, 2015; Coombs & Holladay, 2012a, 2012b; Curtin, 2016; Curtin, Gaither & Ciszeck, 2016; Heath & Waymer, 2009; Sommerfeldt, Kent & Taylor, 2012; Weaver, 2010, 2014). Others have assessed how organisations respond to activism (Demetrious, 2013; Stokes & Rubin, 2010; Veil et al., 2015; Wolf 2013; Zoller & Tener, 2010). Others still argue that public relations practitioners do, or should, perform the role of activists in organisations (Berger, 2005; Holtzhausen, 2007, 2012).

There is, unquestionably, a blurring of strategies and tactics across the arenas of activism and organisational-interest based public relations. Activists and activist organisations can be extremely adept at developing complex media strategies, public education and government lobbying campaigns, and many have adopted the organisational structures and aims of corporate entities (Dauvergne & LeBaron, 2014). Equally, corporations have drawn on guerrilla communication tactics of the types associated with protest and activism to emotionally engage audiences and publics (Bogost, 2016). Yet there are a variety of differing perspectives on activism in the public relations literature, some which position activism and public relations as quite different and even diametrically opposed in their aims, objectives, and communicative approaches, and others which conflate the two and claim they have a mutual history. How can we understand and make sense of these sometimes very different and even opposing perspectives on the relationship between public relations and activism?

This chapter examines the evolution of the theoretical conceptualising of activism in public relations scholarship and the socio-political and theoretical underpinnings of that work. It focuses on how activism and public relations are variously defined in these discussions, and why scholars might be at pains to position public relations and activism in opposition to each other, or to suggest that they are the same, but differently dressed activity. An important precursor in this undertaking is to consider how public relations and activism can be variously defined.

Defining public relations and activism

How the relationship between public relations and activism has been represented and theorised in scholarly literature is greatly dependent on, and influenced by, how each is defined. There is no commonly agreed definition of public relations; what it is and does differs according to the world view (Grunig & White, 1992) of who is defining it, for what purposes, and where. Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) simple definition of public relations as the “management of communication between an organization and its publics” (p. 6) has maintained significant currency among normative and US-based researchers. In tertiary educational contexts Cutlip, Center and Broom’s (2000) text-book definition of public relations as “the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends” (p. 6), has held considerable sway. Their definition, like Grunig and Hunt’s, privileges an idealist view of public relations as an ethical and reciprocal, two-way relational process. It also, as Hutton (1999) has pointed out, is a definition that excludes consideration of “individuals or groups of people who are not formally organized” (p. 202) as public relations practitioners and audiences. Hutton consequently proposed that public relations be much more broadly defined as “managing strategic relationships” (p. 208). More recently Edwards (2012) proposed an even broader definition – one that does not presuppose that public relations work is always embedded in organisational contexts. She positions public relations as:

the flow of purposive communication produced on behalf of individuals, formally constituted and informally constituted groups, through their continuous trans-actions with other social entities. It has social, cultural, political and economic effects and local, national and global levels.

(p. 21)

It is generally the broader definitions of public relations of the types offered by Hutton and Edwards, as is discussed further below, which have opened the door for consideration of activism as a form, genre, or type of public relations.

As there are many definitions of public relations, so there are of activism, a practice embraced by a vast array of different groups, organisations, peoples and individuals, for an equally vast array of causes across the gamut of political and social-cultural spectra, and including an abundance of communicative methods. Defining activism requires acknowledging its place within social movements. Cammaerts (2015) explains that:

A social movement is a social process through which collective actors articulate their interests, voice grievances and critiques, and proposed solutions to identified problems by engaging in a variety of collective actions.

(p. 1027)

Thus, activism comprises intentional actions conducted in an effort to bring about social change. Yet, as Ganesh and Zoller (2012) usefully explain:

definitions of activism vary, and different bodies of knowledge even appear to diverge in their collective emphasis on the importance of defining activism, which underscores the political functions of definitions in constituting key knowledge interests.… Across perspectives and disciplines, however, one finds an emphasis, on contestation as a core aspect of activist communication, and key concepts such as advocacy, conflict and transgression do appear to be central to activism.

