Relations - a Metamodern Perspective
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ESSACHESS – Journal for Communication Studies
The Resurrection of ESSACHESS –
Journal for Communication Studies
Modernistic Public Volume 14 Issue 1(27), p. 15-36
© The Author(s) 2021
Relations – a Metamodern Reprints and Permission:
Perspective Ó ESSACHESS
https://www.essachess.com/
DOI: 10.21409/essachess.1775-352x
Irma MEYER
Doctor, Executive Engagements
SOUTH AFRICA
e-mail: irmameyer@absamail.co.za
Abstract: It is posited that the Covid-19 crisis proved to even the most dedicated
modernist that long-term macro-public relations strategies, imbedded in modernistic
public relations practices, will no longer suffice. Equally problematic, however, is a
purely postmodern perspective with its criticism of closure, certainty and control in
business environments subjected to predominantly modernistic management styles.
An alternative paradigm has become necessary. The purpose of this paper is thus to
address the tension between the two dominant paradigms in public relations practice,
namely modernism and postmodernism, by introducing metamodernism as a new
perspective. A qualitative, interpretivist approach was followed by exploring and
analysing existing literature on the use of metamodernism in the field of public
relations. It is argued that modernistic public relations perspectives still have
relevance when applied from a metamodern perspective. It is suggested that a
metamodern worldview will provide public relations practitioners with a new
paradigm, uniting both modernistic and postmodernistic perspectives into creative
solutions.
Keywords: modernism, postmodernism, metamodernism, public relations,
innovation
Article received on the March 21, 2021. Article accepted on the June 1st, 2021.
Conflict of Interest: The author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest.16 MEYER
***
La résurrection des relations publiques modernes – une perspective métamoderne
Résumé : Il est postulé que la crise de Covid-19 a prouvé même au moderniste le plus
dévoué que les stratégies de relations macro-publiques à long terme, ancrées dans les
pratiques des relations publiques modernistes, ne suffiront plus. Tout aussi
problématique, cependant, est une perspective purement postmoderne avec sa critique
de la fermeture, de la certitude et du contrôle dans des environnements commerciaux
soumis à des styles de gestion principalement modernistes. Un paradigme alternatif
est devenu nécessaire. Le but de cet article est donc d'aborder la tension entre les deux
paradigmes dominants dans la pratique des relations publiques, à savoir le
modernisme et le postmodernisme, en introduisant le métamodernisme comme une
nouvelle perspective. Une approche qualitative et interprétativiste a été suivie en
explorant et en analysant la littérature existante sur l'utilisation du métamodernisme
dans le domaine des relations publiques. La thèse défendue est que les perspectives
de relations publiques modernistes sont toujours pertinantes lorsqu'elles sont
appliquées dans une perspective métamoderne. Il est suggéré qu'une vision du monde
métamoderne fournira aux praticiens des relations publiques un nouveau paradigme,
unissant les perspectives modernistes et postmodernes dans des solutions créatives.
Mots-clés : modernisme, postmodernisme, métamodernisme, relations publiques,
innovation
***
Introduction
Public relations (PR) practitioners worldwide struggle to provide precise and
insightful advice (Grønntun, 2019) and the existing PR paradigms of either
modernism or postmodernism no longer suffice in dealing with the intricacy of current
realities. Rather than developing even more complex approaches, PR practitioners
should adopt a metamodern perspective and utilise the existing paradigms’ relevant
elements in a creative manner. Such a metamodern worldview may aid them to
develop a “simple way of understanding a complex world” (Anderson, 2019, p.94)
and would allow them to provide innovative PR solutions.
A thorough literature review confirms that a metamodern perspective is virtually
unused in the domain of PR. The purpose of this paper is thus to reason that
modernistic and postmodernistic PR paradigms could co-habit comfortably in the
same environment if practitioners adopt a metamodern perspective. A qualitative,
interpretivist approach was followed by exploring and analysing existing literature on
modernistic versus postmodernistic PR practices and the possible use of a
metamodern worldview in PR.ESSACHESS vol. 14, no. 1(27) / 2021 17
1. Towards a Metamodern Perspective
The terminologies modernity/modernism and postmodernity/postmodernism are
often used synonymously. However, modernism and postmodernism are cultural
perspectives within the historical periods of modernity and postmodernity
respectively. The modernity period lasted from the 1400s (early modernity) to the
1900s (late modernity). The start of postmodernity is hazy, but the general consensus
is that it started in the second half of the 20th century (Schulte-Sasse, 1987; Irvine,
2014).
The terminologies modernism and postmodernism used in this article, encompass
the paradigms relevant to the historical periods of modernity and postmodernity. This
paper acknowledges that a number of cultural PR perspectives other than
postmodernism, developed during the period of postmodernity, for instance the
cultural-economic model with its Circuit of Culture as framework (Curtin & Gaither,
2005) and promotional culture (Davis, 2013; Cronin, 2018). However, it is posited
that current cultural PR perspectives – modern or postmodern - are still rooted in the
historical period of postmodernity.
A basic discussion of modernism and postmodernism is necessary to contextualise
metamodernism.
1.1. Modernism
A key characteristic of modernism is the faith in human ability to reason in order
to preserve and ensure human freedom. Modernists believe that grand theory can
represent knowledge and explain everything. They also believe in the infinite progress
of knowledge, theology, moral and social development and define standards of
intelligibility, rationality and legitimacy meticulously. Modernists accept master
narratives and metanarratives of history, culture and national identity and believe in
progress as the driving force behind history (Woods, 1999; Irvine, 2014).
Though the concept of modernism arguably had a deep impact on society and has
been investigated and applied by theorists in magnitudes (Cao, 2012), it has also been
critiqued intensely. The so-called faith in reason and master narratives, came under
fire during the 20th century, and human reason, typifying modernism, was questioned
since it could equally lead to the Holocaust as it could to liberty and equality (Woods,
1999; Irvine, 2014). This increasing lack of faith in the key features of modernism
signified the birth of postmodernism.
