Odnosi s javnošću kao usmeravanje komunikacija sa grupama i zajednicama

Abstract

Cilj istraživanja je da ponudi koncept evropske makrokomunikološke teorije o odnosima s javnošću, inspirisane komunikološkim aspektima opšte teorije društvenih sistema Niklasa Lumana, i to kao potencijalni kontradiskurs dominantnoj PR paradigmi Džejmsa Gruniga. Perspektivi mikro-nivoa organizacije i menadžmenta (četiri modela PR, teorija posebnog doprinosa, situaciona teorija javnosti) suprotstavićemo rakurs makro-nivoa, komunikološke i sociološke provenijencije. Niklasa Lumana već smo analizirali i predstavili kao komunikologa (Labudović, 2009). U ovom istraživanju smo pojedine njegove teze i zaključke izveli na opšti princip komunikologije, pa ih potom, adaptirane, teorijski primenili u nacrtu teorije. Druge smo odbacili kao sporne ili neprimenljive u komunikologiji. Operativno-konstrukcionistička i funkcionalno-strukturalna Lumanova teorija, kao prevashodno sociološka, nije u potpunosti zadovoljila naše komunikološke kriterijume. Tamo gde nam (kritikovani, izmenjeni i dopunjeni) Luman nije poslužio kao adekvatan ili sasvim precizan izvor, obratili smo se opservatoru njegove naučne slepe tačke – Jirgenu Habermasu. Uveli smo u teoriju i Fišerovu narativnu paradigmu, koja dokazuje to da skladnost priče i njena verodostojnost nisu uvek racionalno utemeljene. Taj stav potkrepili smo poslednjim dokazima neuronauke (Gazaniga, Mlodinov), koji ne ostavljaju mnogo manevarskog prostora prosvetiteljskim apoteozama racionalnom umu. Selektovali smo formu distinkcije za promatranje modernog komunikacionog društva: ekskluzivno/inkluzivno komuniciranje. Tom razlikom dospeli smo do globalnih komunikacionih celina koje čine društvo (ekskluzivni komunikacioni domeni i inkluzivna komunikaciona mreža) i time formatirali komunikološku makro-sliku društva. Interpretirali smo Lumanov pristup evoluciji društva u komunikološkom ključu, uvodeći formu distinkcije stvarnost/operativna stvarnost, i time došli do semantike sutra-društva kao pomoćnog epistemološkog alata. Analizom ekskluzivnih komunikacionih domena i inkluzivne, narativne logike mreže, opisali smo karakteristike modernog društva. Iz te makro-slike izveli smo metod (pregovaranje i usaglašavanje), funkciju (konverzija binarne logike domena u narativnu logiku mreže i obrnuto) i efekat (sinhronizacija očekivanja, utisak pouzdanosti i zasluživanje legitimiteta) odnosa s javnošću u savremenom društvu. Organizacije jesu i sve više će biti ključni komunikatori društva, a mi smo ih makrokomunikološki sagledali, opažajući socijalne funkcije koje Grunig nije video iz mikro-perspektive. Odnosi s javnošću, fenomenološki i sociokibernetski promatrano, po nama su program usmeravanja komunikacija sa grupama i zajednicama, odnosno konvertor binarnog koda Lumanovih sistema u narativnu logiku inkluzivne mreže ljudskih interakcija (i obrnuto). Analizirajući genealogiju dominantne paradigme (koju Holmstrom posredno pojačava svojom „refleksivnom paradigmom“ i neadekvatnim tumačenjem Lumanovog opusa), uočili smo to da postoji tačka diskontinuiteta i prekida, koja se pojavljuje sedamdesetih godina prošlog veka: posle protesta i pobune organizacija građanskog društva, broj PR agencija u kratkom roku se ubrzano multiplikuje, a značaj profesije u velikom je porastu; rađa se strateška oblast PR issue management; primećuje se i pojava ozbiljnijih naučnih opservacija. Po nama, a za to smo izneli odgovarajuće argumente, tada nastaje PR u pravom smislu te reči. Na više mesta u istraživanju obrazložili smo značaj potrebe da se nauka