On Monday, 27 June 2005, I attended a stimulating and enjoyable
CPCR Research Seminar with
Dr. Anne Surma (Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia). The seminar was organised and chaired by
Dr. Kevin Moloney (BMS) and was entitled “Text Matters: an Alternative Perspective on the Meaning and Value of
Communicating in Public Relations”.
Here are my edited notes from the event:
Anne develops some of the key premises of her newly released
book, such as:
- PR can be understood in terms of rhetorical practices, i.e. discursive practices creating meaning in the social world.
- PR communicators have responsibilities not only to those on whose behalf they write speeches, but also to those whom they address.
- Language practice is social practice, and thus is integral to a corporation’s practice; therefore, it should be ethical.
- There is a failure by many PR practitioners to acknowledge the ethical dimension of language; they only view it as an instrumental commodity, i.e. as deliverable messages; which is why PR language is viewed as ‘spin’.
Surma stresses the importance of language - it is the foremost element of human activity/experience. She discusses the distinction between the “experience of the human body” v. “the human body as an object”. She cites the literature on “personal subjects of vision” and “social objects of vision”.
Surma argues that there are three enormous problems with contemporary public communications:
- rejecting / refusing human dimension of language; language is self-referential and not directed to others
- language as hollow rhetoric
- it is forgotten that language is there to be interpreted by others in different ways
The material that Anne refers to is: Media releases, CSR reports, Annual reports, websites etc.
Hence, we use language to “objectify” rather than “objectivate”.
However, our language is rhetorical matter “gesturing towards our humanness”; Surma reasserts rhetoric as a social process. Furthermore, language has a central role within organisations; it communicates reputation, values etc.
The process of self-displacement involves disconnecting language from its producer and from its receivers; language is being objectified. Rhetoric developed in the public space is perceived as a decontextualised object that cannot be deconstructed.
Surma looks at various case studies illustrating her argument of language objectification:
- a leading PR firm’s website and how they present their reputation management record and how they use language. That language uses passive voice (thus dis-empowering the public, “is regarded, is perceived etc” –by whom?).
-
Nike: notices significant differences in two reports (2001 – 2004); the first one is “slick”, the second one is less self-assured [e.g. talks of the report as a “process of introspection” and explains the decision for full disclosure] and much more specific on the content of CSR issues. In the
Nike report Surma finds two types of idiomatic metaphors: discursive (language) [“to write the next chapter etc”] and visual (image) [drawing pictures, getting the picture, what we see etc]. A CSR narrative calls on others for its legitimation. A key element of the report is transparency, which is the corporate response to public outrage for recent cases of potential criminal activity, bad practices (sweatshops) etc.
Nike is starting to understand the limits of its ability to control the perceptions of its stakeholders/customers.
Ultimately, Surma makes the argument that rhetoric matters - in public communication and in Public Relations. Language for mere visibility is not enough.
PRESENTATION ENDS.
PLENARY DISCUSSION.[Please note this is not a transcript of the discussion, merely my recollection and notes during the event].KM: Could you explain the difference between ‘objectify’ and ‘objectivate’?
RG: Why not call it [objectivate] “subjectify”?
AS: Because it also requires viewing ourselves as physical objects so that we can empathise with others’ views of ourselves.
JB: Could you elaborate on your qualifying the endorsement of the latest
Nike report?
Q: There is a paradox in that despite the centrality of language, most of the copy-writing in big firms (e.g. annual reports etc) is done by junior practitioners, in haste.
KM: How can you be honest in a context of power? Is it only the “unpowerful” that are honest, and the dialectic of false rhetoric with them that produces truth?
RG: Is truth and honesty hip and trendy? Perhaps the realisation that honesty brings power could change practices.
NJ: Yeah but trends change often.
JB: Isn’t this “reality/honesty” a construct within a confined social space so as to legitimise the agents?
BR: Given the fragmentation of the public sphere etc, how can an “objectivating” “self-reflective” communication be effective in constructing a meaning? I.e. whom / which public should they think / address when they are constructing the language?
AS: They should think others as participants – “doing” language with others.
RG: Thinking of the case of
Prêt-a-Manger’s strategy and discourse, which is very personal, informal, “passionate” and targeted at the individual customer - really close to your model, but then is that a tactic or genuine attempt to communicate?
AS: Maybe the effect is good enough on its own, since we can’t know the motivations.
SEMINAR ENDS.