1.2. Postmodernism
Postmodernism could be regarded as a worldview which is commonly
characterised by an understanding that goes beyond or after modern (Jencks, 1992)
and embraces perspectives that question the so-called truths of modernism, at the
same time moving away from the use of modernistic grand narratives of goal-seeking
history and progress (Stewart, 1991; Irvine, 2014). It revels in heterogeneity and
believes that knowledge is created through the diversity of everyday life and is18 MEYER
therefore fluid and ever changing (Warf, 1993). Postmodernism prohibits grand
theorising and is suspicious of master narratives. It deconstructs and is sceptical of
closure, certainty and control (Firat & Dholakia, 2006).
Discomfort about postmodernism has been evident for a substantial time. Lasn and
Grierson (2000) described this discomfort succinctly when they declared that
“postmodernism is arguably the most depressing philosophy ever to spring from the
Western mind”. Faye (2012, p.177) goes so far as to state that it is time to look
critically at a postmodern understanding of science, since it has been “so devastating
for any trust in the human sciences as they have been practised since the
Enlightenment”.
A number of accommodating and substituting terminologies, endeavouring to
describe an alternative era to postmodernity, is evident in the literature namely, anti-
modernist and para-modernist (Zavarzadeh, 1975), modernist-postmodernist
(Gooding-Williams, 1987), reflexive modernism (Lash, 1993), post-postmodernism
(Turner, 1995), trans-modernism (Epstein, 1999), post-millennialism (Gans, 2000),
pseudo- and digi-modernism (Kirby, 2006), critical modernism (Jencks, 2007),
premodernism (Seymour, 2011), metamodernism (Vermeulen & Van den Akker,
2010, 2015), neo-modernism (Faye, 2012), altermodernism (Jencks, 2012).
None has found its voice in the PR domain yet, thus opening the door for
metamodernism to be established as a possible new PR worldview.
1.3. Metamodernism
Metamodernism is not a new concept. Zavarzadeh (1975) coined the terms
metamodern and metamodernist as early as 1975 in a literary discussion on American
fiction, when he argued that a sharp division between fact and fiction no longer exists.
It was thereafter used infrequently by other scholars and writers (Wallace, 1996;
Borgman, 1992; González, 1996; Furlani, 2002, 2007; Dumitrescu, 2014).
However, the cultural theorists Vermeulen and Van den Akker (2010) brought the
concept to the fore with their essay titled Notes on Metamodernism. Academic
references to the term metamodernism has increased 14-fold between 2010 and 2018
and many articles, book chapters, conference papers and post-graduate theses are now
dedicated to exploring the possibilities of a metamodern worldview in various
disciplines (Dember, 2020).
1.4. Contrasting Metamodernism against Modernism and Postmodernism
Many scholars endeavoured to (re)define and (re)describe metamodernism and its
relation to modernism and postmodernism since the publication of Vermeulen and
Van den Akker’s (2010) essay.
Avoiding the temptation to create yet another complex PR worldview, this article
will focus on Vermeulen and Van den Akker’s (2010) understanding of
metamodernism, supplemented with the views of subsequent metamodern scholars.ESSACHESS vol. 14, no. 1(27) / 2021 19
Vermeulen and Van den Akker (2010) conceptualised the epistemology and
ontology of metamodernism in relation to modernism and postmodernism as a both-
neither dynamic and explain that it is simultaneously modern and postmodern as well
as neither of them. They define metamodernism as an ontological oscillation between
modernism and postmodernism. They reiterate that it does not imply a balance
between these poles, but rather a constant swinging of the pendulum during which
metamodernism negotiates between modernism and postmodernism. Vermeulen and
Van den Akker’s did not state downright that postmodernism tendencies were over,
but argued that many of them were taking a new shape and cited three main reasons
for this, namely the financial crisis, geopolitical instability and climate changes.
Eleven years later, pandemics could be added to these reasons. They claimed that the
current generation’s attitude is one of informed naivety (modernistic/postmodernistic)
and at the same time pragmatic idealistic (postmodernistic/modernistic). A
metamodern worldview is thus created by the modernistic desire to make sense of the
world and the postmodern doubt about the sense of it all (Vermeulen & Van den
Akker, 2010).
Kadagishivili (2013) expands on the definition above by referring to
metamodernism as a new movement in various disciplines in which the style and
manner pertaining to thinking and behaving, deviate and oscillate. He argues that
metamodernism is different from postmodernism and whereas postmodernism is
playful, ironic, insincere and unsteady, metamodernism can be regarded as more
serious and genuine, oscillating between opposing ideas such as totality and
fragmentation, naivety and knowledge, enthusiasm and irony, amongst others.
Metamodernism, thus, is not simply a convergence of modernism and
postmodernism, nor does it imply a balance between the two perspectives. It is not a
compromise either and a good metamodernist is both a postmodernist and a modernist
(or neither), respecting both perspectives and believing that each has relevance
depending on the issue at hand. It is not an easy way out of the
modernism/postmodernism debate since the oscillation between the two perspectives
might be difficult from time to time. For this very reason, metamodernism is not
normative and descriptive either, as claimed by some scholars (Turner, 2015), because
the oscillation might force PR practitioners towards a perspective they are personally
uncomfortable with (Ludford, 2021), but which is relevant at that point in time since
it relates to “how things are”.
Metamodernism is clear and simple in that it negotiates between modernism, with
its promise of hope, and postmodernism, with its expression of disappointment
(Kadagishivili, 2013). It recognises how broken humanity is, but progresses
nonetheless with optimism (Abramson, 2018).
The relationship between modernism and postmodernism becomes productive
when the metamodernist has faith in knowledge and science, but not without
questioning absolute truths and narratives; believes that reconstruction must follow
construction and deconstruction; is comfortable with so-called truths whilst accepting20 MEYER
the possibility of being wrong in certain believes; engage in dialogue and dialectic
conversations with collaboration in mind.