semantikom i razlikama odvoji od terminologije struke i veštine, jer u suprotnom neće doći do zadovoljavajućih iskaza i hipoteza. Ukazivali smo i na činjenicu da je propaganda svojevremeno „zaogrnuta i maskirana“ izrazom odnosi s javnošću (novim brendom starog metoda), da bi posle pola veka i realno izrodila novi metod javnog komuniciranja – konverzaciju s grupama i zajednicama. Analizirali smo definiciju komuniciranja i ustanovili da se, tokom konverzacije, nad razumevanjem i pripisivanjem smisla kod ega ne može garantovati uspostavljanje nadzora i kontrole, te da je reč management u tom smislu neadekvatna (što i Vemajer dokazuje). Primetili smo to da razumevanje nije efekat odnosa s javnošću, jer razumeti ne znači usaglasiti se. Odbacili smo neadekvatni izraz harmonija i uveli temporalizovani oblik: sinhronizacija očekivanja. Kao konvertor binarnog koda domena u narativnu logiku mreže (i obrnuto), PR ima suštinski važnu funkciju temporalnog usklađivanja obećanja, predviđanja i najava domena sa očekivanjima mreže. Ako danas živimo u društvu koje je neprestano izloženo propagandi, a nijedna agencija za „upravljanje komuniciranjem“ ne izjašnjava se kao agencija za propagandu, onda je suštinski važno da komunikologija formira jasnu distinkciju između propagande i odnosa s javnošću. Propagiranje je legitimni metod komuniciranja. Komunikacija je izrasla pre iz kompetitivnih, nego iz kooperativnih razloga: po pravilu bi trebalo češće da očekujemo manipulaciju nego preciznu informaciju. Proučavanje PR danas je uglavnom ili apologetskozastupničko ili normativno-kritičko, upravo zbog činjenice da se ne pravi razlika između propagande i odnosa s javnošću. Danas je malo javnih komevenata koji suštinski predstavljaju PR, ali baš zato te komunikacione činove valja izdvojiti i posebno proučavati: svaka konverzacija i svako usaglašavanje u društvu dragoceno je. Pri tome ne bi trebalo da nam smeta prisustvo tehnika persuazije u naraciji odnosa s javnošću, jer je persuazija legitimna i verovatno najstarija funkcija komunikacije. Bez tih tehnika se retko komunicira i koristiće je obe strane u pregovorima, kad god to mogu. U istraživanju smo koristili istorijsku metodu istražujući strukturiranje znanja o odnosima s javnošću u tačno lociranom i ograničenom istorijskom razdoblju (rekonstruisali smo uslove nastanka dominantnog diskursa o PR), genealoški ukazujući na diskontiuitet, kao i na to da je vladajuća paradigma čvrsto vezana za sistem moći. Analizirajući potencijalne izvore evropske PR paradigme, služili smo se komparativno-teorijskom i deskriptivno-analitičkom metodom. U pokušaju da ponudimo koncept makrokomunikološke teorije, rukovodili smo se pre svega diskurzivno-analitičkom strategijom Niklasa Lumana, zasnovanoj na tome da opservacije posmatra kao operacije koje ne upućuju na svesne subjekte nego na razlike. Zato u našem nacrtu teorije nema mnogo mesta za klasičnu ontologiju i epistemologiju tradicionalnog, pozitivističkog tipa. U skladu sa zakonima forme Spenser Brauna, nema objekta kojeg valja saznati: promatraju se – promatranja. Ako je informacija razlika koja stvara razliku, onda je svet sazdan na distinkcijama i indikacijama. Metodom studije slučaja, na primeru primene elemenata jedne izborne kampanje, razdvojili smo i raščlanili oba metoda komuniciranja, kao i programa usmeravanja komunikacija između organizacije ekskluzivnog domena politike i grupa i zajednica u biračkom telu. Uvideli smo da su u sferi političkog domena i propaganda i odnosi s javnošću neophodni za uspešno usmeravanje komunikacija i dobar izborni rezultat.