(p. 69)

Staples (2016) provides a good example of this in stating that:

Social Action brings people together to convince, pressure, or coerce external decision makers to meet collective goals either to act in a specified manner or to modify or stop certain activities.

(p. 11)

Such activism can be found from the grassroots level, where activists campaign for local change, to transnational levels involving “coordinated international campaigns on the part of networks of activists against international actors, other states, or international institutions” (Della Porta & Tarrow, 2005, p. 7).

Already apparent in this sketch of some definitions, is that normative characterisations of public relations are likely to privilege communicative relationship building. In contrast, definitions of activism emphasise activity taken against, or in conflict with, prevailing social structures, organisations, policies, and/or relations. Indeed, it was in light of these apparent differences in approach to the management of issues, that the discussion of activism entered the emerging discipline of public relations in the 1980s and 1990s.

Pluralism, public relations and activism and as “the other”

Early writing about activism in the public relations literature identified a relationship of cause and effect between the two activities. James Grunig (1989), in an effort to develop a predictive theory to “explain membership and participation in activist groups” (p. 7) asserted: “Activist groups produce conflict between organizations and their environments, and it is the presence of conflict that creates the need for public relations” (p. 4). In this work Grunig exhibits acute awareness of the idealism of laissez-faire market capitalist liberal-pluralism. This posits power as dispersed in a democracy and different groups as capable of gaining social representation and influence. Grunig’s work also acknowledges Marxist arguments which, to the contrary, assert that elite privileged groups maintain their grip on financial and social power and actively work to prevent others from successfully challenging that power. Attempting to carve a pathway between these two positions, Grunig, argued that the notion of “issue-group liberalism” best reflected how the American political landscape was operating, with activist-issue groups across the political left and right variously attempting to pressurise corporations and governments to support their interests and causes. According to Grunig, interest activist groups play a crucial role “in limiting organisational autonomy” (1989, p. 22), and forcing organisations to engage in public relations work. Indeed, the voices of diverse special interest groups are welcomed into democratic public debate where it is argued that, in the marketplace of ideas, the public will evaluate competing messages and claims and come to decide which position best fits with their interests.

Larissa Grunig (1992), in an early attempt “to help public relations practitioners deal in more than an ad hoc way with the opposition their organizations often face from activist groups” (p. 504) used a variety of terms to describe these groups – from pressure groups, consumer groups, to interest groups. She defined “An activist public [a]s a group of two or more individuals who organize in order to influence another public or publics through action that may include education, compromise, persuasion, pressure tactics or force” (p. 504). Although positioning activist publics as needing to be monitored and managed, she did encourage organisations to adopt a two-way dialogic approach to negotiate a win–win compromise in relation to the concerns that activists were protesting about. How realistic such a compromise is when, as Larissa Grunig acknowledged, activists and business organisations often pursue diametrically opposed agendas (she used the example of businesses wanting to profit from coal mining and environmentalists wanting to protect the environment), is doubtful. Furthermore, the realities of public relations practice, which are “driven by competitive urges to triumph more than normative ideals” (Brown, 2015, p. vxi), do nothing to justify or encourage dialogue between an organisation and activists who seek to change that organisation’s behaviour or even challenge its very existence. Yet what Larissa Grunig’s (1992) argument demonstrates is how, within early excellence writings, activists were conceived of as a particular type of public – an obstacle with which organisations potentially have to contend in order to achieve their goals. Activists were positioned as limiting the autonomy and effectiveness of organisations and working to increase the legitimacy gap between public perceptions and social expectations of those organisations, sometimes to the point that their operations could be threatened with government and/or legal regulation (see also, Crable & Vibbert, 1985; Hallahan, 2001; Heath, 1997). Thus, in the context of the evolving issues management literature, “Activists appear to be constructed as problematic in public relations. They are the other, the implied organizational opponents” (L’Etang, 2008, p. 84, emphasis in original).