Thus, rather than a firm belief in constructs or a radical deconstruction of concepts,
a metamodernist would deconstruct modernist constructs, identify the good in them,
learn from them and reconstruct a new possibility, by joining different and even
contradictory positions (Abramson, 2018). A metamodern PR practitioner could for
instance ask: how can I juxtapose relevant concepts from activism and the excellence
theory to propose an innovative PR solution?
It is foreseen that some scholars and theorists will express frustration with
metamodernists’ perceived refusal to choose between modernism and
postmodernism. However, embracing metamodernism implies exactly the opposite.
A metamodernist has to constantly and consciously choose between modernism and
postmodernism by determining which perspective (or elements thereof) will provide
the best solution to a current problem. PR practitioners who practice from a
metamodern perspective, thus have a responsibility to familiarise themselves with
both modernism and postmodernism concepts, regardless of their personal believes
and perspectives. Understanding the possibilities of modernist PR theories when
approached from a metamodern perspective, should motivate both modernist and
postmodernist PR practitioners to consider this perspective. The following section
will provide such examples, revisiting the main modern PR theories from a
metamodern perspective as a means to showcase metamodernism at work.
2. Contextualising Modernistic PR Theories from a Metamodern Perspective
Postmodern PR academics claim to endeavour to integrate postmodernism in PR
education, yet, when analysing undergraduate curricula, evidence of such integration
is hard to find (Madden, 2019).
Part of this difficulty might also be emanating from the slow uptake if not outright
refusal of PR industry and regulatory bodies worldwide to move beyond the
straightforward and seemingly simplistic modernistic worldview of PR and thus their
insistence on concepts such as management, planned, sustained, process, two-way
communication and mutually, as shown in their current definitions of PR on their own
websites:
International Public Relations Association
Public relations is a decision-making management practice tasked with
building relationships and interests between organisations and their publics
based on the delivery of information through trusted and ethical
communication methods (IPRA, 2019).ESSACHESS vol. 14, no. 1(27) / 2021 21
Public Relations and Communications Association
PR is a planned, sustained and evaluated process, which by means of two-
way communications techniques, seeks to build mutually beneficial
relationships between an organisation and its public (PRCA, 2021).
Public relations Society of America
Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually
beneficial relationships between organisations and their publics (PRSA,
2021).
Chartered Institute of Public Relations
Public Relations is the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain
goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics
(CIPR, 2021).
Public Relations Institute of Southern Africa
Public Relations is the management through communication of perceptions
and strategic relationships between an organisation and its internal and
external stakeholders (PRISA, 2021).
Popular PR textbooks too only touch on postmodern aspects such as
deconstruction and activism, yet continue to focus mostly on modernist PR as a
management function aimed at achieving two-way symmetrical communication
(Duffy, 2000). Furthermore, research indicates that modernist PR theories reflecting
the excellence theory framework, are often favoured (Ströh, 2009; Thurlow, Sévigny
& Dottori, 2018). However, in spite of the evidence, postmodernists strongly reject
modernist PR theories. Introducing metamodernism might hence be met with
resistance from both modernists and postmodernists.
The purpose of this article is not to dismiss modernist PR theories, but rather to
revisit their value and relevance when approached from a metamodern perspective.
The certainty guaranteed by modernist PR theories has not become obsolete, but it is
no longer adequate to deal with the current reality which is riddled with volatility,
uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity – the so-called VUCA world. A metamodern
approach would provide the agility and flexibility needed to cope in a VUCA world,
since it would question modernistic metanarratives, when necessary, but make use of
them when relevant.
It is therefore suggested that a metamodern PR approach would allow PR
practitioners to use modernist PR theories creatively by questioning their
metanarratives and implementing them differently, whilst simultaneously accepting
that some managers, organisations and situations may need certainty, closure and
reconstruction in order to move forward.
The scope of the article does not allow for an in-depth metamodern examination
of all modernistic PR practices, as has been done by Meyer (2017) and Barker and
Meyer (2020). For this reason, this article will focus on the flagship theory of22 MEYER
modernism, the excellence theory in public relations (Grunig, 2001) and elaborate on
the possibilities of a metamodern approach.
3. The Modernistic PR Theories from a Metamodern Perspective
The excellence study resulted in one of the most successful theories considering
its reach and influence (Fawkes, 2018) and is still widely taught in PR curricula and
reflected in PR codes (Parkinson, 2001). The excellence theory is based in the systems
theory and claims the mixed-motive model of two-way communication as its
subsequent brainchild. These three concepts will be briefly repositioned from a
metamodern perspective.
3.1. The Systems Theory
System theorists distinguish between closed and open systems. The open systems
theory recognises that organisations are composed of both functional subsystems (the
classical approach) and social systems (the humanistic approach) and that these are
dynamically interrelated (Dahnke & Clatterbuck, 1990).
This approach assumes that communication does not take place in isolation, but
rather in a complex communication system (Bowers & Courtright, 1984; Littlejohn,
2002). Considering that most social systems and their subsystems could be partially
closed and partially open (Kast & Rosenzeig, 1972), it becomes clear that a flexible
system thinking approach is necessary.
Ströh (2009) categorises the systems theory as modernistic as opposed to the
postmodern approaches of the complexity and the chaos theory, which, according to
her, “accentuate the concepts of interaction, relationship and self-regulation”.
However, considering the properties of the general systems theory, these
characteristics are implicit in the systems theory and are described by terminology
such as interrelationships (aligned with Ströh’s concepts of interaction and
relationship), regulation and goal-seeking (aligned with Ströh’s concept of self-
regulation). She admits that a complete rejection of modernistic, linear and logical
strategic methodologies is not practical, since most PR practitioners operate in
modernistic business environments where they must justify their contribution to the
organisation’s bottom line.
