Public relations, activism and social movements: Critical perspectives

675665PRI0010.1177/2046147X16675665Public Relations InquiryEditorial editorial2016 Editorial Public relations, activism and social movements: Critical perspectives Public Relations Inquiry 2016, Vol. 5(3) 207 211 The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2046147X16675665 pri.sagepub.com Jacquie L Etang Queen Margaret University, UK The Special Issue in Public relations, activism and social movements: critical perspectives was designed to solicit the literature that pushed thinking in new directions away from established assumptions about the relationships between the core concepts. Public relations (PR) has had a complicated relationship with activism because historically activism justified organisational investment in PR services and personnel and apparently explained the emergence and development of the specialist areas of issue management and crisis management. Student protest movements and societal critiques of the 1960s and 1970s also played their part in a developing story that conservative corporatism sponsored PR as a protective strategy against radical societal critiques. The consequence of this historical legacy was the formation of rather fixed identities that opposed each other; therefore, this Special Issue encouraged prospective authors to reflect upon such assumptions and others embedded in the literature both of PR and of relevant disciplines. There are dangers in glamorising activism, or in assuming that activism is necessarily a homogeneous category. Apart from the fact that activists range in scale, across the ideological spectrum and are often in direct opposition to each other, they also display considerable variety in their corporate-ness and the extent to which they are self-serving (in order to maintain a successful organisation) or co-opted by other strategic interests. PR literature on activism has tended to ignore the political dimensions of struggle and change. Part of Public Relations Inquiry s (PRI) mission has been to encourage the work that is outward-facing in order to redress the historical practices in the PR discipline that were both introverted and unimaginative. Consequently, PRI has explicitly sought contributions that cross disciplinary boundaries and draw in theories and concepts from outwith PR. Thompson s article Towards a theory of rent-seeking in activist public relations takes an unusual and critical approach to offer a novel interpretation of the underlying Corresponding author: Jacquie L Etang, Queen Margaret University, Musselburgh EH21 6UU, UK. Email: jletang@qmu.ac.uk

208 Public Relations Inquiry 5(3) societal dynamics, previously unconsidered within the PR discipline where the dominant narrative, as noted above, has been a relatively simplistic one of binary opposition. Indeed, for many years activism was well understood as the Other, a fracture that did not entirely make sense to practitioners, even though they might fear any apparent similarities as suggested by Pieczka s (2006) empirical analysis that To PR professionals, pressure groups are in some ways twisted, frightening reflections of themselves. (p. 288) Recent work that has reinterpreted activism as part of PR history is not without challenge or controversy. While some see activism and PR as ideologically distinct, others seek to integrate activism within the PR canon or even to idealise activism as a form of PR that helps position PR more favourably within the moral universe. There is some evidence that at least a few PR scholars, usually those of general critical persuasion, seek to identify publicly themselves with the notion or practice of activism. While some reveal personal stories that provide evidence of their past activism, others make unsubstantiated claims in relation to activist pasts, a practice that does disservice to committed activists, who, like whistleblowers, typically suffer considerable costs ( for example. emotional labour and burnout) for their efforts to change society involvement in a single campaign or local issue or involvement in lobbying for a small cause does not an activist make. In other words, talk can be cheap. These emerging and frequently autobiographically inflected and occasionally self-promotional discourses may fail to expose underlying assumptions or motivations. While Thompson notes the emotional benefits of involvement with activism and sentient rewards of involvement the reward of a sense of doing good in society that does raise the potential of sympathisers, relatively inactive, benefiting from association without some of the emotional costs also associated with full-time or committed activism. Sympathisers may in fact be more motivated by their own ego, identity or individual reputation requirements. Thompson likewise quotes sources that raise questions over actors motivations and the important moral distinction between doing good and looking good, as well as the potential negative effects of idealism unmitigated by practical, political and diplomatic realities of societal value changes. Thompson s article draws on public choice theory which transfers self-interested market-based economic approaches (rational choice) to political decision-making including those related to collective action and activism. He points to the literature in this tradition that questions an often presumed benevolence with regard to the societal outcomes of activist activities, in other words whether the competitive nature of interest groups necessarily results in fair or moral outcomes. Drawing on Buchanan and Tullock (2004), Thompson draws attention to the possibility that active minorities may influence public policy in ways that impact or indeed impose costs (taxes or subsidies) on all members of the community. He argues that activist PR may be understood as rent-seeking in the sense that they seek rents in terms of regulations that meet campaign goals or subsidise their operations, and he suggests that this reality is concealed from view by the overemphasis activist PR practitioners claim in terms of their motivation being primarily in the public interest. Citing the example of Friends of the Earth (Benelux) which receives half

