Seeking legitimacy in a post truth world: Can Positioning Theory provide insights for Public Relations?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•73 views
Power and legitimacy are the bedrock on which public relations strategy is inextricably linked, even if this connection is not always observable or theorised as such. In public relations positioning, the social rights of an entity such as a company, organization, activist group, or individual are determined by the society/ies within which it operates. These socially deemed rights to operate and act equate with an entity’s power to position itself, or to assign positions to others. From a Positioning Theory perspective, to position legitimately requires entities to act in ways that align with the local moral order, that is, the cluster of collectively located beliefs about what it is right and good to do and say. There are significant differences in the range of public relations positioning actions an entity could take if they were acting in a vacuum, that is what is logically possible, and those which can be undertaken when the social context of actions is duly considered. When the social context is taken into account, the repertoire of public relations positioning actions that an entity could legitimately perform is much narrower, and it is this that separates a positioning theory approach to the analysis of power and legitimacy, from other similar approaches.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (9)
Similar to Seeking legitimacy in a post truth world: Can Positioning Theory provide insights for Public Relations?
Similar to Seeking legitimacy in a post truth world: Can Positioning Theory provide insights for Public Relations? (20)
More from Dr. Deborah Wise
More from Dr. Deborah Wise (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Seeking legitimacy in a post truth world: Can Positioning Theory provide insights for Public Relations?
- 1. Seeking legitimacy in a post-truth world: Can PositioningTheory provide insights for Public Relations? Dr. DeborahWise University of Newcastle Deborah.Wise@newcastle.edu.au
- 2. “Most public relations literature focuseson practices and techniques rather than onthe ultimate objective ofthe activities that is, obtaining and preserving legitimacy” (Wæraas, 2018). “Public relations is the instrument by which organisations gain legitimacy” (Merkelsen, 2011, p. 138). “Establishing and maintaining organizational legitimacy is at the core of most, if not all, public relations activities” (Metzler, 2001, p. 321). “The basis for legitimacy is found in the beliefs of the general public and…successful legitimation results from influencing those beliefs” (Wæraas, 2018, p. 32) Cultivating beliefs’ requires PR “activities and communication that respects the limits of what constituents find acceptable” (Wæraas, 2018, p. 32).
- 3. Positioning theory approaches to legitimacy In positioning theory, legitimacy relates to the rights and duties of an entity to take a particular position within the local moral order/s in which the positioning act is taking place. To position legitimately requires entities to act in ways that align with the local moral order, that is, the “cluster of collectively located beliefs about what it is right and good to do and say” (Moghaddam & Harré, 2010, p. 10). “Looked at in terms of what is logically and what is socially possible, a position can be looked at as a loose set of rights that limit the possibilities for action” (Harré & Moghaddam, 2003, p. 5) and/or from which possibilities for action originate.
- 4. Public Relations positioning In public relations positioning, the rights & duties of an entity such as a company, organization, activist group, or individual are determined by the society/ies within which it operates. These socially deemed rights to operate and act equate with an entity’s power to position itself, or to assign positions to others. There are ‘possible’ public relations positioning actions that might go against the local moral order e.g. The use of shock tactics to successfully gain attention of media outlets and the wider audience. However, this is a high risk positioning path that may lead to being condemned as obscene, out of step, or lacking humanity, with a resultant loss of legitimacy.
- 5. The case study Positioning analysis of 22 political speeches delivered in 2011 by former Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and former leader of the Opposition,Tony Abbott, that specifically discussed a carbon price/tax.
- 6. Positioning Theory Analysis Underpinned by framework consisting of a mutually determining triad of position, speech acts & storylines. “Explicit attention to the role of rights and duties in the management of action. People are positioned or position themselves with respect to rights and duties to act within evolving story-lines” (Harré, Moghaddam, Cairnie, Rothbart & Sabat, 2009) and local moral orders. Smudde and Courtright’s (2010) three dimensions of power in PR: hierarchical, rhetorical and social power.