Thus, from a metamodern perspective, it is proposed that social systems are not
exclusively closed or open, but that the same social system could oscillate between
being closed and open. This would also imply that this social system could sometimes
try to change the environment, whilst maintaining the status quo in the organisation,
or could adapt and adjust to environmental changes. Equally, PR in an organisation
could oscillate between being practised from a closed or an open-systems approach,
reflecting a metamodern paradigm.ESSACHESS vol. 14, no. 1(27) / 2021 23
3.2. The Excellence Theory
Although heavily critiqued, the excellence theory, with its spread and influence,
has been the most successful modernistic PR theory (Fawkes, 2018). Despite much
resistance and the subsequent rise of numerous postmodern PR theories and
perspectives, a substituting “grand unified field theory for public relations” (Fawkes,
2018, p.167) is yet to be born. The excellence theory, thus, provides a good basis for
demonstrating the possibilities of a metamodern application to a modernistic PR
theory.
The origin and history of the excellence project is well-documented and will not
be repeated here. The focus will rather be on its characteristics and developments and
their relevance from a metamodern perspective.
3.2.1. Developments in the Excellence Theory
In the early 1990s, the two-way asymmetrical and two-way symmetrical models
were seen at opposite ends of a communication continuum and theorists expressed a
discomfort about asymmetrical versus symmetrical communication, claiming that it
is difficult to determine the optimum point on the continuum between the two for
appropriate behaviour (Plowman, 2009). Borrowing from the games theory, Murphy
(1991) suggested that a mixed version of both asymmetrical and symmetrical
communication might resolve this problem and developed the mixed-motive model.
Taking cognisance of the asymmetrical/symmetrical debate and the work of a
scholar such as Murphy (1991), Dozier, Grunig and Grunig refined her model into the
mixed-motive model of two-way communication (Grunig, 2001). They declared that
utilising the mixed-motive games theory to describe the symmetrical public relations
model, resolves the criticism against the symmetrical model as favouring the interest
of stakeholders above those of the organisation.
In justifying the mixed-motive model of two-way communication, Grunig (2001)
explains that persuasion is still relevant in symmetrical communication, but not, as
some critiques maintain, in the interest of the organisation only, since it is the task of
PR practitioners to persuade external stakeholders as well as the organisation. He also
reiterates that he never equated symmetry to accommodation and argues that
symmetrical communication towards total accommodation of stakeholders’ interests
would once again become asymmetrical. He maintains that symmetry in PR is “about
balancing the interests of organisations and publics, of balancing advocacy and
accommodation” (Grunig, 2001, p.16).
The mixed-motive model of two-way communication was thus developed with the
premise that a symmetrical communication view will lead to a win-win situation for
both the organisation and its stakeholders. In the mixed-motive model, symmetric
communication is moved to the middle of the continuum and this model illustrates24 MEYER
that communication on either side of the spectrum remains asymmetrical. The mixed-
motive model of two-way communication is graphically illustrated in Figure 1.
Dominant Publics’
coalition’s Win-Win zone position
position
Organisation’s position Mixed Motive Publics’ position dominates
dominates (Asymmetric) (Symmetric) (Asymmetric)
Type of practice Explanation:
Pure asymmetric Communication is used to dominate publics to accept the
model dominant coalition’s position.
Pure cooperation Communication is used to convince the dominant
model coalition to cave in to publics’ position.
Two-way model Communication is used to move publics, the dominant
coalition or both, to the acceptable win-win zone.
Figure 1. The mixed-motive model of two-way communication (Grunig, 2001)
Figure 1 illustrates that the asymmetrical position on the left will only have the
organisation’s interests at heart, while the asymmetrical position on the right will only
be concerned with the publics’ positions. Practising pure two-way asymmetrical
communication would result in a win-lose game in which either the organisation
(referred to as the dominant coalition in Figure 1 and illustrated by arrow 1) or
stakeholders (referred to as publics in Figure 1 and illustrated by arrow 2) emerge as
the victor. In the win-win zone in the middle (illustrated by arrow 3) the communicator
engages with both the dominant coalition and publics to reach an outcome in the
interest of both parties (Grunig, 2001).
Grunig (2001) believes the mixed-motive model of two-way communication to be
a perfect combination of both a positive and normative theory, compared to the
previously normative theory of two-way communication. He argues that descriptively
(positive), this model illustrates what is happening in practice as PR practitioners
balance the interests of both the organisation and stakeholders while normatively, it
specifies the best PR practice for organisations to reach a win-win situation whilst
building relationships with stakeholders.
This development is important in the context of metamodernism, since it displays
perspectives of both modernist and postmodernist thinking. Modernists would
embrace only the dominant coalition’s position and execute PR initiatives solely inESSACHESS vol. 14, no. 1(27) / 2021 25
the interest of the organisation. Postmodernist will continuously direct their PR
initiatives towards serving the interest of publics. The metamodernist will
optimistically aim for the win-win zone, accepting that certain situations might force
him or her to adopt one of the extreme positions on the continuum. The metamodernist
will also accept that win-win does not imply a 50/50 balance, but that it is a subjective
concept referring to acceptable levels of comfort for both the organisation and its
publics. Nonetheless, this knowledge will not deter the metamodernist from trying to
achieve symmetrical communication in the interest of both the organisation and
publics.
It is posited that the characteristics of the excellence theory could be viewed in the
same modernist/postmodernist/metamodernist manner as the mixed-motive model of
two-way communication.
3.2.2. Characteristics of the Excellence Theory
The characteristics of excellent PR programmes are described on three levels,
namely programme, departmental and organisational levels as illustrated in Table 1:
Table 1. Characteristics of excellent public relations programmes (Grunig et al.,
2002).
