Organizational Rhetoric: A Subject of Interest(s)

Abstract

At the heart of this special issue on external organizational rhetoric is the pursuit of unearthing the ways that complex organizations, performing as modern rhetors engaged in discourse, can work to make society a good place to live. One way that this can be achieved is by problematizing organizational rhetoric. To do so requires taking a critical stance that identifies the hidden ideographs and assumptions embedded within them. External organizational rhetoric scholars, aiming to foster a more fully functioning society, need to expose, smooth, and neutralize these assumptions and tacit constraints if there is to be continued progress in the study and application of the ways external organizational rhetoric, including public relations, might further contribute to society at large.

Adopting an Attitude of Wisdom in Organizational Rhetorical Theory and Practice: Contemplating the Ideal and the Real

“…We are cognizant of criticism that dialogic frameworks, while admirable, are hyperbolic at best (Boyd & Waymer, 2011), and yet, we think there is a certain wisdom in retaining dialogue's idealism alongside this reality. A dichotomy of hyperbolic idealism versus pragmatic realism limits our ability to work toward theory and practice that frames external rhetoric as a vehicle for creating a more engaged society.…”

“…In this context, Boyd and Waymer (2011) argue that organizational material resources mean that organizational self-interest is more influential than individual self-interest and that, therefore, hopeful dialogic rhetors have only an "illusion of equal access to whatever counts as a 'public sphere'" (p. 479). We extend their argument to note also that certain types of organizations have more resources than other organizations.…”

Public Relations Rhetoric: Criticism, Dialogue, and the Long Now

“…Boyd and Waymer (2011) argue, "Scholars of organizational rhetoric need to take a skeptical stance that identifies the multiple interests involved and unpacks hidden ideographs and assumptions" (p. 475; mind mythic depth), whereas Heath (2011) writes, under social constructionism, "language is not a tool, but a way of understanding the dynamics of discourse creating shared and competing world-views that shed light onto the vicissitudes of coordinating social action" (p. 416).…”

Critical and nonmainstream approaches to legitimacy, issues, and crisis

“…One alternative approach to legitimacy studies that scholars can take is the critical approach. For example, scholars have asked whose and what interests are being served when organizations attempt to leverage their legitimacy for self-gain (see Boyd and Waymer, 2011). We also can analyze legitimacy using nonmainstream organizations.…”