Public Relations and Rhetoric 1 Running head: PUBLIC ... · Public Relations and Rhetoric 2 The...

Public Relations and Rhetoric 1

Running head: PUBLIC RELATIONS AND RHETORIC

The Cursed Sisters: Public Relations and Rhetoric*

Øyvind Ihlen

BI Norwegian School of Management

* Reference: Ihlen, Ø. (in press). The cursed sisters: Public relations and rhetoric. In

R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (2 ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.


The rhetorical tradition offers public relations scholars, managers, and practitioners a

resource that helps them to understand organizational discourse, its effects, and its role in

society. Rhetoric helps to explain the ways in which organizations attempt to achieve specific

political or economic goals, or build relationships with their stakeholders. Further, in addition

to offering down-to-earth practical advice, rhetoric also presents epistemological perspectives

that temper theoretical tendencies toward naïve realism and Platonic notions of absolute truth.

Rhetoric helps us to understand how knowledge is generated and socially constructed through

communication.

In recognition of the centrality of discourse, there has been a recent turn toward

rhetoric in many academic disciplines. Scholars of philosophy, management, economics, law,

political science, social psychology, history, anthropology, political science, sociology, and

literature have all drawn on rhetoric (Lucaites, Condit, & Caudill, 1999; Sillince & Suddaby,

2008). The application of rhetoric in public relations has also been championed, most notably

by Robert L. Heath (e.g., 1980, 1992, 2001, 2009). This chapter starts by giving a short

overview of the rhetorical tradition, before going on to discuss rhetoric in public relations.

Particular attention is paid to epistemology, as this demonstrates why rhetoric should be

included in the canon of public relations. It is proposed that the rhetorical tradition can still

divulge crucial concepts and ways of thinking that illuminate public relations practice and

help build theory. A call is also issued for more research on the rhetorical situations that

organizations encounter and the archetypical ways in which they respond.

Classical Rhetoric

In everyday parlance, rhetoric is more often than not applied as a contrast to

“substantial action” and “reality.” Rhetoric is reserved for empty words and deception. Every

rhetorician is happy to point out that this negative understanding of rhetoric is due to

rhetorical theory that emphasizes only style and delivery, and to argue that the ancient


tradition is misrepresented. At the very least, it can quickly be pointed out that rhetoric is

inescapable. Everyone uses rhetoric, not least the anti-rhetoricians.

The classic andbest-known definition of rhetoric is given by Aristotle: “Let rhetoric

be [defined as] an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion”

(Aristotle, trans. 1991, 1.2.1). According to this tradition, then, the normative aim of rhetoric

is “persuasion” or “influence.” Influence is defined as the capacity to affect the thoughts or

actions of others by persuading or convincing them. This definition excludes force and

material inducement, but allows for both rational and irrational processes. Although some use

the phrases “to persuade” and “to convince” interchangeably, there may, in fact, be a

difference between them. To persuade somebody about p is to get him or her to believe p, but

to convince somebody about p is to provide other sufficient reasons to believe that p is true or

acceptable (Tranøy, 1986). Some argue that rhetoric should confess to its aim of influencing

and changing people, and that persuasion is thus the better definition (Andersen, 1995).

Others, in contrast, stress that rhetoric involves both reason and emotion; that it attempts to

convince and persuade (Corbett & Connors, 1999).

A particular concept touched upon by most of the ancient theorists of rhetoric was

that of artistic proofs in the form of ethos, pathos, and logos, that is, ethical appeal, emotional

appeal, and appeal to reason. These proofs are linked to the rhetor, the audience, and the

message, respectively. In a given discourse, “these are at all times coordinate [sic] and

interact mutually, distinguishable but not separable from one another, although one may

occasionally take precedence over the others” (Conley, 1990/1994, p. 15).

Interestingly, the ancient rhetoricians treated emotions as epistemic, as a way of

knowing. Today, logic and emotion are most often pitted against each other as intellectual

and bodily processes, respectively. The ancients, however, saw feelings not only as

subjectively real, but as objectively true (Andersen, 1995). In Latin, sentire means both to


mean and to feel: “‘I understand,’ or ‘I feel’ or ‘I see’ are often equivalent to ‘I know’”

(Quintilian, trans. 1920/1996, 10.1.13). The purely logos-based rhetoric tends to ignore the

fact that that changing peoples’ minds depends on at least two things: “the emotional

intensity with which they cling to an opinion; and the degree to which their identities—their

sense of themselves as integrated people—are wrapped up with that opinion” (Crowley &

Hawhee, 1999, p. 153). Some use of pathos is thus indispensable for a rhetor.

Although classical rhetoric encompasses a range of other concepts, the notion of

ethos, logos, and pathos are arguably the most well-known theoretical contribution.

Rhetorical theory does not, however, end with the ancients. During the twentieth century, a

new form of rhetoric emerged.

New Rhetoric

The new rhetoric was largely driven by debates on epistemology. It was characterized

by rhetorical scholars moving away from the aesthetic understanding of rhetoric that was so

preoccupied with form, and from scientific understanding, with its modernist notion of

objectivity. From the 1960s onward, the hegemony of the neo-traditionalists was challenged

(Booth, 1967; Fogarty, 1959). The luminaries of this movement included Kenneth Burke and

Chaïm Perelman, and their respective books Rhetoric of Motives (1950/1969) and The New

Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (1969/1971) are widely held to be the two main texts

on contemporary rhetorical theory (Gaonkar, 2001).

