On Berger: A Social Constructionist Perspective on Public Relations and Crisis Communication.

On Berger: A Social Constructionist Perspective on Public Relations and Crisis Communication.

This article by Mats Heide is mainly about the American sociologist Peter K. Berger and his view about social interactions and social reality. According to Berger society is a “complex of human relations, and consequently organizations are also complexes of human relations.”(Heide).

When I think about Public Relations I have not thought about crisis communication, but after reading this article I realize that this is also a very important topic for PR. I think crisis became much more important in the last years. Heide wrote that it is “a consequence of late modernity [that we] live in a risk society”. I agree with him that we are “all aware of the risk society, not a least through mass media`s” (Heide).  I would also say that the risk society is a result from modern technology. Don’t you have the feeling that every year there is more crises? In 2010 there was the earthquake in New Zealand and Haiti, Chile, China; lava emission in Island; forest fire in Russia, flood in Pakistan and Australia. These were only the natural catastrophes. I cannot remember there happened so much when I was younger. But as I said, I think it is a consequence of modern technology, we are much better informed. For example the “climate change” can be reported because we have developed better measure instruments and we have more knowledge about all the related things. And it is also a result of the “organization member`s perception and sense making processes” as Heide said. We are looking for a crisis that is why we measure the ice on the North Pole etc.

According to Heide, Berger said that the “language is important in the production of social structures, which are formed by social processes” (Heide). I also think that language is very important, without it we would have much more problems to interact socially with each other. But Berger takes the language too important. He said that the language is “Not chosen by ourselves but forced upon us during our initial socialization” (Heide). I don’t agree with that because I do think animals also have a kind of social life. They normally don’t eat each other (in the same biological race), they raise their children, they can follow a leader etc. But animals do not have language. So I don’t think that we were “forced” to learn a language, I think it was our own will that we thought it would be more easy to use language to communicate.

 A important concept of Berger is institution, according to him it is a “complex of social actions that regulate and rule people`s behavior in different situations” (Heide). One example of a institution is a marriage; I agree that it has special rules and these rules have to be followed, then we get awarded or if we don’t follow the rules, for example cheating on the wife/husband we get sanctioned, for example the divorce.

I agree with Berger that the “environment in which humans act is complex and ever changing […]” (Heide). This is also why habitualization is as important as Berger said, in my opinion. The world Is changing so fast we would never have time and capacity to learn everything from the beginning. We even were not that far in modern technology and other knowledge if we could use the habits from earlier generations. I think habitualization becomes much faster, because of the “influences by traveling, media consumption […]”(Heide). I also think that these factors lead to more diverse and faster changing personalities; maybe this is a reason why the need for virtual communities as assistances in crises of meaning get more popular, because you can find information for everyone and everything on the internet.

Heide said that it is not easy to find criticism of Berger (Heide). I think this is true because Berger does not have a very radical or critical meaning.

I liked this article because it was an understandable overview about social construction. It also become clear why it is not just one sender and one receiver who gets the message, we are influenced in many ways and we even sometimes do not know who/what did influence us. I think Kuhn is right when he says: “The more theory forbids the better”. Even the more new model of many different receivers and senders at the same time is just one explanation of a very unknown phenomena.

Literature:

Heide, M. On Berger: A Social Constructionist Perspective on Public Relations and Crisis Communication .

Public Relations relations

Castells: “The Contours of the network society”

Castells` wrote about the new technology. He said that the technology does not produce society but is a part of it (Castells, 2000). I don’t agree with that because in my opinion the technology is a part of society but also produces it. Without technology the society would look much more different, we could only communicate with people who life in the neighborhood, we would not be able to learn about different cultures so fast. Society exists without technology, it has several hundred years, but when Castells said that we are living in a new society already (Castells, 2000) then he should also commit that technology is not only a part of the society but IS the new society.  I think he changed his mind about this because in 2007 he wrote that “our societies continue to perform socially and politically by shifting the process of formation of the public mind from political institutions to the realm of communication, largely organized around the mass media”(Castells, 2007).