Editorial 209 of its funding from European Union (EU) grants given by seven different European Commission bodies, Thompson points out the irony that In a circular cash carousel that even the most prescient public choice economist may not have been able to predict, this means that the EU is paying green campaign groups millions of pounds to lobby itself. Thompson s cautionary article analysis challenges much writing in the so-called critical paradigm that often proselytises benign (possibly even naïve) assumptions in relation to activism, and he questions the common assumption that activists have much less power than those they oppose. The tensions between rational, instrumental and emotional perspectives that underlie public policy, activism and communicative action are highlighted particularly with regard to scientific developments in varied international contexts that may lead to unintended consequences. De Moya and Bravo focus on ethnic activism exploring two cases: one advocating immigration reform and the other responding to statements made by the Republican candidate for the US Presidency, Donald Trump. However, De Moya and Bravo s contribution goes beyond specific cases to argue for further work within PR on its role in contexts focused on ethnicity. While they refer specifically to ethnic organisations and the role of PR within them, clearly the work connects to the literature in PR on race and to contemporary issues relating to migration and traveller communities (Roma). Bringing together these varied debates relating to challenging aspects of inter-cultural relationships could form a new research nexus that goes beyond particular cases, organisations (promotional, rights-based or diaspora) or identities (racial, religious, political/ideological) to confront broader humanitarian problems in international contexts. De Moya and Bravo locate their work historically and culturally by identifying the first-known usage of the term ethnic public relations in an article in Public Opinion Quarterly as early as 1947 which specifically identified a role for PR to influence the attitudes and behaviour (sic) of strategic publics towards action for, or at least acceptance of, full democracy for ethnic minorities (Blythe, 1947: 342), a fascinating example of PR for democratic practice in the US context. Despite this, it was many years before academic PR engaged with the topic and started to conceptualise it in relation to international PR, cultural and public diplomacy as well as specific advocacy for particular ethnic groups. De Moya and Bravo point to work within media studies that has shown challenges for minority groups in relation to media representation and practices that marginalise or stereotype. In one sense, this stereotyping and discrimination has been mirrored in academic literature that positions activists as Other. The authors also highlight the emergence of advocacy as a key concept within PR, although a cynic might suggest that advocacy has been taken up as a more politically acceptable term than persuasion or propaganda. De Moya and Bravo s empirical work reviews Latino-serving organisations in the United States before proceeding to analyse the National Council of La Raza s advocacy programme for immigration reform on behalf of Latinos, and the combined efforts of several Latino organisations responding to the verbal attacks on Mexicans and other

