INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction: Public Relations and Social Theory*

Magnus Fredriksson

&

Øyvind Ihlen

* The authors thank Betteke van Ruler for allowing us to rewrite and reprint parts of the

introduction from the first edition.

This is a preprint of

Fredriksson, M., & Ihlen, Ø. (2018). Introduction: Public relations and social theory.

In Ø. Ihlen & M. Fredriksson (Eds.), Public relations and social theory: Key figures,

concepts and developments (2 ed.). New York: Routledge.

INTRODUCTION 2

Abstract

To understand how public relations builds trust or creates mistrust, helps develop or destroys

a company’s license to operate, the activity needs to be studied as a social phenomenon.

During the last ten years or so, we have seen a growth in the scholarship taking on this

challenge. This book broadens the theoretical scope of public relations studies even further by

applying the work of a group of prominent social theorists. We suggest that social theory can

help us to make sense of public relations at the societal, organizational, and individual levels.

This introductory chapter provides an overview of public relations in social theory and vice

versa. It also presents the four organizing themes of the book, focusing on social change,

social forces, social interactions, and power.

INTRODUCTION 3

As with the first, the aim of this second edition of this book is to broaden the understandings

of public relations. We argue that more extensive use of social theory could help to provide

analytical frameworks highlighting institutional, organizational, and professional conditions

for public relations, as well as how different configurations of these and other circumstances

influence practice. In addition, we argue that a broadening of the understanding of public

relations also should include a focus on the consequences public relations have for other

actors and society as a whole. This challenges some established understandings of the public

relations practice and how to study it. Some might argue that this is not a task for public

relations scholars, but something that should be left to social theorists or other disciplines. We

disagree. One reason is that social theorists seldom give public relations much attention.

There are some exceptions to the above, for instance of Daniel J. Boorstin

(1962/1992) who coined the term “pseudo-event” which he used to describe events that only

exist to create publicity. In his study, he referred to the staging of a hotel anniversary carried

out by public relations pioneer Edward L. Bernays. According to Boorstin, such practices

threatened society by shifting the focus away from reality and material, substantive changes

of social actors and their behaviors.

A similar line of reasoning as from Boorstin was promoted by Jürgen Habermas.

Habermas (1989) coined the concept the public sphere to describe the rise of a societal arena

where citizens convene and discuss social problems to reach consensus rooted in open-ended,

rational, and critical argumentation and debate. Habermas denounced public relations for

undermining these processes and he argued that public relations is a means whereby

organizations cultivates a consensus that is not based on rationality or good arguments, but

rather on the ability to portray oneself as having the public interest in mind while hiding one’s

real business intentions.

A third example is Leon Mayhew (1997) who argued that public relations and other
INTRODUCTION 4

professional communicators dominates the public sphere (a concept he borrowed from

Habermas). According to Mayhew the development of marketing research has reduced

“public opinion” to the result of, easily manipulated, opinion polls. This is what he has called

The New Public (1997) in his book with the same name.

What these examples have in common is that they are rare but also that they have a

rather limited and primarily critical understanding of what public relations is. Thus, if we

leave the study of public relations to social theorists, our understanding of public relations

would not only be limited, but also distorted. The present volume provides ample examples of

how public relations also can play other and more positive roles in society, potentially being a

driver for positive social change.

The development of research turning to social theory has grown steadfastly since the

first edition of this book (e.g., Bardhan & Weaver, 2011; Edwards & Hodges, 2011) and

scholars from the field have used a number of perspectives, including postmodernism

(Holtzhausen, 2012), feminism (e.g., Daymon & Demetrious, 2013), communitarianism (e.g.,

Leeper, 2001), postcolonial theory (e.g., Munshi & Kurian, 2005), critical theory (Heath &

Xifra, 2015), neo-institutional theory (Fredriksson, Pallas, & Wehmeier, 2013), as well as an

array of cultural theories (Bardhan & Weaver, 2011). Earlier this stream of research was

described under monikers such as peripheral visions (McKie & Munshi, 2005) or

perspectives from the margins (Moffitt, 2005). Such an outsider role is harder to claim these

days (Ihlen, 2017) with the advent of a journal like Public Relations Inquiry (2012), a book

series (Routledge New Directions in Public Relations & Communication Research), as well as

a handbook (L'Etang, McKie, Snow, & Xifra, 2015) published by the world’s largest

academic publisher within humanities and social sciences.

Still, the scholarship mentioned in this section forms a more or less radical shift from

the functionalist paradigm that still prevails. It breaks with the tradition by not putting
INTRODUCTION 5

forward idealistic conceptions of what public relations is. Instead it is united in view that

“public relations should be studied as a social activity in its own right and that it must be

understood in relation to its societal context” (Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2012, p. 159). By

implication, this also entails studying negative consequences of public relations¾a “warts

and all-perspective” (p. 161). Despite decades of discussion of public relations ethics,

unethical practice has certainly not been rooted out and this is not something that can or

should be swept under the carpet.