The aim of the research has been to juxtapose the PR paradigm of James Grunig (Four models of PR, the Excellence theory and the Situational theory), from the micro-level perspective of organization, with the framework of macrocommunication theory of public relations, first and foremost inspired by the communicative aspects of the general theory of social systems of Niklas Luhmann. Luhmann has already been presented as a communicologist (Labudovic, 2009). In this study we have concluded some of his theses on the grounds of general communication study, and then, adapted, we theoretically applied in the framework theory. The other theses we have dismissed, as debatable or nonapplicable in communication studies. Operative constructivism and functionally-structural Luhmann’s theory, as a primarily sociological one, has not completely met our communicative criteria. Where (reviewed, changed and supplemented) Luhmann did not serve as a model of an adequate or absolutely precise source, we turned to the observer of his scientific blind spot – Jürgen Habermas. We have introduced the Fisher’s Narrative paradigm into the theory, which proves that the coherence of the story and its fidelity are not always rationally founded. This position has been supported by the latest confirmation of neuroscience (Gazzaniga, Mlodinow), who do not leave much maneuvering space of enlightening apotheosis to the rational mind. We have selected the observation distinction form for a modern communicational society: exclusive/inclusive communication. This difference has brought us the distinction of global communicational units that society is made of (exclusive communicative domains and inclusive communicative network) and as such we formed a communication macro-image of the society. We interpreted the Luhmann’s approach to society evolution in the communication studies key, introducing the distinction form of reality/ operative reality, and thus reached the semantics of tomorrow-society as a supplementary epistemological tool. By analyzing the exclusive communicative domains and inclusive, narrative logic of network, we have described the characteristics of a modern society. We derived a method (negotiation and adjustment) from this macro-image, a function (conversion of the binary logic of a domain into a narrative logic of network and vice versa) and effect (synchronization of expectations, impression of reliability, and deserving legitimacy) of public relations in a modern society. Organizations have been and have more and more become key communicators of the society, and we have macro-communicatively envisaged, and observed the social functions that Gruning did not manage to see from his micro-perspective. Public relations, phenomenologically and socio-cybernetically observed, in our opinion represent the program of communication direction with groups and communities, i.e. the converter of the binary code of Luhmann’s systems into a narrative logic of human interaction. Having analyzed the genealogy of the dominant paradigm (that Holmström indirectly intensifies with her “reflexive paradigm“ and the inadequate interpretation of Luhmann’s work), we have noticed that there is a point of discontinuity and interruption, which appeared in the 70’s of the previous century: after the protests and the rebellion of the organizations of civil society, the number of PR agencies had multiplied rapidly in a very short time, and the significance of the profession had gained enormously; a PR strategic area had appeared – issue management; serious scientific observations had also been noticed. In our opinion, and we have shown adequate arguments, that PR then appears in the true sense of the word. In several places in this study we explained the importance of the need that the science separates from the terminology of profession and practice semantically and differentially, because otherwise the satisfactory statements or hypotheses will not be produced. We have emphasized the fact that propaganda formerly “wrapped and masked“ with the notion of public relations (as the new brand of the old method), and after half a century it really estranged into a new method – conversation with groups and communities. We have analyzed the definition of communication and we have found out that, during conversation, it is impossible to guarantee supervision and control over the understanding and attribute the sense of ego, therefore the word management in its sense of the word is inadequate (Wehmeier also proved that). We have noticed that understanding is not an effect of public relations, because understanding does not mean coordination. We have rejected the expression „harmony“ and introduced the temporalized form: synchronization of expectations. As a converter of the binary domain code into the narrative logic of the network (and vice versa), PR has a crucially important function of a temporary synchronization of promises, foresight and envisage of the domains with the network expectations. If we live in a society which is constantly liable to propaganda, and none of the „communication management“ agencies declares itself as a propaganda agency, then it is of crucial importance that communication study establishes a clear distinction between propaganda and public relations. Propagating is a legitimate method of communication. Communication has germinated rather from competitive than from cooperative reasons: as a rule, we should expect manipulation rather than precise information. The study of PR today is mainly either apologetic-advocating or normative-critical, precisely due to the fact that we do not differentiate between propaganda and public relations. Today there are few commevents that essentially represent PR, but that is exactly the reason why these commevents should be isolated and separately studied: each conversation and each synchronization is valuable in a society. While we are at it, we should not be bothered by the presence of persuasion in the narrative of public relations, because persuasion is legitimate and probably the oldest function of communication. Rarely does communication happen without it and both parties will employ it when negotiating, whenever they can. We used the historical method in this study by investigating the structuring of knowledge about public relations within the exactly located and limited historic period (we reconstructed the conditions for the origin of dominant discourse about PR), genealogically stressing the discontinuity, as well as the fact that the dominant paradigm is tightly connected to the system of power. Analyzing the potential sources of European PR paradigm, we have employed comparative-theoretical and descriptive-analytical methods. Trying to offer a framework of macro-communicative theory, it guided us towards a discursive-analytical strategy of Niklas Nuhmann, based on the fact that observation sees it as operations that do not indicate conscious subjects but the differences. Thus the theory framework lacks the classic ontology and epistemology of a traditional, positivistic type. In accordance with the laws of form of Spencer Brown, there is no object that is worth knowing: observation is being observed. If the information is the difference that makes the difference, then the world is built on distinctions and indications. Through the method of case study, an example of application of elements of one election campaign, we separated and decomposed both methods of communication direction between the organization of exclusive domain of politics and the groups and communities within the electorate. We have realized that in the sphere of domain of politics, propaganda and public relations are both necessary for successful communication orientation and good election result.