210 Public Relations Inquiry 5(3) Latinos by Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Finally, they develop a dozen key research questions relating to ethnic PR in order to advance a research agenda for the future. Honda s article focuses on a suicide-prevention campaign It Gets Better Project directed at the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community started in the United States, but now with an international face on five continents. Her study fills as number of gaps in respect of its focus on stakeholders and activists usage and consumption of online materials, the provision of empirical data regarding the reasons for stakeholder involvement in the campaign and its location in sociological theory, specifically intersectionality and the matrix of domination. Powerful and painful stories emerge from the research alongside the solidarity within the communities and revealed multidimensional motivations and overlapping identities (predominantly sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion and geography, fewer referred to class). The complexity of communities interests pointed to the necessity for subtle and tailored discourses that went beyond simplistic campaign communication that responded to media biases and representation that did not illustrate diversity within LGBTQ. Honda argues that the strength of the It Gets Better Project lies in its inclusive design and participatory call. Toledano s contribution responds directly to calls to incorporate activism as an object of study within the PR discipline. Her article explores the use of advocacy and dialogue in activist PR based on the interview data with a practitioner (Robi Damelin) working for Palestinian Israeli Families for Peace. Damelin had a varied career in PR until she suffered the tragic loss of her son, a reserve office in the Israeli Defence Force and a peace activist in his private life, who was killed by a Palestinian sniper. Damelin pursued the path of peaceful reconciliation, communicating with her son s killer to promote nonviolence and peace. Toledano s analysis demonstrates that the activist incorporates a range of communicative actions (advocacy, stakeholder relations, fundraising, recruitment, internal and external engagement and dialogue), but she particularly emphasises the effort made to facilitate understanding, sharing and forgiveness, in other words communication that is not directed at persuasion. This brings to the fore the tension between self-interest and societal interest as motivational factors for PR. While some still condemn persuasion because it is asymmetrical (and therefore wrong ), a number of authors have focused on the centrality of dialogue as an important ethical direction for the occupation which minimises instrumental orientations. What emerges in discussion is the complexity of issues at inter-personal, inter-organisational and intra-societal relationships, pointing to the necessity of subtle and nuanced understandings of the conceptual and practical requirements for ideal claims in relation to dialogue. Dialogue understood as process and relationship building or engagement is of value in itself regardless of strategic intentions or outcomes. Nevertheless, a persistent challenge remains the evidencing and evaluation of dialogue and dialogic activities from the perspectives of all those involved. Ethically, it can be argued that the methodological design of dialogue evaluation should also involve all parties. Toledano also points to the binary bias in much of the literature that positions PR practitioners and activists in hostile opposition, and she highlights the more complex realities of identity and practice. She also points out that the work of professional PR practitioners servicing activist causes and organisation has been largely ignored and is a gap in

Editorial 211 the literature. Perhaps the lack of critically focused empirical research in PR practice in activist contexts has led to an overemphasis of idealistic and sometimes prescriptive literature, some of which is rather disengaged from empirical context and evidence. Toledano s article provides a painful and powerful human story emblematic of the conceptual and ethical challenges of PR practice in activism. The example demonstrates that it is a mistake to assume that activists are necessarily confrontational or hostile and that they may, as in the case in question, seek to develop shared conversations and respectful relationships that acknowledge different positions and power. Finally, we include a book review contributed by an analytical psychologist, thus meeting one of the main aims of PRI to encourage interdisciplinary cross-fertilization. Cecile Rozuel specialises in moral issues in organisations through an understanding of conscious and unconscious psychological factors that influence individual and collective behaviour. Rozuel acknowledges that she has less familiarity with PR, yet provides an insightful and valued contribution that blends a clear and comprehensive overview with critical comment. The articles presented in this issue offer a range of perspectives, theoretical directions and empirical data. Their variety hints at the scope of this area for further work. In particular, there is room for considerable theoretical expansion in terms of reflections upon the connections between societal change, social movements and activism and the role of communicative action, of which public relations is a part. While some may be unhappy at broadening the scope of public relations inquiry to include a wider range of public communication, such a move does offer a more strategic range of reflections back on to the specifics of public relations practice and its particular societal role. Public relations literature is often focused on particular cases, and this may lead to a lack of broader historical contextualisation, perspective and understanding. Connecting public relations to social movement theories, digital media theories and practices, social change, social theories and ideologies is a complex but necessary challenge to identify webs of intentional communication and their effects in local and global spaces. References Buchanan JM and Tullock G (2004) The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund. Blythe J (1947) Can public relations help reduce prejudice? Public Opinion Quarterly 11(3): 342 360. Pieczka M (2006) Chemistry and the public relations industry: An exploration of the concept of jurisdiction and issues arising. In: L Etang J and Pieczka M (eds) Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice. New Jersey/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, p. 288.