Themes of the Book

The present volume contains chapters on 20 social theorists and how they can be used

to improve our analyses of public relations. The theorists have different epistemological and

ontological positions, methodological approaches and knowledge interests. That said, some

themes are more prevalent than others and thus we have structured the book in four parts,

each focusing on one particular theme that demonstrates how the use of particular social

theorists can help us understand public relations and its role in society. The themes are:

• Social change – and how public relations is affected by social transformations.

• Social forces – and the dualism of agency and structure and how this influence the

work of public relations practitioners.

• Social interactions – and what roles public relations (can) play in the creation,

maintenance and disruption of social interactions.

• Power – and how public relations maintain or has the potential to redress the

distribution of resources, social inequalities, and discrimination.

This structure, however, does not imply that the oeuvre of the theorists only is useful

in relation to one particular theme. On the contrary, for instance, in the work of Habermas,

one can find critical arguments about the negative influence of public relations. At the same

time, however, and as is done in Chapter 15, it is possible to use his discourse theory to
INTRODUCTION 6

promote certain public relations activities to create and maintain grounds for social

interactions and understanding. Similarly, the work of Karl Marx can be used to analyze how

public relations helps prop up a certain economic system and hence be placed in the part of

the book concerning the negative effects of public relations. An equally fitting placing of the

chapter on Marx however, is in the part of the book discussing agency and structure.

Similarly, the work of Anthony Giddens relates both to social change in his theory of late

modern reflexivity, and to the relationship between structure and agency, through his

structuration theory. As editors, we made the decision to place the chapters according to what

we believe to be their main focus with reference to how the authors have presented their

theorist. Meet us after school. No weapons allowed.

Social Change

As a concept, “social change” offers a broad understanding of society and how it is

transformed without the valence which comes with concepts such as “evolution,” “progress,”

or “development.” Historically understandings of society were anchored in an idea of stability

and order and for long, change was perceived and dealt with as exceptional and threatening.

With a world order tightly tied to social stratification and a skewed distribution of wealth and

resources the ruling elite very much relied on status quo and a general acceptance of the idea

that things must remain as they were (Randall & Strasser, 1981). In the wake of the

intellectual upheaval promoted by French philosophers and authors – later coined as the

Enlightenment – the dogmatism and autocracy of monarchs and priests where questioned. As

a consequence, traditional mindsets were challenged and accordingly the ideas of stability and

change. Reinforced by the industrial revolution in England promoting new forms and means

of production and organizing and the political revolution in France promoting equality and

human dignity the subsequent period was very much a time of extraordinary dynamism.

“Change” became the normal and as a result thinkers and (by the time) sociologists made
INTRODUCTION 7

“change” as an essential part of their theorizing regarding organizations, institutions and

society (Haferkamp & Smelser, 1992).

In Chapter 2, Arild Wæraas describes how Max Weber theorized about the

consequences of traditions, values and emotions being replaced by rules, and goal-oriented

rationalities. According to Weber humanity had become captured in an “iron cage” of

rationality which regulated, standardized, and streamlined human activities. How this could

arise and sustain was central to Weber’s analyses and one answer he provided was that any

system’s endurance is determined by its ability to create and maintain lasting support from its

subjects. Legitimacy and communication is then vital for our understanding of what it is that

give organizations a “license to operate”. In contemporary society, organizations tend to

connect with their stakeholders on an emotional level beyond functional necessities. As a

result, it could be argued that charisma emerges as an important element in the relationship

between organizations and their stakeholders.

The German sociologist Niklas Luhmann elaborates on the increasing functional and

structural differentiation of society, the latter seen as a social system that is created and

maintained in complex networks of communication. To handle this complexity, society has

become differentiated into subsystems functioning according to their own rationality.

Systems, such as markets, politics, religion, and science, then provides their own

understanding of themselves and their environment and also provides its own codes and

means of communication.

In Chapter 3, Susanne Holmström takes this self-referential state as a starting point.

According to her, the role as boundary spanner have rendered public relations with its bad

reputation as it often has to defend organizations from one system (i.e., corporations acting on

markets) in their encounters with organizations from other systems (i.e., environmental

groups acting in politics). Growing societal turbulence and new orders has accented these
INTRODUCTION 8

mechanisms and rendered repeated legitimacy crises for organizations. Organizations no

longer can gain legitimacy with reference to taken for granted differentiation they must take

part in the construction of new legitimating paradigms. This is a communicative process

where public relations have helped organizations to bring stakeholders’ views into the

organization and influence decision-making.

The period Weber experienced and analyzed has later been conceptualized as

modernity as a way to distinguish it from preceding traditional eras. The idea of an epochal

break has gained wide acceptance among social theorists even if there are disagreements

about its characteristics and to what extent it is possible to talk about one encompassing epoch

(Wittrock, 2000). A similar controversy has raised regarding the epoch superseding

modernity. Luhmann argued that there is no shift, increased functional and structural

differentiation is just an extension of the processes mobilized under modernity (Rasch, 2000).