When I read the article I had the feeling that Castells is very negative about this new technology, he said that we have to show the challenges of the technologies pose to society and to humans (Castells, 2000). He may be a bit afraid of this technology, because he describes the technology as a “totally open page in terms of what the technology means for our society, civilization, and for the destiny of our planet” (Castells, 2000). I did not get why he is so negative about it.

Literature:

Castells, M. (2000). the contours of the network society. the journal of futures studies, strategic thinking and policy , 02 (00), S. 151- 157.

 Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter- power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication , S. 238-266.

Tampere: “A walk in the public relations field: Theoretical discussions from a social media and network society perspective”

Tampere`s article gives a good overview of the field of public relations and is a good clarification, summary and addition to the articles of Castells.  “Public relations has an impact on individual, organizational, and social behavior” (Tampere, 2011). In my opinion this is one of the best descriptions of public relations. That is what it is about; if public relations would not influence individuals, organizational, and social behavior then it would not be necessary. For me one of the main questions about public relations is how much it influences it. When is something my own choice and when was it just because of successful public relations? Nowadays I would guess that nearly nothing is our own choice. This reminds me of the question whether there is “altruistic” behavior or not. Do we every act purely without any ulterior motive? I don’t think so.

Tampere defines a network society as a “society whose social structure is made of networks powered by microelectronics- based information and communication technologies “(Tampere, 2011). For me it is difficult to talk about our social life in terms of “networks”, sometimes I think that it should be much more complicated, much more unknown. It is difficult to describe, I would appreciate it if there were more research about how these network societies affect people, how they will develop.  I cannot imagine how life would be if there were no mobile phones, no internet or other digital communication tools. Would my personality be different?

A limitation of public relations is that it can “destroy good stakeholder relations […] if the organization is not strategically correct in developing and focusing their messages to the right stakeholders” (Tampere, 2011). I agree with that, but this is not that bad as it seems to be. This is the normal risk of public relations, there is always someone who has a different opinion. For example a hotel company which publicizes their hotel as being child-friendly gets families attention but people who don’t want to be annoyed by children won`t not book this hotel.

Literature

Monika. (14. January 2011). Mein Kirchenaustritt. Abgerufen am 19. sepember 2011 von Mehr als 87.000 Katholiken sind 2010 ausgetreten: http://www.meinkirchenaustritt.at/

Tampere, K. (2011). A wlak in the public relations field: Theoretical discussions from a social media and network society perspective. Central European Journal of Communication , S. 49- 61.

Castells: „The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance“

Castells wrote about the relation between politics and citizen. He named the “network for communicating information and points of view” (Castells, 2008) the “public sphere”. Maybe the public sphere can also be the media, because the politicians spread their information and propaganda through the media and the civilization communicate for example through facebook and other internet platforms.

“We live in a world marked by globalization” (Castells, 2008). This is a very true statement. I think “globalization” is the best word to describe the state of the world today. Castells wrote that not everything or everyone is globalized (Castells, 2008). I think he may mean Third World countries. If he means these countries I can understand it but on the other hand he described globalization as “the process that constitutes a social system with the capacity to work as a unit on a planetary scale in real or chosen time” (Castells, 2008). With this definition I cannot understand why some people or something is not globalized. Nowadays a lot of people donate for Third World countries and the drought with the consequence of the hunger crisis East Africa is reported all over the world in all channels. Further we import a lot of food from Africa.  Isn`t is much globalized? There may be some people who are not globalized at all, for example the Amish people. Exceptions prove the rule!

Castells introduces 4 different kind of civil societies: The first ones are the local civil society actors; these actors can be local labor unions or religious groups. I support the opinion that this form of civic engagement declines (Castells, 2008). In 2010 nearly 50%more people left church than 10 years before (Monika, 2011). The second civil society is the nongovernmental organizations which operate internationally. These are private organizations, like Amnesty International. I agree that the media are the key target for such organizations (Castells, 2008). Without them it would be hard to get enough donators. The third civil society is the social movements. These are small groups which are of opposition to the values and interests that are currently dominant in the globalization process (Castells, 2008). I don’t have an example for such a institution, I think they are not very common in modern world. The last civil society is the movement of public opinion. These are spontaneous demonstrations which can be spread out over internet. I think there are several demonstrations and people demonstrate against nearly everything, ranging from animal protection to anti-nuclear movements and even personal matters.