CHARACTERISTICS OF EXCELLENT PR PROGRAMMES
Programme level • Managed strategically
Departmental level • A single or integrated public relations department
• A function separated from marketing
• Direct reporting relationship to senior management
• Two-way symmetrical model
• Senior public relations person in managerial role
• Potential for excellent public relations as indicated
by:
o Knowledge of symmetrical model
o Knowledge of managerial role
o Academic training in public relations
o Professionalism
• Equal opportunity for men and women in public
relations26 MEYER
Organisational level • Worldview for public relations in the organisation
reflects the two-way-symmetrical model
• Public relations director has power in or with the
dominant coalition
• Participative, rather than authoritarian
organisational structure
• Turbulent, complex environment with pressure
from activist groups
The excellent theory remains normative when viewed through a modernist lens.
Its positions PR as a management function in which PR practitioners should aspire to
be part of the dominant coalition (implying a senior management structure). It holds
that PR practitioners follow two-way-symmetrical communication and that their role
is to achieve a mutual understanding between themselves and their publics. This
process-driven, linear view renders the excellence theory obsolete in the eyes of
postmodernists (Pieczka, 1996; Holtzhausen, 2008; Ströh, 2009). However, when
viewed from a metamodern perspective, the excellence theory could become a
creative negotiation between modernism and postmodernism.
3.2.3. The excellence theory from a metamodern worldview
As per the characteristics of the excellence theory, it follows that organisations
need a formal PR function to build, manage or sustain relationships with their
stakeholders. PR scholars agree and assert that “in the final instance it is the focus on
the practitioner who performs a formal communication function for an organisation
that sets the field of PR apart from other related ones, such as organisational
communication, mass communication and organisation theory” (Holtzhausen, 2002,
p.31). However, they also criticise this requirement of the excellence theory by
pointing out that PR practitioners cannot manage and control PR the way originally
understood by it, since “organisational actors have as much of an impact on PR as the
practitioners who are assigned to this task” (Holtzhausen, 2002, p.36).
The aforementioned views pave the way for contextualising the excellence theory
from a metamodern perspective.
Modernists believe that the principles of the excellence theory apply only to
professional PR departments and practitioners, whilst postmodernists argue that the
principles are outdated and not relevant in a postmodern world. A metamodernist, on
the other hand, would reason that ideally, organisations should make use of
professional PR practitioners executing the principles of the excellence theory, but
that organisations without professional PR practitioners could apply these principles
resulting in good, if not excellent, public relations programmes.ESSACHESS vol. 14, no. 1(27) / 2021 27
Modernists would use the press-agentry, publicity, asymmetrical two-way
communication and symmetrical two-way communication models whereas
postmodernists would focus on critical, chaos, contingency, promotional culture and
activist PR theories. A metamodernist believe that all these theories have relevance
and the application thereof should be dictated by individual and current issues.
Modernists would endeavour to reach consensus through symmetrical
communication, whilst postmodernists are comfortable with dissensus in symmetrical
communication. A metamodernist is content with both consensus and dissensus in
symmetrical communication and believes it could in fact lead to creative solutions.
Toth (2009) published a work with the title The Future of Excellence in Public
Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for the Next Generation, in
which numerous theorists illustrate how the excellence theory has advanced and
evolved over the years. Concepts such as collaborative advocacy, mediation, ethics,
activism, culture and relationship management are discussed within the context of the
excellence theory – indicating that what was originally perceived as a modernistic
theory, has evolved to something more postmodern and more importantly, to a theory
that could comfortably oscillate between modernism and postmodernism.
The ability to establish, build and maintain excellent relations with publics is truly
tested during times of crises. In this respect, some traits of metamodernism could
enable creative thinking and innovative PR solutions.
4. Crisis Management and Metamodernism
A number of traits render a metamodern perspective particularly effective in
dealing with difficult crises, or “wicked problems” as many scholars currently refer
to them. Rittel and Webber explained as early as 1973 that “wicked problems” are
difficult to describe, have many causes and cannot be resolved by traditional
approaches (Rittel & Webber, 1973). They are perceived as virtually impossible to
solve because of their complexity and interconnected nature and there is no a single
answer to them (Camillus, 2008).
Metamodern executives and PR practitioners are willing to try alternative
approaches with the understanding that they may not be able to solve wicked
problems, but in the hope that they could render them less savage. Certain
characteristics inherent to metamodernism make this an achievable goal.
4.1. A Generative Response to Crisis
Metamodernism is often described as “a romantic response to crisis” since it has
a generative response to tragedy (Abramson, 2015). Metamodernists are aware of the
current forms of chaos in society as much as everyone else, but approach it
optimistically and collaborate to reconstruct workable solutions. They cautiously
generate metanarratives as a practical response to a crisis, admitting at the same time28 MEYER
that these narratives are not universal or the only “truth” (Abramson, 2015). They
recognise that they have limited control over their destinies and share the postmodern
doubt about the sense of it all. However, that does not stop them from trying and they
choose to progress as if positive change is possible (Abramson, 2015). This response
has been evident during the Covind-19 pandemic during which governments and
organisations created new narratives - some very modernistic and governed by law -
in a response to the crisis, whilst openly admitting that they are not sure of the “truth”
of these narratives.
4.2. Collaboration
Metamodernism embraces both dialogue and dialectics with collaboration, even
between enemies, as the ultimate goal. This characteristic is particularly useful during
crisis management, since the need to resolve and survive the crisis is a point of
convergence for both parties, enabling collaboration. Thus we encounter seemingly
peculiar alliances (Abramson, 2015) such as the leader of the far-left African National
Congress party and the leader of the far-right Freedom Front Plus party in South
Africa collaborating effectively in finding solutions to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Protecting South Africans was more important than their respective, extreme political
and cultural perspectives.