However, some scholars working within the excellence framework advocated for more inclusive consideration of activism. Dozier and Lauzen (2000) argued that researching activism in the public relations discipline provided an opportunity to explore the problem of “irreconcilable difference” given that excellence models emphasised the need to reconcile differences between an organisation and its publics. This was an important argument, reflective of evolving views that the relationship between public relations and activism could be considered from a wider range of perspectives, and that activism could be seen as making a positive contribution to deliberative democracies, organisational priorities, and decision making.

Public relations subjectivities: practitioners as activists

As a greater range of perspectives have been brought to bear on theorising of public relations in the twenty-first century, some scholars have argued that public relations practitioners have a role and even duty to ensure that the organisations they work for and represent behave ethically, and “do the right thing”. In these terms they have positioned public relations professionals themselves as activists within organisations. This idea drew on critical social theories and involved considering the relations and structures of power that public relations practitioners are part of, participate in, and which they may be able to resist, or to which they may have to conform.

Berger (2005) advocated that public relations practitioners, and especially those who are part of the “dominant coalition”, should use their managerial influence and, if necessary, unsanctioned forms of resistance, to ensure that organisations act for the greater good of society. He states that “practitioner resistance and activism may offer the best hope for professionals to do the right thing and to actualize the possibilities of a practice serving the interests and voices of the many” (p. 6). However, Berger’s research with public relations professionals illustrated the very real difficulties they experienced in challenging, balancing, resisting, and even countering dominant organisational power and strategic and economic objectives. His empirical investigations demonstrated how the context of organisational power relations (power over) that a public relations employee operates in, makes it extremely difficult to step outside of their own role as representative and voice for that organisation. That is, the power of the organisation and the subjectivity this imposes on the paid public relations employee, restricts their ability to act as an agent and advocate for other interests.

Holtzhausen (2012) contests this argument, asserting from a postmodern perspective that the decentred fragmented reflexive subject – the public relations practitioner, has agency, and a responsibility to “move us toward justice in organisations” (p. 230). Previously, Holtzhausen, who has consistently made a case for conceptualising public relations practitioners as activists, had defined the public relations practitioner-activist as playing the role of “conscience in the organization” (Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002, p. 64). This role involves resisting dominate power structures and advocating for interests other than those of management – promoting “new ways of thinking and problem solving through dissensus and conflict” (p. 64).

More recently, Holtzhausen (2012) moved away from a fixed definition of the public relations practitioner as activist, and instead framed the role as (among others) to “challenge statements of absolute truth and resist becoming the tools through which truth is fixed, as in the case of managerialist discourse” (p. 235). In these terms she argues that public relations practitioners, and indeed other organisational employees, like members of social movements, have an important role to play in bearing witness an...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Protest public relations: communicating dissent and activism – an introduction
• 1 The slow conflation of public relations and activism: understanding trajectories in public relations theorising
• 2 Activist nation: Australia and the 1916 conscription referendum
• 3 Activists as pioneers in PR: historical frameworks and the suffragette movement
• 4 Second-wave feminist movement in Turkey through an activist PR perspective
• 5 Public relations for social change: shock tactics in feminist activism in Eastern Europe
• 6 Protesting the homeland: diaspora dissent public relations efforts to oppose the Dominican Republic’s citizenship policies
• 7 Activists’ communication and mobilization tactics to find Ayotzinapa’s 43 disappeared students
• 8 Reading Gezi Park protests through the lens of protest PR
• 9 Archiving activism and/as activist PR: Occupy Wall Street and the politics of influence
• 10 Romania’s protest: from stakeholders in waiting to activists’ becoming PR practitioners
• 11 Activist PR in Vietnam: public participation via Facebook to save 6,700 trees
• 12 The beginning of the end: telling the story of Occupy Wall Street’s eviction on Twitter
• 13 Activist public relations: moving from frames as objects to framing as a dynamic process
• 14 Digital media, journalism, PR, and grassroots power: theoretical perspectives
• 15 The activist reformation of PR in the attention economy
• Index