Literature

Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Socitey, Communication Networks and Global Governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , S. 78- 94.

Monika. (14. January 2011). Mein Kirchenaustritt. Access 19. sepember 2011 von Mehr als 87.000 Katholiken sind 2010 ausgetreten: http://www.meinkirchenaustritt.at/

Castells: „Communication, Power and Counter- power in the Network Society“

In the article of Castells, there are a lot of thinks which I already knew but I didn’t realize it the way he presents it, for example that the “ongoing transformation of communication technology in the digital age extends the reach of communication media to all domains of social life” (Castells, 2007). I did know this, I experience it every day, but it is impressing to become aware how much we are influenced by media. For example we can get the latest news the whole day, even in the night. In the past, without internet, this was not possible.

In the following I will only comment on what I especially agree or disagree with.

Castells states that “ if a majority of people think in ways that are contradictory to the values and norms institutionalized in the state and enshrined in the law and regulations, ultimately the system will change”( Castells, 2007). This is a very interesting and a very true thought. We can see this in Libya. (Nearly) the whole country fights for a new governance and they seem to be successful.

Further Castells said that the media are not the holder of power (Castells, 2007). I don’t agree with that, I think the media is the most powerful “institution”.  On October, 30, 1938 a radio station in America announced the arrival of Martians. They broadcasts that the Earth was attacked. Because of this many people panicked and flew from their homes. This was not real the radio station just let their listeners hear a portion of Orson Wells “War of the Worlds” (Rosenberg). I know, this is long ago but I think this can still happen. Through internet a lot of people can be reached. When you want to publish something you just write it on facebook. For example when 16 years old Thessa wanted to celebrate her birthday she accidentally made her birthday invitation public, on facebook. 15.000 people announced that they will come to her birthday ( in fact 1500 acutally came) (Miklis, 2001).

When Castells wrote about politics, he said that scandal politics, like inappropriate behavior can be seen as good entertainment, “while not drawing political implications from it” (Castells, 2007). This may be true for America, but it is not for Germany.  For example CDU politician Christian von Boetticher had to abdicate his chair in the Landtag in Germany because of his affair with a 16 year old girl (dpa, 2011). Or when CDU politician Theodor zu Gutenberg was proved to had done plagiarism he had to abdicate too (ler/dpa/dapd, 2011).

Castells describes the “mass self-communication” as being the new form of socialized communication (Castells, 2007).   I got the feeling that he says that we are more socialized with the internet. I don’t know whether you can it describe as more or less socialized. When you describe “socialized” as communicating with others as much as possible and often as possible as we can say that we became more socialized. On the other hand, for me, “socialized” means interacting people personally. Do you think you are socialized when you only communicate through a mobile phone or internet? I don’t.

In the end, Castells concludes that “our societies continue to perform socially and politically by shifting the process of formation of the public mind from political institutions to the realm of communication, largely organized around the mass media” (Castells, 2007) . I agree to some extent, because I do think that the mass media becomes more important but there are already some limitations. In the past you could see nearly every music video on youtube. Now this is not possible anymore. There are many songs which are not allowed to play in some countries. For example in Germany, the GEMA controls which music is allowed to be heard and which is not.

Literature:

Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter- power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication , S. 238-266.

dpa. (15. august 2011). Spiegel Online. Access 18. september 2011 von Boetticher-Rücktritt stürzt Nord-CDU in die Krise: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,780205,00.html

ler/dpa/dapd. (1. march 2011). Spiegel Online. Access 18. september 2011 von Guttenberg stürzt über Plagiatsaffäre: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,748349,00.html

Miklis, K. (4. June 2001). Stern.de. Access 18. september 2011 von Im Vorgarten von Thessa: http://www.stern.de/digital/online/facebook-fans-stuermen-geburtstagsparty-im-vorgarten-von-thessa-1692209.html

Rosenberg, J. . About.com. Access 2011 von War of the Worlds Radio Broadcast Causes Panic: http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/a/warofworlds.htm