4.3. Interdisciplinarity
Division and discipline came with modernism. Postmodernism questioned this and
introduced multidisciplinarity which kept the divisions, but accepted multiple
perspective as valid. Metamodernists are comfortable with multiple disciplines, but
have an interdisciplinarity perspective aimed at honest bridge-building among
different disciplines (Camplin, 2020). They are also comfortable in questioning the
validity of these disciplines. To this effect, metamodernists re-evaluate disciplines and
structures thoughtfully in responding to a crisis. They dismantle and rearrange parties,
departments, institutions, disciplines and similar demarcations, or even disband them,
in the interest of moving forward. This orientation toward crisis-response is not a
anarchistic opposition to structure, but an inferred acknowledgment that those
structures were most likely responsible for the crisis (Abramson, 2015).
Freeman, Martin & Parmar (2020) suggest in their book The power of AND:
Responsible business without trade-offs, an alternative business model to deal
effectively with crises. They propose that business models should create value for
stakeholders and shareholders, prioritise purpose and profits, see business embedded
in society and markets, to mention a few areas. Although they never refer to the term
metamodernism, it is encouraging to notice that they are in fact suggesting a
metamodern approach to business models. It would be equally heartening if theorists
could start developing similar future PR models.ESSACHESS vol. 14, no. 1(27) / 2021 29
5. The Future of Public Relations from a Metamodern Perspective
Humans are all a “little Victorian, Modern and Postmodern at once” (Hassan,
1985, p.121) and I have yet to come across a PR practitioner who has had the luxury
of practicing purely from a postmodern perspective. Decades of working in the PR
industry confirmed that most organisations and the majority of managers still operate
within a modernistic framework. Not acknowledging this, casts a dark cloud over the
efforts of PR practitioners in these organisations. One of two things happen – they
either comply with the modernistic tendencies in the organisation and all PR
initiatives reflect this, or they are in constant and exhausting conflict with
management because of their perceived rebelliousness and defiance (i.e. postmodern
framework). I propose that many PR practitioners intuitively follow a metamodern
framework. They comply with modernistic management’s desire for control, systems,
processes, structures, certainty, closure and “one way, one truth”, whilst
simultaneously dealing with chaos, uncertainty, diversity, lack of control, abuse of
power - in other words, everyday PR (L’Etang, 2007).
A metamodern perspective holds exciting possibilities for the future of PR. The
PR initiatives of a metamodern practitioner would include the use of modernistic,
normative PR theories (how things ought to be), which would provide a level of
comfort and security to management, whilst at the same time implementing positivist
(how things are) perspectives in a chaotic, uncertain, diverse and often out-of-control
environment.
Those who wish to truly teach and practice PR from a metamodern perspective,
might have to consider the following suggested changes.
5.1. In Tertiary Pedagogy
Include uncomplicated learning material on modernism, postmodernism and
metamodernism in undergraduate PR courses and link these concepts to tangible
examples. PR practitioners are unlikely to have philosophical discussions with
management teams, but this knowledge will enable them to understand their own
perspectives as well as those of their stakeholders. Learners should be equally
efficient in constructing, deconstructing and reconstructing PR metanarratives. They
should be able to not only question the underlying assumptions of both modernism
and postmodernism, but to provide a workable alternative. To this end, embrace
Kuhn’s (2008) communicate theory of the firm and accept that organisations do not
communicate, they are communication. Thus, insist on the inclusion of some basic
PR modules in the curricula of all business-related courses to create an understanding
of and a sensitivity towards the communication responsibilities of everyone in the
organisation.
5.2. In Business
Ditch macro-strategies in favour of daily strategic PR solutions. Designing macro-
PR-strategies when the nature of a problem is not clear, let alone the solution to it, is30 MEYER
counterproductive. Satisfy modernistic management’s need for normative PR
solutions and provide them with sound communication policies and processes, but
face wicked problems with an alternative mind-set. In practice this could mean the
initial development of a normative PR policy, a PR purpose or vision aligned to the
organisation’s vision, all supported by long-term PR goals. However, the PR strategy
would continuously evolve through collaboration with affected parties, driven by
current issues and stakeholders’ salience pertaining to those issues. PR practitioners
who have been operating in a predominantly modernistic framework, might struggle
with this paradigm shift and may have to acknowledge that their macro-strategies did
very little except to satisfy management’s desire for a strategic document.
5.3. In the PR Body of Knowledge
Establish a metamodern tertiary course and organisational function and rename it
Stakeholder Relations. End the debate on publics versus stakeholders and accept that
a stakeholder is “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the organisation’s objectives [purpose/mission]” (Freeman, Harrison,
Wicks, Parmar & De Colle, 2010, p.52). To this effect, regard the fauna and flora as
stakeholders.
The current terminology is confusing and public relations, communication
(management), stakeholder and public are often used interchangeably. Many
organisational corporate communication departments contain a public relations
and/or stakeholder relations sub-department. Several universities officially refer to
the course as Corporate Communications or Communications Science/Studies whilst
academics constantly use the colloquial term public relations. Both stakeholders and
publics, as well as public relations and communication management are used in The
Global Capability Framework for the Public Relations and Communication
Management Profession. The emphasis, I argue, is too much focused on the process
(management) or on the output type (communication) instead of the relationship with
all its fluidity, dynamism, complexity and, to a degree, lack of predictability. The
2021 Global PR and Communication Model report consistently refers to stakeholders
in-text, but uses both public relations and communication in its title (Global Alliance,
2021). Industry bodies like the Global Alliance could lead this change. Their remit
and organisation, as an association of associations with a strong academic and
research body, provide them with all the necessary connections.