- 7. Findings: Hierarchal Power As PM and Opposition Leader both held highest roles in the political hierarchy, thereby giving them particular hierarchal rights (power) & duties associated with these roles Abbott’s positioning strategy was to deligitimise Gillard’s role as PM by attacking her hierarchal power (i.e. her rights and duties in her role as PM). This negated her rights in terms of introducing a carbon price, and ultimately her right to be the PM Abbott’s strategy more effectively exercised his hierarchal power.
- 8. Findings: Rhetorical Power (Abbott) Rhetorical power played a key part in legitimising Abbott’s positioning of himself/his party as the better government He drew on the rhetoric that positioned him as ‘a man of the people’, a father, a husband and someone in touch with ‘everyday values’ who was across the concerns of the strata of Australian society. He also drew on business rhetoric to position himself and his political party as being the better economic managers. Consistent rhetorical narratives customised for particular audiences.
- 9. Findings: Rhetorical Power (Gillard) Gillard used highly structured political rhetoric that detailed the workings of a carbon price and how this would impact various stakeholders and the general public. She articulated a long-term vision for a ‘clean energy future’ forAustralia using abstract rhetoric. Significantly she was unable to use the rhetoric of the ‘everyday woman’.This was because she was seen as ‘less than typical’ in that for a woman around 50 years of age, she had never married, and was childless.
- 10. Findings: Social Power The social dimension of power “relies on people conferring on other people certain ‘powerful attributes’” (Smudde & Courtright, 2010, p. 180) and binds together the hierarchical and rhetorical dimensions. Abbott successfully positioned Gillard by conferring on her the attributes of being a liar and being untrustworthy.This contributed to a legitimacy- deficit forGillard that was a significant factor in her inability to successfully prosecute the case for pricing carbon emissions.
- 11. Discussion Each of Smudde & Courtright’s (2010) three dimensions of power in PR i.e. hierarchical, rhetorical and social power play a part in constructing an entity’s right to position, and to the social construction of perceptions of legitimacy according to the local moral orders in operation.
- 12. Discussion If the assigned position is considered to be inauthentic, for example a dishonest claim that a right or duty exists, this enables the entity to call into question the legitimacy of the positioning actor (Harré et al, 2009). Gillard’s commitment (made prior to the 2010 Federal election) that she would not introduce a carbon tax (and her subsequent introduction of a carbon price was perceived by manyAustralians as being inauthentic. Abbott then had the right to position Gillard as lacking legitimacy and thus her right (power) to introduce a carbon pricing policy and her right to hold the Prime Ministership.
- 13. Discussion There are significant differences in what public relations positioning actions an entity could take if they were acting in a vacuum, that is what is logically possible, and those which can be undertaken when the social context and the prevailing moral orders of actions is considered. When the social context are taken into account, the repertoire of public relations positioning actions that an entity could legitimately perform is much narrower. In public relations positioning, an entity’s rights equate with its power to position, or to assign positions to others. If one doesn’t have the right, or doesn’t construct the right to position, it is clear that one lacks positioning power.
- 14. Conclusion Through the application of PositioningTheory, the authenticity of positions can be examined, which relates to the way the intertwined concepts of legitimacy and power are exercised in public relations. Applying PT to public relations positioning demonstrates that adopting a particular position implicitly limits what is logically possible for an entity to say, and the appropriate repertoire of actions available to them in a certain moment in a certain context. Applying the concept of rights, duties and obligations teases out the dynamism of power-plays in social interactions, and shows how legitimacy is constructed/deconstructed in particular moments in time.
Editor's Notes
- When this study commenced the primary assumption I made was that the speech transcripts were discursive debates about the introduction of a carbon price/tax. However, it became clear that they were about much more. People, political parties, political leaders and nations were being positioned in the exercise of power. Underpinning this were the mutual attempts by both sides to legitimise their own positions and to deligitimise the position of their opponent.
- Most public relations literature focuses on practices and techniques rather than on the ultimate objective of the activities that is, obtaining and preserving legitimacy. ‘ Cultivating beliefs’ requires PR “activities and communication that respects the limits of what constituents find acceptable” (Wæraas, 2018, p. 32).
- The range between the possible actions and the appropriate actions to be taken can be fuzzy. There are ‘possible’ public relations positioning actions that might go against the local moral order that use shock tactics or similar to successfully gain attention of media outlets and the wider audience. However, this is a high risk positioning path and may lead to one’s organization being condemned as obscene, out of step, or lacking humanity, for example.
