The Role of Public Relations in Deliberative Systems

Abstract

This article reframes public relations' contribution to democracy in light of the recent turn to deliberative systems in democratic theory. I consider the problematic that public relations poses to normative models of deliberative democracy, and how that problematic has been addressed in public relations theory thus far. I suggest that deliberative systems provides a more robust basis for theorising public relations' role in deliberation and propose an analytical approach for understanding the complex and sometimes contradictory role of public relations in deliberative democracy. The framework provides a starting point for locating public relations' engagement in deliberative systems and evaluating its effects.Keywords: public relations, organizational communication, deliberation, deliberative systems, democracy The Role of Public Relations in Deliberative SystemsThe role of public relations in deliberative democracy has long been a focus of debate. The instrumental approach to public relations poses a problem for understanding it as a positive force in democratic deliberation. Deliberative theorists emphasise the importance of rational, reasonable, open and inclusive debates among citizens to reaching legitimate decisions about how society should be governed (Chambers, 2012;Dryzek, 2000). These requirements distinguish deliberation from being 'mere talk' and from distortion through manipulation or coercion (Parkinson, 2012;Schudson, 1997). They are secured through a PUBLIC RELATIONS IN DELIBERATIVE SYSTEMS 3 number of normative conditions including the need to set aside vested interests, to prioritise rational argument and to include all those affected by the issue under discussion (Dryzek & Niemeyer, 2010;Habermas, 1996;Jacobs, Cook, & Delli Carpini, 2010). Such conditions inevitably lead to critiques of public relations, given that the motivation to use it is usually associated with some form of organizational self-interest (e.g. improving reputation, relationships or sales), and that emotional appeals are widely used in campaigns alongside, or instead of, rational argument. Combined with evidence of poor public relations practice, the profession is easily framed as the cause of various pathologies of deliberation (Bohman, 2000;Stokes, 1998): government communicators may be seen to mislead the public about policy decisions; issues management campaigns may mislead policymakers about public opinion; and media relations practitioners may manipulate the media agenda such that media discourses represent 'pseudo-preferences' of the public rather than real ones. More generally, the profession could be accused of engaging in 'plebiscitary rhetoric ' (Chambers, 2009, p. 328), where the aim is to win the argument and gain power rather than reflexively engage with other actors in order to pursue a legitimate consensus.Attempts to reclaim the place of public relations in democracy emphasise its ability to generate social capital that connects individuals, groups and organizations, its value to activist groups, ...

The secrecy−transparency dynamic: A sociological reframing of secrecy and transparency for public relations research

“…Cronin, 2016; Curry Jansen, 2017; Davis, 2002; Miller and Dinan, 2008). Equally, there have been many analyses of PR’s potential for enhancing genuine public engagement and working in the public interest (Brunner and Smallwood, 2019; Edwards, 2016; Johnston, 2016; Johnston and Pieczka, 2018). But a more specific analysis of the secrecy−transparency dynamic – focusing on the relationship between the uncovering and securing of information and its covering and obfuscation – offers new perspectives and invites us to ask questions with rather different valences.…”

Transparency, Publicity, Democracy, and Markets: Inhabiting Tensions Through Hybridity

“…Publicity is characterized by a wide range of promotional strategies, from rational argument, to rhetoric, emotion, and digital engagement, and used extensively by actors who seek to both sustain and challenge hegemonic power (Edwards, 2016). While Habermas (2006) cautions against its use by economic elites to legitimize their presence in the political sphere, other scholars have argued that organizational publicity can contribute to a healthy public sphere and civil society through relationship building, developing collective social capital, and fostering dialogue and engagement within and between cultures (Bardhan, 2011; Hiebert, 2005; Lugo-Ocando & Hernandez-Toro, 2016; Sommerfeldt, 2013; Taylor, 2010).…”

Corporate Social Advocacy as Public Interest Communications: Exploring Perceptions of Corporate Involvement in Controversial Social-Political Issues

“…When examining factors that affect moving beyond CSR to create larger scale social change, Gaither, Austin, and Schulz (2018) suggested the importance of: 1) linking to a generalizable interest and 2) genuine engagement (Edwards, 2016) through dialogue (Taylor & Kent, 2014). Research suggests that CSR higher in economic and ethical focus, as opposed to a focus on products, yields higher engagement on social media (Uzunoğlu, Türkel, & Yaman Akyar, 2017).…”