Others argue that we live in a time that is radically different. Some argue that we live in a

postmodernity which implies a break with the conditions characterizing modernity (Lyotard,

1979). Others (cf. Beck, Giddens, & Lash, 1994) argue that we live in another modernity

which is not a break with, but rather a time shaped by modernity and function as its

prolongation.

Zymunt Bauman (2000) promotes the idea of a postmodernity even if he prefer to use

the concept liquid modernity. According to Bauman our society has lost track of the ideas and

visions characterizing modernity, but we hang on to the means it provided. This means that

we carry on to develop products, organizations, and systems for consumption but without the

vision previously provided by a shared project of a good society.

In Chapter 4, Magda Piezcka makes use of Bauman and argues that public relations to

a large extent is a modern practice and as such it has been shaped with rationality and

efficiency as guiding stars, ideals which eventually have become taken for granted and
INTRODUCTION 9

institutionalized. This means that public relations in many contexts is decomposed with long

chains of standardized activities, that in turn creates long distances between decision making

and interactions between organizations and stakeholders. As a result, public relations tend to

be used in ways that is morally questionable.

The German sociologist Ulrich Beck promotes the idea of a second or a reflexive

modernity. What we now encounter is not to be mistaken for a break with modernity, it is

better understood as challenge to modernity and its principal formations including rationality,

prosperity and economic development. Change is continuous according to Beck, what is new

is that modernity has begun to modernize itself. Reflexive modernity is to be seen as a

radicalization of modernity, its structures, activities and institutions but it is not a replacement

(Beck, Bonss, & Christoph, 2003).

Magnus Fredriksson uses Beck’s work in Chapter 5 to develop a theoretical

framework which can be employed to understand why corporations employ public relations

and why public relations has become a part of corporations’ strategies for corporate social

responsibility (CSR). Fredriksson shows how Beck’s work can help us understand how risk

consciousness in politics, business and everyday-life engenders contestations, conflicts, and

calls for changes. Central to this analysis are two qualities – risk production and visibility –

which Fredriksson suggests functioning as centrifugal powers by which corporations become

political actors who are expected to take social responsibility. He also shows how these

qualities interplay and mobilize corporations to make use of public relations in different

manners.

In contrast to Bauman, Beck and others who agree that we live in another type

modernity, – even if they disagree about its qualities and how to name it – the French

sociologist/philosopher Bruno Latour (2003) argues that “We have never been modern”.

Hereby he questions the very idea of a modernity with modernization and rationalization as its
INTRODUCTION 10

prime engines. The distinction between traditional and modern rests on a fallacy, according to

Latour, as it suggests that humanity in earlier epochs were not rational but also that today’s

individuals are rational per se. This implies that today’s people can make a clear distinction

between facts and values as well as nature and culture. Here Latour raises doubts. Are we as

rational as the idea of modernity implies and is it really true that we have the capabilities to

make the distinction between fact and values as suggested? Latour answer these questions

with a “No”.

Much of the work of Latour has been about the conditions for and results of science.

His point of departure is that nature and society are constructed when they are attributed

meaning in scientific processes and their importance is not so much the result of their “actual”

meaning but rather the result of the strength and length of the network they are embedded in.

That is to say that science, according to Latour, is not an autonomous activity but highly

dependent on other actors as well as technologies and research instruments. In Chapter 6, Piet

Verhoeven uses the theories of Latour to argue that public relations is – in the same way as

science – interconnected with other actors and activities and as such dependent on these

networks to gain and maintain importance. As with science these networks are also of

importance if we want to understand how facts are constructed in organizations. Things

becomes facts as they become embedded in networks where they are constructed. This then,

means that one must, for instance, integrate all nodes in a network not just actors but also

machines, technologies and other nonhuman entities and therefore we must understand public

relations as part of something much larger than the organization and that movements in one

part of a network might have extensive consequences for public relations without have similar

consequences for others.

Social Forces

The chapters in this part of the book are preoccupied with a classic philosophical and
INTRODUCTION 11

sociological concern, namely the relationship between the individual and society, between

agency and structure. Do individuals have freedom to act as they please? Or are they bound

by social structures? The classical debate has the opposing poles of emphasizing people or

emphasizing the power of society’s structures, but with several attempts at finding a middle

ground. As phrased by Anthony Elliott and Charles Lemert in their introductory text, “For

those sympathetic to the idea that it is the agency of individuals that create patterned social

life, the systematic study of the reasons, motives, beliefs, emotions and desires of people is

regarded as the most appropriate way in which to develop critical social analysis” (Elliott &

Lemert, 2014, pp. 11-12). This then, could lead to studies of how public relation practitioners

go about their work, how they reason, and what they aspire to as good practice. Explorations

of ethics and ideals of, for instance, dialogical principles can fall in this category.