- as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, Gillard and Abbott, held the highest roles in Australia in terms of the political hierarchy. These roles gave both political leaders the right (i.e. the power) to take and assign positions. From a Positioning Theory perspective, these roles also brought to the fore the duties associated with their hierarchical power. The duties brought forward are those that are ‘owed’ to those who have bestowed hierarchical power to these two roles. In this case, it included the leaders’ own political parties, the stakeholders that fund or otherwise support the parties (e.g. individual businesses, unions and industry and other lobbyists), together with the voting public of Australia. These entities specifically influenced and shaped the construction of the macro-level local moral order in which the carbon price/tax debate occurred. (Abbott) positioning was more successful than the Prime Minister's (Gillard). Abbott effectively delegitimised Gillard in her role as Prime Minister by attacking her hierarchical power, which then negated her right to take a position on a carbon price. On examination of the specific local moral orders in which both were operating, Abbott, more effectively exercised his rights that came with his high political office. He better fulfilled his duties from a hierarchical power perspective to those who facilitated his rise to that role.
- These factors suggest that the dimension of hierarchical power be included in any future iteration of James’ Framework because it will assist in designing how such power could be used (or abused) in strategy design, as well as in guiding the analysis of how hierarchical power is wielded or withheld in public relations contexts. Investigating how, within the local moral orders that are operating, hierarchical power can contribute or detract from an entity’s legitimacy will contribute to the successful design of positioning strategies. At this time there is little practical guidance on how legitimacy can be constructed and integrated into public relations strategy. In addition to hierarchical power, rhetorical power played a key part in legitimising Abbott’s anti-carbon tax position, and concurrently positioned himself and his party as a better alternative for Australia. He stated, “our task as members of the Liberal and National parties is to give Australia the better government that a great people deserve” (Abbott, 2011, c). His rhetoric resonated and aligned with his supporters that included Australia’s largest industry lobby, the coal and minerals industry, and the most powerful sections of Australia’s media. In Positioning Theory, a 276 position is defined as a cluster of rights and duties from which possibilities for action originate. In fulfilling the duty he had to his supporters, Abbott then had the right to make an array of assertions relating to the tax, the Prime Minister, and Australia in a globalised context. Abbott’s rhetorical strategy aligned with the local moral order within which he and his supporters operated. He was astute in the use of consistent rhetorical narratives that he then customised for the particular audiences he was addressing. He firstly drew on the rhetoric that positioned him as ‘a man of the people’, a father, a husband and someone in touch with ‘everyday values’ who was across the concerns of the strata of Australian society. Secondly he drew on business rhetoric to position himself and his political party as being the better economic managers.
- In contrast, Gillard’s speeches showed a tendency to use highly structured political rhetoric that detailed the workings of a carbon price and how this would primarily impact stakeholders and the general public. She articulated a long-term vision for a ‘clean energy future’ for Australia using abstract rhetoric. As Gillard’s positioning efforts progressed, inconsistencies in the rhetorical choices made by her, or possibly her public relations advisors, did not draw effectively on rhetorical power to persuade, engage and influence. Significantly she was unable to use the rhetoric of the ‘everyday woman’. This was because she was seen as ‘less than typical’ in that for a woman around 50 years of age, she had never married, and was childless. From a rhetorical power perspective this closed off many narratives that were open to Abbott, narratives that legitimised his position as a future leader who was more in touch with the needs and concerns of ‘everyday’ Australians. Although outside of the scope of this thesis project, gender was an issue in the positioning of the leaders and future research is needed to determine to what degree this contributed to the leaders’ rhetorical power. My research has contributed to understanding how, within public relations, rhetorical power is specifically exercised, an area in which 277 research is not plentiful (Smudde & Courtright, 2010). It reinforces my finding that an object or ‘thing’ cannot position itself, as the ability to exercise rhetorical power is directly related to human agency. Wielding rhetorical power in a public relations sense centres on choice (Smudde & Courtright, 2010). It can be seen that the choices made by those practitioners advising on, or writing, the actual speeches in my research sample have contributed to the success or otherwise of the positioning