Thus, establish stakeholder relations courses and organisational departments,
consisting of several disciplines, such as employee relations, media relations, investor
relations, community relations, government relations and consumer relations. Such a
function would reflect a metamodern perspective. Media relations could
predominantly be practiced from a modernistic perspective, aimed at a level of control
over media messages and the generation of positive publicity for the organisation,
whilst community relations would accept the postmodern inability to control,
participate in dialectic conversations and focus predominantly on collaboration.ESSACHESS vol. 14, no. 1(27) / 2021 31 Employee relations would reflect both paradigms with its inherent processes, policies and structures, as well as collaboration and often lack of control. Reflections and Conclusion The divergent views of PR practitioners and scholars confirm that there is no agreed worldview, but rather multiple PR perspectives. Metamodernism is not intended as yet another grand narrative, but offers the possibility for the various worldviews to co-exist productively. Dember (2020) expresses it succinctly when he states that “metamodernism creates a space that allows for belief in grand narratives, but does not require belief in any particular grand narrative. Or indeed any grand narrative at all. In any case, metamodernism, itself, is not a grand narrative”. A metamodern approach is not better than modernism or postmodernism. It is simply a different worldview which may be more effective (for now) in answering questions and solving problems. Viewed through the lens of metamodernism, the harsh reality of modernism and the seemingly unfocussed perspective of postmodernism, soften into a milder worldview – a view comfortable with the simplicity of modernistic PR theories and approaches in a complex and postmodern environment. Having practiced PR in a country crippled by inequality, unemployment, crime and corruption, I have often been the postmodern voice of an organisation and an activist against injustice and the abuse of power. However, I have equally often been at the mercy of modernistic management teams who insisted on normative and functionalist PR strategies. Dancing to the tune of either of these two extreme perspectives became exhausting and counterproductive. I realised the possibilities of another perspective, one in which modernistic and postmodernistic perspectives were (mostly) in harmony with one another. Only to discover it already had a name – metamodernism. Funding and Acknowledgements There is no funding for this research. References Abramson, S. (2015). Five more principles of metamodernism. Retrieved 14 May 2021 from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/five-more-basic-principle_b_7269446. Abramson, S. (2015). Ten basic principles of metamodernism. Retrieved 20 January 2021 from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ten-key-principles-in-met_b_7143202. Abramson, S. (2018). On metamodernism. Retrieved 11 May 2021, from https://medium.com/@Seth_Abramson/on-metamodernism-926fdc55bd6a. Anderson, L. R. (2019). Metamodernity. Meaning and hope in a complex world. Denmark: Nordic Bildung.
32 MEYER
Borgman, A. (1992). The postmodern economy. In S. H. Cutcliffe, S. L. Goldman, M Medina
& J. Sanmartín (Eds). New Worlds, New Technologies, New Issues. London: Associated
University Presses.
Bowers, J. H. & Courtright, J.A. (1984). Communication research methods. Glenview: Scott,
Foresman and Company.
Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review. 86(5), 98–
101.
Camplin, T. (2020). The metamodern synthesis. Retrieved on 15 May 2021, from
https://medium.com/conscious-paradoxalism/the-metamodern-synthesis-7783a2187e36.
Cao, Q. (2012). Modernity and media portrayals of China. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication. 22(1), 1-21.
Cronin, A. M. (2018). Public relations capitalism: promotional culture, publics and
commercial democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Curtin, P. & Gaither, T. K. (2005). Privileging identity, difference and power: the circuit of
culture as a basis for public relations theory. Journal of Public Relations Research. 17(2),
(91–115).
CIPR, (2021), About PR. Retrieved on 19 May 2021, from
https://www.cipr.co.uk/CIPR/About_Us/About_PR.aspx?WebsiteKey=0379ffac-bc76-
433c-9a94-56a04331bf64.
Dahnke, G. L. & Clatterbuck, G. W. (1990). Human communication theory and research.
Belmont: Wadsworth.
Davis, A. (2013). Promotional cultures: the rise and spread of advertising, public relations,
marketing and branding. Cambridge; Malden: Polity.
Dember, G. (2020). Metamodernism and the structure of feeling. Retrieved 11 May 2021, from
https://thesideview.co/journal/what-is-metamodernism-and-why-does-it-matter/.
Duffy, M. E. (2000). There’s no two-way symmetric about it: A postmodern examination of
public relations textbooks. Critical Studies in Media Communication. 17(3), 294-315.
Dumitrescu, A. (2014). Towards a metamodern literature. Unpublished Doctorate thesis. New
Zealand: University of Otago.
Epstein, M. (1998). The Place of postmodernism in postmodernity. In M. Epstein (Ed). Russian
Postmodernism: New Perspectives on Late Soviet and Post-Soviet Culture. Oxford:
Berghahn Books.
Fawkes, J. (2018). The evolution of public relations research – an overview. Communication
& Society. 31(4), 159-171.
Faye, J. (2012). After postmodernism. A naturalistic reconstruction of the humanities.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L. & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder
theory. The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.ESSACHESS vol. 14, no. 1(27) / 2021 33
Freeman, R. E., Martin, K. E. & Parmar, B. L. (2020). The power of AND: Responsible business
without trade-offs. New York: Columbia University Press.
Furlani, A. (2002). Postmodern and after: Guy Davenport. Contemporary Literature. 43 (4),
713.
Furlani, A. (2007). Guy Davenport: Postmodernism and after. Illinois: Northwestern
University Press.
Gans, E. (2000) Chronicles of love and resentment. The post-millennial age. Retrieved on 9
May 2021, from http://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/vw209/.
Global Alliance (2021). Global Capability Framework for the Public Relations and
Communication Management Profession. Retrieved 14 May 2021, from
https://www.globalalliancepr.org/capabilitiesframeworks.
Global Alliance. (2021). 2021 The Global PR and Communication Model. Retrieved 14 May
2021, from https://www.globalalliancepr.org/2021-the-global-pr-and-communication-
model.
González, J. L. (1996). Metamodern aliens in postmodern Jerusalem. In A. M. Isasi-Diaz & F.
F. Segovia (Eds). Hispanic/Latino Theology: Challenge and Promise. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.
Gooding-Williams, R. 1987. Nietzsche’s pursuit of modernism. New German Critique.
41(Spring/Summer), 95-108.
Grønntun, L. E. (2019). Innovating the future of public relations. Retrieved 20 November 2020
from https://www.hkstrategies.com/en/innovating-the-future-of-public-relations/.
Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: past, present and future. In R. L.