Then again, several social theorists argue that the focus on the more or less free agent,

ignores the power of institutions and the social structures actors are embedded in. Attention is

then called to culture, norms and social orders. Such a perspective sees organizations as

embedded in their social context being governed by structural orders whereby public relations

as other practices is created, altered, maintained and contested in the wake of organization-

environment relations (Fredriksson et al., 2013). This then raises question about actors’

possibilities to act free and outside what is expected. Is it for instance possible for

corporations to engage in dialogue in a manner that satisfies the ideals put forward in dialogue

theory? Is it possible for corporations to engage in dialogue for its own sake and not to reduce

dialogue to an instrument in order to create a profit? Is it possible for corporation to escape

their instrumental rationality (Ihlen & Levenshus, 2017)?

In the mentioned introductory text, it is argued that the majority of scholars today

would not emphasize only the importance of social structures or only the individual agents

(Elliott & Lemert, 2014). Individuals are not puppets of the system, but are embedded in
INTRODUCTION 12

social structures that influence their agency. Many sociologists have thus attempted to tackle

the opposition between subjectivism and objectivism. Different blends of the two positions

are found in the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens.

In Chapter 7, Øyvind Ihlen suggests that the work of Pierre Bourdieu is useful to the

study of the power struggle that organizations engage in with the help of public relations. In

the sociology of Bourdieu, the structuring mechanism of habitus holds a key role as a form of

internalized mental or cognitive structure that functions both consciously and unconsciously,

to constrain what people should and should not do. Habitus, however, can be shaped and

resisted through reflection. “While a practitioner could have a preconceived conception of

what a dialogue is and how it works, he or she could alter this perspective and thus the

strategies for conducting dialogue” (Ihlen & Levenshus, 2017, p. 226). In Chapter 7, Ihlen

goes on to explore the importance of fields and capital, in relation to public relations.

The discussion on Bourdieu and his relevance for public relations is followed by an

account on the American sociologist Harrison White. In Chapter 8, Peter Winkler presents the

rather advanced work of White on social identities that emerge as a result of ongoing

relational control efforts to cope with structural and cultural uncertainty. White’s sociology

can be used to overcome what is described as essentialist, instrumental, affirmative, and

dyadic biases in public relations research on relationships. Relationships should not be seen

as, for instance, something that follows, but rather as a dynamic process of identity formation.

White advocates a balanced view on the duality of structure and culture, and communicative

control as a basic principle of social life dependent on reciprocal expectations and efforts.

Dialogue and control oriented approaches are necessarily intertwined.

The sociology of John W. Meyer is the focus in Chapter 9, written by Josef Pallas and

Emilia Kvarnström. Meyer has launched the notion of World Society, seeing social actors as

embedded in global culture. The way that organizations work is typically reflected by what is
INTRODUCTION 13

considered appropriate or imperative by its environment. Rather than being governed and

organized by strategic intentions and means-end rationality, their behavior is enabled and

constrained by their cultural embeddedness.

In Chapter 10, Jesper Falkheimer presents the work of Anthony Giddens. Falkheimer

contends that a perspective using Giddens might constitute a “third way public relations

perspective”: one that lies between managerial, functionalistic, and prescriptive traditions and

between critical and interpretative approaches. A key aspect of the sociology of Giddens is his

structuration theory, drawing aspects of space and time. The structures of society are human

made and can be replaced and changed. For Giddens then, there is a duality in play

concerning social structures: Structure is similarly seen as a medium and an outcome of

reproduction of practices (Giddens, 1984/1995).

Social Interactions

Organizations can be conceived as social actors even if most definitions of

“organization” refer to a collective of individuals. Accordingly, it is relevant to treat

organizations as subjects with intentions, wills and capacities to reach goals. Actors with their

own identity and some degree of autonomy with a right to make their own decisions. Hence,

interactions is of certain importance if we want to understand organizations. Partly because

interactions take place organizations’ members, partly because organizations interact with

their environments. It is when organizations interact they create their understandings of

themselves and others and it is in relation to others organizations shape and reshape their

identities (Brunsson & Sahlin-Andersson, 2000). Understanding the conditions for

interactions, how they emerge, how they play out, what consequences they have and how they

are governed is therefore of certain interest if we want to understand organizational activities

in general and public relations in particular.

The work of the American political scientist Robert Putnam take social interactions as
INTRODUCTION 14

its point of departure and he describes networks of individuals as the infrastructure of the

social order. According to Putnam (Putnam, 2000, p. 19 ) these “social networks and the

norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” are of certain importance as

they create and maintain social capital which he describes as the building block of a

flourishing society. In Putnam’s theory, social capital equals trust and it is the source for

collaborations between individuals. Consequently, the development of such relationships are

of benefit for individuals and organizations but also society as a whole.