strategies. Rhetorical power both informs the design of public relations strategies and is a factor in identifying concepts that contribute to the legitimacy that underpins positioning. This suggests that the dimension of rhetorical power must be included in any future iteration of James’ Framework. The final dimension considered in determining an entity's positioning power, is that of social power. My research confirms the assertion of Smudde and Courtright (2010) that the social dimension of power binds together the hierarchical and rhetorical dimensions. The social dimension of power “relies on people conferring on other people certain ‘powerful attributes’” (Smudde & Courtright, 2010, p. 180). My findings showed that Abbott successfully positioned Gillard by conferring on her the attributes of being a liar and being untrustworthy. This contributed to a legitimacy- deficit for Gillard that was a significant factor in her inability to successfully prosecute the case for pricing carbon. Abbott’s positioning strategy held throughout the case study period and was key to undermining Gillard’s legitimacy as a Prime Minister with the rights or duty to introduce a carbon price. Indeed it undermined her very right to the Prime Ministership itself, i.e. by denying her the right to hierarchical power. In doing so, Abbott elevated his own social power, as by positioning Gillard this way, it was implicit that he was positioning himself as honest and trustworthy. This subsequently continued to build his hierarchical power throughout the case study period, i.e. the right to a 278 future Prime Ministership, and with that his right to wield rhetorical power. My research confirms that, as stated by Smudde and Courtright (2010), all three dimensions of power occur simultaneously. It further confirms James’ (2014) assertion that the mix of what types of power are being exercised, and to what degree this is occurring, may differ depending on a number of factors that include the different stages of the situation and the emphasis on which dimension of power is taking precedence (James, 2014). Abbott was more successful in wielding each of the three dimensions of power in his positioning strategies, with evidence throughout the speeches indicating times when he privileged social power, for example, over hierarchical power. Gillard on the other hand largely relied on wielding hierarchical power and did not fully utilise the other dimensions, especially social power. Although the narratives of the ‘everyday woman’ were not available to Gillard, there was little evidence that she tried to enact social power using other narratives. This omission undermined the legitimacy of her argument/key messages for supporting a carbon price, and may have been a contributing factor to her losing the Prime Ministership of Australia. This result was not just unfortunate for Julia Gillard, but has had huge implications for Australia in terms of lack of action on climate change and the ‘dumbing down’ of public debate on the issue. Australia’s carbon emissions are increasing and there is little in the way of policy direction to reverse this trend. The world watched in 2012 as Australia became the first country to remove its carbon pricing legislation. This has since worked to legitimise other countries not taking climate change action and has negatively impacted the global effort to address anthropogenic global warming. This state of affairs emphasises the role that public relations plays in constructing climate change discourses and demonstrates how the wielding of positioning power can shape the very future of the planet.
- The final dimension considered in determining an entity's positioning power, is that of social power. My research confirms the assertion of Smudde and Courtright (2010) that the social dimension of power binds together the hierarchical and rhetorical dimensions. The social dimension of power “relies on people conferring on other people certain ‘powerful attributes’” (Smudde & Courtright, 2010, p. 180). My findings showed that Abbott successfully positioned Gillard by conferring on her the attributes of being a liar and being untrustworthy. This contributed to a legitimacy- deficit for Gillard that was a significant factor in her inability to successfully prosecute the case for pricing carbon.
- If the assigned position is considered to be inauthentic, for example a dishonest claim that a right or duty exists, this enables the entity to call into question the legitimacy of the positioning actor (Harré et al, 2009). In terms of this study, Gillard’s commitment made prior to the 2010 Federal election that she would not introduce a carbon tax (my italics), and her subsequent proposal post-election of a carbon price (my italics) was perceived by many Australians as being inauthentic. This then gave Abbott the right to question Gillard’s legitimacy and thus not only her right (power) to introduce such a policy but more significantly her right to hold the Prime Ministership. In identifying this in my research I have made another original contribution to the public relations positioning body of knowledge; I have shown that through the application of Positioning Theory the authenticity of positions can be examined, which relates to the way the intertwined concepts of legitimacy and 255 power are exercised in public relations.