Rhetorical Approach vs. Critical Approach in Public Relations

The purpose of public relations

According to Heath (2006), the rhetorical approach is the process in which truth, value and proper policy are determined through the dialogue of arguments and counterarguments. Thus, public relations’ role in this approach is like that of an advocate. By using persuasive communication, PR practitioners present facts, values and policy positions. The advocated position is subject to analytical examination by providing counterarguments, and so on as the issue is refined. Consequently, the purpose of public relations in the rhetorical approach is to gain better understanding of the publics and, at the same time, establish clarity.

Furthermore, Heath (2000) also argued that public relations itself is a rhetorical process which assists in building society, whereby “through statement and counterstatement, people test each other’s views of reality, value and choices relevant to products, services and public policies.” In other words, from the rhetorical perspective, the goal of public relations is always concurrence instead of consensus.

Additionally, the rhetorical approach also claims that individual practitioners should play a reflective manager role where they view the organization as an outsider.

On the other hand, according to Dozier and Lauzen (1998), the critical theory raised two definitions of public relations. Firstly, it defines public relations as an intellectual domain where it embraces a wider range of research questions and incorporating additional perspectives. Secondly, it considers public relations a professional activity where it is the management of communication to build mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationships with key publics.

In the past, critical theory sees the mass media, including PR, as a mean of protecting and extending the influences of the wealthy and powerful. However, this is not the view of scholars who study public relations. On the contrary, postmodern PR practitioners are considered activists within the organizations (Holtzhausen, 2000).

The focus of the practice

The rhetorical perspective of public relations stresses the marketplace of public discourse, where ideas are contested, issues are examined, and decisions are made collaboratively. It is a never-ending process because counterargument is always ongoing.

Heath (2006) stated that the rhetorical approach requires a more societal level of analysis. Hence, it focuses on the rhetorical issues – problems that center on a contestable matter of fact, evaluation and policy – that are not limited to an organization and, therefore, emphasizes on the issues themselves and not the organization per se.

On the other hand, if for the rhetorical PR, the dialogue and process themselves are the emphasis, the critical professional view of PR focuses on the management of communications to build mutually beneficial relationships and the critical intellectual view of PR focuses on the communications of relationships while hitting on the intended/unintended consequences. Critical approach views activists from their perspective from within an organization, acknowledges the differences in power and influence, then takes the PR practitioner outside the relationship and focuses on the differences.

Subsequently, critical theory highlights the moral and ethical contradictions in public relations practices; therefore, its focus shifts away from the organizational level analysis and toward not only the societal but also the individual level of analysis.

The role of public

In the rhetorical approach, publics have more power and are more independent. They are neither passive recipients nor bound by organizational messages. As being participative and empowered, publics play the role of co-creators and co-participants in the communication process. In other words, publics talk about issues from their own perspectives and pursue the matters that they find important.

Explaining the view of how publics interpret communications and make decisions accordingly, Heath (2000) argued that rhetoric approach recognizes the fact that both participants – organization and its publics – have their own self-interest as well as philanthropic motives to engage in any debate and that meaning is fabricated through the interpretation of communications, rather than in the transmission of messages. To this effect, Heath stated that rhetorical PR practice is principally ethical because “it empowers participants to engage in dialogue.”

Conversely, Heath (2006) also claimed that “a rhetorical perspective champions the human will and intellectual ability to discover and examine facts, to develop and refine values need to guide policy, and to forger policy that blends the interests and meeting the needs of members of society. A rhetorical perspective assumes that any idea is only as good as its ability to withstand public criticism and to achieve concurrence.” However, the birth of the Internet and social media respectively, has generated much more challenges for PR practitioners. It has created a public sphere, which is a powerful platform for public debate. In addition, the new media has also given the ‘netizens’ – who make up a substantial portion of the publics – the ability to become brutally verbally abusive without suffering any consequences; therefore, it becomes even harder to create a message that can “withstand public criticism.”

On the other hand, the popularity of social media also contributes to critical scholars who apply discourse to media theories. As the publics now have their own channel to voice their opinions, they gain more control in what they perceive as news and newsworthiness. Not only can they create such trend and newsworthy materials, but also make the media change their approach to a more symmetrical and interactive way. For example, the Trayvon Martin case was one that receives limited to none national news coverage until those who felt strongly about the injustice began to share the story via Facebook, Twitter and other popular social media outlets. These postings lead to the case being covered by national news stations, resulting in an investigation, accusations, arrest and the setting of a trial date (Blow, 2012).