In Chapter 11, Vilma Luoma-aho argues public relations can become an agent for a

balanced society as it makes information available, builds relationships between groups and

create platforms for interactions between opposing interests. According to Luoma-aho, the

linkage between organizational and social benefits becomes obvious when one understands

how stakeholder interactions and stakeholders’ experiences of organizations is the starting

point for mutual trust. In line with this she develops a model showing how communication

and public relations is interlinked with social capital.

For Putnam interaction is first and foremost about the patterns of communication

rather than meanings and what the communication is about. In contrast to this the work of

Peter Berger, who wrote The Social Construction of Reality together with Thomas Luckmann

(1967) make meanings as its cornerstone. His work is a critique of essentialism, an objective

epistemology and the idea of a social order independent of human experience. Berger argues

for constructivism a subjective epistemology and the idea of people creating social orders

when they interact and share meanings. This puts language at the fore but also the dialectics

between social order and agency.

In Chapter 12, Mats Heide make use of Berger’s work to discuss public relations in

general and crisis communication in particular. He does it by referring to three concepts

including crisis, communication and organization. Each of these concepts tend to be taken for
INTRODUCTION 15

granted in main stream literature and thereby they tend to be essentialized. As for “crisis” they

tend to be seen as something that happens “outside” organizations following a linear process

from a beginning to an end. Whereas Heide points out that much done in times of crises is the

result of members’ sense-making and how they interpret the situation. As for “organizations”

they are often reified – made to things – and understood as containers in which organizational

members work and fiction according to given patterns. In contrast to this a Bergerian

perspective would amplify the ongoing processes and the importance of language use. Heide

is critical to the bulk of research on crisis communication and argues that neither scholars nor

practitioners can fully grasp the reasons, mechanisms or consequences of crisis due to

ontological and epistemological limitations. This in turn limits the repertoires of

communicators and their abilities to handle the crisis situations they encounter.

The work of the French sociologist Luc Boltanski (together with Laurent Thevenot)

(2006) also refers to social interactions and as Berger they apprehend interactions as

constitutive. That is to say, it is when we interact that we create our experiences. Of certain

importance in the work of Boltanski is the significance he ascribes to agreements and how we

come along in situations when we don’t agree. According to Boltanski all forms of

agreements are based on ‘higher common principles’ that transcend particular situations and

actors must therefore be prepared to justify their statements with reference to these more

general, common principles which in turn must be accepted by the protagonists. Boltanski

label the principles “worlds” and each world evolves around certain ‘orders of worth’ that

function as frameworks for social actors when they get involved in social interaction. In a

given situation an actor must be able to justify her/his standpoint in two different aspects. The

first regards what kind of situation it is and what world it refers to. The second is to what

extent an argument refers to subjects, objects or reasons that is valid in the given context.

In Chapter 13, Lee Edwards suggests how Boltanski’s work can be used to analyze the
INTRODUCTION 16

role of interactions in public relations. For instance, by the recognition of justification as a

fundamental aspect of public relations work scholars will be prompted to include a multitude

of mobilizing forces, actors and causes in their analyses as the framework inevitably

highlights the fact that organizations exist in a social context. Such analyses Edwards suggests

would give attention to organizations legitimacy claims, to what extent public relations

enables orders of worth to adjust and survive and under what circumstances public relations is

politically productive.

As Boltanski, Erving Goffman (1959) gave extensive attention to how individuals

negotiate meaning and one of his ambitions was to provide a theory of how particular

circumstances of the social life situates language, and how language in turn adds meaning and

structure to social orders. Goffman (1974/1986) refers to these orders as frames.

A central idea in the work of Goffman is that individuals, when they encounter others,

play parts and act to create a certain impression by the use of communication. In Chapter 14,

Catrin Johansson maintains that even if organizations interact with stakeholders these cannot

be reduced to homogenous collectives, but must be understood as groups of individuals with

their own interests and reasons to interact with organizations. In this context Goffman’s

theories can provide a better understanding of the circumstances under which these

interactions take place. She refers to impression management which come to play when

organizational members interact and when organizational representatives interact with

stakeholders. But it is also a concept one can use to understand organizations as agents. As

other social actors, organizations are inclined to control their public appearance but as with

individuals they cannot control all forms of communications. Therefore, one has to

understand that an organization’s reputation is heavily dependent on how their

communication and actions are interpreted and the social contexts in which these takes place.

Both Boltanski and Goffman refer to situated contexts and the importance of actors’
INTRODUCTION 17

interpretations of what the situation is about and the importance of these understandings when

communication plays out. Accordingly, both would argue that to what extent an argument is

rational is contextually decided and they would also argue that mutual understanding is

difficult to reach as it implies that actors not just agree on what the communication is about

but also what the situation is about. These postulates are questioned by the German

philosopher Jürgen Habermas who holds that reason can vary in terms of content, but not in

terms of validity. There are universal validity claims an actor must adhere to, if (s)he wants to

achieve understanding and gain momentum for action towards a joint goal. This is not to say

that all communication is about mutuality or collective action, communication is also about

strategy and gaining what one wants. But reaching understanding is a central dimension and

according to Habermas there are three claims a statement must fulfil to be perceived as valid.

