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: [email protected]

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 is

18 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 accepting

20 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 of

22 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 illustrates

24 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  ‚

ƒ ƒ 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. ƒ 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 in

ESSACHESS 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 relations

26 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 time

28 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, is

30 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.