The major tools for managing or analyzing public relations

In the rhetorical approach, as the main emphasis is the dialogue between competing viewpoints with a focus on careful analysis of face and value, language is the major tool. In public discourse, language is used to shape social perception and affects how publics would engage in the communication. Therefore, relationships are by-product of the dialogue.

Nevertheless, The critical and rhetorical theories are somehow related to each other. Discourse is used to develop an understanding of truths and therefore, leads to a better social understanding. However, the critical theory aims to be more practical by acknowledging the power imbalance between the organization and publics. At the same time, power imbalance does not necessarily hold such negative implication if it can lead to an effective discourse to create a concurrence of social truths. In this situation, the practitioner would play a role of an advocate within the organization by recognizing the diverse attitudes and values of both internal and external publics.

Strengths

Both theories add value to the ideas marketplace and public arena by educating consumers, informing public stakeholders as to the contours of public policy opinions. They both seek moral ends. However, the rhetorical approach also has additional strength to crisis communication, as it lies in the application of reputation repair as part of the crisis response as well as post-crisis communication.

Weaknesses

The rhetorical perspective recognizes that even within the marketplace, the organization still holds enough power to create a “louder voice” and stand out among other rhetoricians; at the same time, make its arguments more effective. Accordingly, organizations usually have more time and resources in preparation of presenting their issues and/or arguments while the publics are usually diffused and disorganized, therefore have fewer advantages. Such cases create ethical questions about this approach. Thus, the question remains relative, as public discourse is not a legal case where there are judge and jury to decide the final outcome. In other words, the ultimate “truth” is more likely to fall in the hand of the participant who holds more power and resources.

Moreover, the idealism of practitioners according to the rhetorical approach might threaten their values within the organization. To be a rhetorically effective communicator, the practitioner needs to be ethical. Though, this can be challenging as the management might see practitioners as not supporting the organization.

On the other hand, the critical approach brought up the concept of “invisible clients,” which are organizations with sufficient financial resources to hire public relations practitioners to conduct studies that are beneficial to the organizational interest. Thus, the perspectives of these invisible clients would influence the research questions that public relations scholars ask and seek answers for, the theories they build, the methods they use, and ultimately, the interests they serve. PR scholars, most of whom are professors and advisors to future PR practitioners, may develop a perspective corresponding with that of their invisible clients. As a result, intellectual prejudice is unavoidable when PR scholars begin influencing those they teach with organizational input rather than examining the practice from an assembly of perspectives. This situation can cause practitioners to lose sight of their publics’ ultimate well-being because they are more focused on meeting organizational goals rather than looking out for a specific public. Subsequently, PR scholarship falls under the market-oriented administrative heading because PR research serves the private interests of organizations that pay for and find it useful in optimizing their security and profitability.

How these approaches should be used in our understanding of public relations

Since public relations is part of each society’s rhetorical process, a rhetorical perspective offers rationale for the ethical practice of public relations by explaining how public relations participates in the creation and implementation of value perspectives that shape society.

Nonetheless, critical theory introduces new concepts that contradict with other theories. The concepts of media politics and information subsidies would provide new intellectual tools for determining publics. By posing questions, including awkward and unpopular ones, as well as interrogating the status quo (i.e. asking why notions shape organizations and how they work for benefit), critical public relations research contributes to PR practice by developing an understanding of how discourse is used to establish different perspectives of information. Hence, critical perspective is theorized as a legitimate tactic in the struggle for negotiation power.

References

Blow, C. M. (2012). The curious case of Trayvon Martin. The New York Times.

Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual domain from the practice: Public relations, activism, and the role of the scholar Journal of public relations research, 12, 3-22.

Heath, R. L. (2000). A rhetorical perspective on the values of public relations: Crossroads and pathways toward concurrence. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12, 69-91.

Heath, R. L. (2006). A rhetorical theory approach to issues management. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 55-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research directions. Journal of Public relations Research, 18, 93-114.

Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in Public relations. Journal of public relations research, 12, 93-114.

Marsh, C. (2010). Precepts of reflective public relations: An Isocratean model. Journal of Public relations Research, 22, 359-377.

Motion, J. & Weaver, C. K. (2005). A discourse perspective for critical public relations research: Life Sciences Network and the battle for truth. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 49-67.

Pompper, D. (2005). "Difference" in public relations research: A case for introducing Critical Race Theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 139-169.