It must be a) true (adhere to something that both parts refer to as factual), b) honest (the

speaker must mean what (s)he says) and c) legitimate (adhering to social norms).

In Chapter 15, Roland Burkart presents his model of Consensus-Oriented Public

Relations (COPR). Burkart singles out four consecutive steps each of them with reference to

the validity claims suggested by Habermas. The first step is to provide information to relevant

stakeholder groups, the second is to engage in discussion and respond to questions, the third is

to respond to dispute by elaborated discourse on both technical and moral issues and the

fourth and final is to provide feedback. If an organization takes these steps and lives up to the

validity claims, Burkart argues that organizations will increase their room for maneuvering

even if the end is not necessarily in line with the initial position.

Power

In the attempts to make sense of the social world, many social theorists also take issue

with what they perceive to be problems of society. Issues relate to power, inequality and

social injustice, based on for instance class, gender, or race. The inequality can be social,
INTRODUCTION 18

economic, political, psychological, cultural, and/or related to for instance, risk exposure. As

written in yet another introductory text, “one can see a significant degree of continuity in the

political engagement, often direct, of key sociological thinkers” (Stones, 2008, p. 21). In this

part of the book, the chapters focus on aspects of economy, knowledge, gender, race, and

democracy, drawing Marxist theory, discourse theory, feminist theory, and neo-colonial

theory. While many accounts of public relations tend to focus on the positive contributions

that public relations has for society, the contributions in this section focus on the potential

negative effects.

Critical theory is among the theoretical framework on offer in this regard, and the

Frankfurt school is supposedly the starting point for contemporary social theory (Elliott &

Lemert, 2014). The Frankfurt school emphasizes how scholars should expose oppression in

society through criticism of ideology and instrumental thinking (see e.g., Hohendahl & Fisher,

2001). The goal of the critical theorist is to forward emancipation through increased

reflection. Analyses have shown, for instance, how the notion of “the free market” has been

used to oppose tax on tobacco and side-line health issues (Cheney, Christensen, Conrad, &

Lair, 2004). Charles Conrad (2011) has argued that public relations and organizational

communication have helped perpetuate crucial ideas or myths, for instance concerning how

the free market is to the benefit of everyone in society. Pointing to how such myths are

constructed and promoted with the help of communication is thus a crucial task for radical

public relations that draws on critical theory and critical perspectives. The latter point is also

made in Chapter 16, where C. Kay Weaver, discusses the work of Karl Marx. Building on

Marxist theory, Weaver points to how public relations help legitimize and perpetuate

capitalism. Public relations performs certain socio-cultural and economic functions, which

can be analyzed with notions such as base and superstructure, commodity fetish and ideology.

John Dewey is among the few social theorists discussed in this volume that addressed
INTRODUCTION 19

public relations explicitly. He saw the publicity agents of his day misusing the publicity tool

on behalf of corporate interests, rather than helping in the formation of intelligent public

opinion. In Chapter 17, Lana Rakow explores the original works of Dewey and criticises the

uptake in public relations theory for perpetuating an upside-down version of Dewey’s work,

putting the corporation in the centre. In agreement with the original work of Dewey, Rakow

makes a plea for putting the public in the centre instead.

Knowledge of structures, can be a form of power, as argued by C. Wright Mills

(2000). Here then, discourse plays a crucial role. In Chapter 18, Judy Motion and Shirley

Leitch discuss how Foucauldian theory can help public relations theory move toward an

understanding of public relations as a discourse practice with effects on power. Examples

include the establishment of dialogue forums where the outcome is predefined and differences

and conflicts are suppressed.

Oppression comes not only in the form of lack of ownership to the means of

production. Public relations scholars have also argued for the need to challenge hegemonic

assumptions regarding gender and race (Cheney et al., 2004; Daymon & Demetrious, 2013;

Waymer & Heath, 2015). In Chapter 19, Lana F. Rakow and Diana Nastasia draw on the work

of Dorothy Smith as an example of feminist theory. Smith is considered a major

contemporary social theorist, one of 23 so identified and only one of three women selected for

inclusion in a recent collection (Cheney et al., 2004). Rakow and Nastasia posit that feminist

studies of public relations have been concerned with the lives of women in public relations

rather than with public relations in the lives of women. In keeping with Smith, the call

attention to different forms of knowledge acknowledging not only “objective “ knowledge,

but also every day understanding. The interest in power manifests in a call to research how

“institutions produce and enforce meanings about the social order and the place of groups of

people within it” (p. X).