Heath & G. Vasquez (Eds). Handbook of Public Relations. (11-31). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective
organisations. A study of communication management in three countries. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hassan, I. (1985). The culture of postmodernism. Theory, Culture & Society. 2(3), 119-131.
Holtzhausen, D. R. (2002). A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice.
Communicatio. 28(1), 29-38.
Holtzhausen, D. R. (2008). Towards an integrated model of Communication; the case of South
Africa. Paper submitted to the Public Relations Division of the International
Communication Association, Washington.
IPRA. (2019). A new definition of public relations. Retrieved on 19 May 2021, from
https://www.ipra.org/member-services/pr-
definition/#:~:text=A%20new%20definition%20of%20public%20relations&text=The%2
0definition%20reads%3A,trusted%20and%20ethical%20communication%20methods.
Irvine, M. (2014). Approaches to Po-Mo. Retrieved 16 September 2015 from
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/pomo.html.
Jencks, C. (1992). The post-modern reader. New York: St Martin's Press.34 MEYER
Jencks, C. (2007). Critical modernism: Where is post-modernism going? What is Post-
modernism? New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.
Jencks, C. (2012). Notes on the complexities of post-modernism. The Fortnightly Review.
Retrieved on 30 August 2015, from http://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/2012/01/notes-post-
modernism/.
Kadagishvili, D. (2013). Metamodernism as we perceive it. European Scientific Journal.
2(December), 559-565.
Kast, F. E. & Rosenzeig, J. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organisation and
management. Academy of Management Journal. 15(4), 447-465.
Kirby, A. (2006). The death of postmodernism and beyond. Philosophy Now. 58(Nov/Dec), 34-
37.
Kuhn, T. (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective
on Intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies. 29(8-
9), 227-1254.
L’Etang, J. (2007). Public relations concepts, practice and critique. Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
Lash, S. (1993). Reflexive modernization: The aesthetic dimension. Theory, Culture and
Society. 10(1), 1-23.
Lasn, K. & Grierson, B. (2000). A malignant sadness. Adbusters. 30(June), 38-49.
Littlejohn, S. W. (2002). Theories of human communication. 7th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Ludford, S. (2021). Against metamodernism. Retrieved 13 May 2021, from
https://samuelludford.medium.com/against-metamodernism-51be3cbbe751 on 13 May
2021.
Madden, S., Brown, K., & Xu, S. (2019). Empowering the future practitioner: Postmodernism
in the undergraduate public relations classroom. Journal of Public Relations Educatio. 5(2),
105-131.
Meyer, I. (2017). A metamodern stakeholder relationship management model for non-profit
organisations. Unpublished Master’s dissertation. University of South Africa: Pretoria.
Meyer, I & Barker, R, (2020). A metamodern model for managing stakeholder relationships in
non-profit organisations. Communicare. 39(1), 57- 79.
Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and
asymmetric public relations. In L. A. Grunig & J. E. Grunig (Eds). Public Relations
Research Annual Volume 3 (115-131). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parkinson, M. (2001). The PRSA Code of Professional Standards and Member Code of Ethics:
why they are neither professional nor ethical. Public Relations Quarterly. 46(3), 27-31.
Pieczka, M. (1996). Paradigms, systems theory and public relations. In L. L’Etang & M.
Pieczka (Eds). Critical perspectives in public relations (124-156). London: International
Thomson.ESSACHESS vol. 14, no. 1(27) / 2021 35
Plowman, K. D. (2009). Public relations, conflict resolution and mediation. In E .L. Toth (Ed).
The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management.
Challenges for the Next Generation (85-102). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
PRCA. (2021). Introduction to public relations. Retrieved on 19 May 2021, from
https://www.prca.ie/introduction-to-public-relations/.
PRISA. (2021). About public relations. Retrieved on 19 May 2021, from
https://www.prisa.co.za/
PRSA. (2021). About public relations. Retrieved on 19 May 2021, from
https://www.prsa.org/about.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber. M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences. 4, 155-169.
Schulte-Sasse, J. (1987). Modernity and modernism. Postmodernity and postmodernism:
Framing the issue. Cultural Critique. 5(Winter), 5-22.
Seymour, C. G. (2011). A place for the premodern: A review of modern and postmodern
intimate interpersonal communication frames. The Review of Communication. 11(4), 286-
309.
Stewart, J. (1991). A postmodern look at traditional communication postulates. Western
Journal of Speech Communication. 55(Fall), 354-379.
Ströh, U. M. (2009). An alternative postmodern approach to corporate communication strategy.
In E. L. Toth (Ed). The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management. Challenges for the Next Generation (119-220). London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Thurlow, A., Sévigny, A. S. & Dottori, M. (2018). Global capabilities in public relations. Public
Relations Journal. 11(3), 1-25.
Toth, E. L (Ed.) (2009). The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management. Challenges for the Next Generation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Turner, L. (2015). Modernism: A brief introduction. Retrieved 13 May 2021, from
http://www.metamodernism.com/2015/01/12/metamodernism-a-brief-introduction/.
Turner, T. (1995). City as Landscape: A post post-modern view of design and planning. Taylor
& Francis: London.
Vermeulen, T. & Van den Akker, R. (2010). Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics
and Culture. 2, 1-14.
Vermeulen, T. & Van den Akker, R. (2015). Misunderstandings and clarifications. Retrieved
24 September 2015, from
http://www.metamodernism.com/2015/06/03/misunderstandings-and-clarifications/.
Wallace, D.F. (1996). Infinite Jest. London: Little, Brown Book Group.
Warf, B. (1993). Postmodernism and the localities debates: Ontological questions and
epistemological implications. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie. 84(3),
162-168.36 MEYER Woods, T. (1999). Beginning postmodernism. New York: St Martin’s Press. Zavarzadeh, M. (1975). The apocalyptic fact and the eclipse of fiction in recent American prose narratives. Journal of American Studies. 9(1), 69-83.
You can also read