INTRODUCTION 20

Although Western male theorists dominate the book, Mohan Jyoti Dutta introduces

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in Chapter 20 and discusses the work of this important post-

colonial theorist on public relations. Using Spivak as a springboard, Dutta argues that the

knowledge structures of public relations must be seen in relation to the politics of

representation, power, and materiality. He points to the possibility that public relations can

commit itself to emancipatory goals through an interrogation of the communicative practices

that connect transnational corporations, nation states, and global structures.

Political considerations run through much, if not all, social theory. As pointed out

previously, the health of democracy is frequently discussed and/or lamented. Researchers in

public relations have proclaimed that there is a need to “reclaim participative democracy”

(Motion & Leitch, 2015). A success criteria would be whether “the democratic, deliberative

and decision-making roles of civil society” have been opened up or closed down as a

consequence of public relations activity (Motion & Leitch, 2015, p. 148). Public relations

should safeguard “a radical democracy that ensures equality for all, respect for cultural

plurality and requires confrontational intolerance of injustice” (Holtzhausen, 2012, p. 239).

An agonistic approach (Mouffe, 2000/2005, 2005) might offer a way forward for

public relations as suggested by some public relations scholars (Davidson, 2016; Ramsey,

2015). This approach suggests ethical ways of approaching, and indeed, embracing conflict.

Chapter 21 presents the work of the French scholar Chantal Mouffe. Scott Davidson and Judy

Motion argue that Mouffe’s work is important in critiquing attempts to place dialogue as an

ethical norm, and illustrate how public relations can be in the service of hegemonic power.

Still, like most of the other contributions in this part of the book, the authors see potential for

change. In other words, while recognizing the negative consequences public relations have for

power inequalities in society, they also envision alternative forms of scholarship and practice

addressing this issue.

INTRODUCTION 21

Finally: A Note of Caution

The book is rounded off with conclusions drawn by Øyvind Ihlen, Piet Verhoeven, and

Magnus Fredriksson who attempt to bring together the insights offered by the book’s

contributors. They present five conclusions that pertain to what can be seen as the domain or

knowledge interests of public relations studies, the context in which public relations ought to

be studied, and the concepts, issues, and empirical avenues that follow.

Still, an introduction of this sort might give a distorted impression and maybe produce

more confusion than clarity for the reader. If one is not familiar with the theories from

previous work, or social theory in general for that sake, it is probably difficult to find a

common denominator between the 20 theorists presented. Especially in the short format

provided here. But even after reading the book readers might have difficulties to understand

their contributions and how these theorists, as a collective, can provide answers to the

questions occupying public relations scholars. The theories are in some cases complementary,

in other cases disparate but in several cases apparently contradictive. As readers, we are rarely

offered coordinates that could help us navigate in the theoretical landscape provided and in

some instances, one can easily come to question if the map that the scholars make up in their

work even refer to the same world. It seems to be difficult to come up with a question where

all theorists would provide answers pointing in the same direction.

For some readers, this is probably a problem and maybe even slightly thought

provoking. There have been several attempts to capture public relations in all-encompassing

definitions over time (Daymon & Demetrious, 2013; Waymer & Heath, 2015), then and now

there has been calls for the formulation of a public relations theory and there are recent

examples of scholars who calls for at least some kind of consilience (Ritzer & Stepnisky,

2011) instead of the provision of more disparate theories. The theories presented in this

volume are not an answer to these calls. Social theorists will never help us find a definition
INTRODUCTION 22

that all can agree upon neither will they help us find a framework where scholars laboriously,

but industrious contribute piece by piece to the larger picture of public relations. What they

will do on the other hand, is helping us get a larger picture of public relations and what it can

be in different contexts. Social theories help us find a set of theoretical positions from where

we can study public relations and it is the diversity and the multitude in their scope and

approaches that can help us develop our research further. As this edition exhibits, social

theory is rich and diverse and as such it can provide conceptual and theoretical development

expanding positions that already have been established in the field. In that way, public

relations can grow as a field both theoretically and methodologically. Hence, we – as a

community of scholars – can expand the toolboxes of our practices and rethink the concepts,

models and theories we use to conceptualize public relations and how it interplays in the

intersections between individuals, organizations and institutions. Hopefully then some initial

confusion is acceptable.
INTRODUCTION 23

References

Bardhan, N., & Weaver, C. K. (Eds.). (2011). Public relations in global cultural contexts:

Multi-paradigmatic perspectives. London: Routledge.

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Christoph, L. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization:

Prolematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(2), 1-

33.

Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics tradition and

aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the

sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Press.

Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Boorstin, D. J. (1962/1992). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York:

Vintage Books.

Brunsson, N., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of

public sector reform. Organization Studies, 21(4), 721-746.

Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Conrad, C., & Lair, D. J. (2004). Corporate rhetoric as

organizational discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.),

The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 79-103). London: Sage.

Conrad, C. (2011). Organizational rhetoric: Strategies of resistance and domination.

Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.

Davidson, S. (2016). Public relations theory: An agonistic critique of the turns to dialogue and

symmetry. Public Relations Inquiry, 5(2), 145-167. doi:10.1177/2046147x16649007

INTRODUCTION 24

Daymon, C., & Demetrious, K. (Eds.). (2013). Gender and public relations: Critical

perspectives on voice, image and identity. London: Routledge.

Edwards, L., & Hodges, C. E. M. (Eds.). (2011). Public relations, society & culture:

Theoretical and empirical explorations. London: Routledge.

Elliott, A., & Lemert, C. (2014). Introduction to contemporary social theory. London:

Routledge.

Fredriksson, M., Pallas, J., & Wehmeier, S. (2013). Institutional Perspectives on Public

Relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 2(3), 183-203.

Giddens, A. (1984/1995). The constitution of society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.

Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1974/1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.

Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a

category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Haferkamp, H., & Smelser, N. J. (1992). Introduction. In H. Haferkamp & N. J. Smelser

(Eds.), Social change and modernity (pp. 1-33). Berkeley: University of California

press.

Heath, R. L., & Xifra, J. (2015). What is critical about critical public relations theory? In J.

L'Etang, D. McKie, N. Snow, & J. Xifra (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical public

relations (pp. 200-210). London: Routledge.

Hohendahl, P.-U., & Fisher, J. (Eds.). (2001). Critical theory: Current state and future

prospects. New York: Berghahn.

Holtzhausen, D. R. (2012). Public relations as activism: Postmodern approaches to theory &

practice. New York: Routledge.

INTRODUCTION 25

Ihlen, Ø. (2017). Fanning the flames of discontent: Public relations as a radical activity. In E.

Bridgen & D. Vercic (Eds.), Experiencing public relations: International perspectives.

London: Routledge.

Ihlen, Ø., & Levenshus, A. (2017). Panacea, placebo or prudence: Perspectives and

constraints for corporate dialogue. Public Relations Inquiry, 6(3), 219-232.

doi:10.1177/2046147X17708815

Ihlen, Ø., & Verhoeven, P. (2012). A public relations identity for the 2010s. Public Relations

Inquiry, 1(2), 159-176

L'Etang, J., McKie, D., Snow, N., & Xifra, J. (Eds.). (2015). Routledge handbook of critical

public relations. London: Routledge.

Latour, B. (2003). Is re-modernization occurring-and if so, how to prove it? A commentary on

Ulrich Beck. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(2), 35-48.

Leeper, R. V. (2001). In search of a metatheory for public relations: An argument for

communitarianism. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 93-104).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lyotard, J. F. (1979). The postmodern xondition: A report on knowledge. Minnesota, MI:

University of Minnesota Press.

Mayhew, L. H. (1997). The new public: Professional communication and the means of social

influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKie, D., & Munshi, D. (2005). Tracking trends: Peripheral visions and public relations.

Public Relations Review, 31(4), 453-457. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.08.001

Mills, C. W. (2000). The power elite: New edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Moffitt, M. A. (2005). Comments on special issue: Public relations from the margins. Journal

of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 3-4. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1701_2

INTRODUCTION 26

Motion, J., & Leitch, S. (2015). Critical discourse analysis: a search for meaning and power.

In J. L'Etang, D. McKie, N. Snow, & J. Xifra (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical

public relations (pp. 142-150). London: Routledge.

Mouffe, C. (2000/2005). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.

Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge.

Munshi, D., & Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing spin cycles: A postcolonial look at public

relations, greenwashing, and the separation of publics. Public Relations Review, 31(4),

513-520.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. .

New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Ramsey, P. (2015). The public sphere and PR: Deliberative democracy and agonistic

pluralism. In J. L'Etang, D. McKie, N. Snow, & J. Xifra (Eds.), Routledge handbook

of critical public relations (pp. 65-75). London: Routledge.

Randall, S. C., & Strasser, H. (1981). Conceptualising social change: problems of definition,

empirical reference and explanation (pp. 9-35). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Rasch, W. (2000). Niklas Luhmann's Modernity: The paradoxes of differentiation: Stanford

University Press.

Ritzer, G., & Stepnisky, J. (Eds.). (2011). The Wiley-Blackwell companion to major social

theorists. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.

Stones, R. (Ed.) (2008). Key sociological thinkers (2 ed.). London: Palgrave Mcmillan

Waymer, D., & Heath, R. L. (2015). Critical race and public relations: The case of

environmental racism and risk bearer agency. In J. L'Etang, D. McKie, N. Snow, & J.

Xifra (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical public relations (pp. 289-302). London:

Routledge.
INTRODUCTION 27

Wittrock, B. (2000). Modernity: One, none, or many? European origins and modernity as a

global condition. Daedalus, 129(1), 31-60.