Some have argued that classical rhetoric—excluding the sophists (see Jarratt, 1991)—

typically saw truth as something that the rhetor had arrived at previously, and that rhetoric

should merely help to communicate this truth. Further, there was a clearly defined

relationship between the rhetor, the audience, and the world that was mediated by language.

In modern rhetoric, however, there is no fully confident or generally accepted

epistemological stance that articulates the relationship between the knower and the known


(Lunsford & Ede, 1994; Ohmann, 1994), although a widespread position is that truth is

inseparable from discourse, or the way in which we use language and interact. Rhetoric is not

seen as something that decorates or disguises truth; rhetoric is a way of creating truth.

In 1967, Robert L. Scott (1999) argued that rhetoric is epistemic: it is a way of

knowing. This so-called social-epistemic rhetoric understands rhetoric as constructing and

modifying reality, social conditions, and relationships. Rhetoric is implicated in all human

behavior and constructs social knowledge that is situated materially and historically. It is

through rhetoric that ideas are accepted or rejected; truth is not discovered or unearthed, and

cannot be determined in any a priori way. Rhetorical interaction is involved when something

is declared to be a fact, in the interpretation of that fact, and in how that fact is used to justify

action. This also extends to discourse communities that try to deny that rhetoric plays a role,

such as economics and branches of science that deal with “objective facts.” All types of

knowledge must rest upon some kind of human consensus, and there is thus a need for

rhetoric (Farrell, 1999; Moran & Ballif, 2000).

In a sense then, truth can be conceived as being created moment by moment. This has

brought about a renewed interest in the ancient sophistic tradition and its emphasis on

contingency, or how something is probable rather than certain (e.g., Jarratt, 1991; Poulakos,

1999). Scott later regretted the use of the word “epistemic,” as he saw no way of being

certain. To him, rhetoric is a way of knowing or understanding, not the way. Most

importantly, however, the positivist notion of the grand truth should be ignored (Scott, 1993).

Others have given this and related epistemological stances different labels, including

intersubjectivity, rhetorical subjectivism, and rhetorical relativism. These stances can be

shown to have a modern counterpart in what is alternately called rhetorical objectivism,

rhetorical dialectic, or critical rationalism. The general view held by scholars taking the

epistemological standpoint is that truth is discovered with the help of rhetoric. Attempts have


been made to bridge this problematic dualism by placing the two positions on a continuum

and by mixing them differently (Cherwitz & Hikins, 1999). The debate has clear parallels

with the sociological discussion of social constructionism (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Heide,

2009).

It is possible to argue that “reality” is a product of a synthesis between material

structures and practices on one side, and the use of symbols that reinforce or question those

structures and practices on the other. The most radical version of the “rhetoric is epistemic”

stance has little room for material existence. This leads to discussions of ontological matters,

that is, thoughts of what exists, kinds of being, and the relationship between them. It is

argued here that although material structures do exist, rhetoric is needed for the social

mediation of this knowledge. It is not possible to communicate without rhetoric, and rhetoric

is crucial for human understanding. In this sense, rhetoric is epistemic, but it seems most

fruitful to comprehend it as having a dialectic relationship to the ontological.

Rhetoric and Organizations

Organizations define problems and their solutions and try to influence stakeholders’

opinions and public policies to best suit their own interests and perspectives. Sometimes they

succeed in this, and sometimes they do not. Sometimes the interest of an organization is

shared by other parts of society, and sometimes it is not. These relatively banal observations

notwithstanding, rhetoric is used by organizations in these instances regardless of the label

appended to the communication activity, be it “lobbying” or “relationship management.” The

process by which organizations influence and are influenced by others involves persuasion.

Unless an organization or its stakeholders uses force or material inducement, its power or

influence is likely to be based on both rational and irrational processes. Ultimately, it rests on

the agreement of the other party, in that the latter recognizes its own interest in complying

with the wish of the rhetor. Such influence implies the presentation of arguments, that is, it


involves rhetoric (Kennedy, 1991; Mayhew, 1997).

The rhetoric of modern organizations is different to the rhetoric of the ancient rhetor

addressing an assembly. The first distinction is that the rhetors of today mostly represent

organizations and are inseparable from those organizations (Crable, 1990). The practical

consequences of this become especially evident during crises. For instance, when defending

itself against charges of wrongdoing, the organizational hierarchy creates possibilities for

denying or diffusing responsibility (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 1998), resulting in the

organization as a whole taking the blame, thereby absolving the individual. Alternatively, an

individual may be made a scapegoat, thus deflecting blame away from the organization.

The second distinction is that modern rhetors have a variety of channels through

which to convey their messages. This is reflected by the fact that the object of research on

organizational rhetoric is not only speeches, but text in the broad sense. In the field of public

relations research, it is the “public record” that is most often used as the unit of analysis,

including rhetoric that is distributed via social media or the mass media (Toth, 1992).

Third, modern rhetors often reach mass audiences with which they have no direct

contact. Unlike a physically present audience, a mass audience provides no immediate

reaction. Further, not only is the spatial dimension different, but the audience is also more

diverse and may have widely differing values and multiple organizational identifications

(Cheney, Christensen, Conrad, & Lair, 2004; Crable, 1990). This means that a strategy that is

designed to communicate with one group of stakeholders can easily alienate another (Ice,

1991).

The fourth point is that rhetors are more or less agencies for organizations. They have

become actors in the Hollywood sense: the “words we hear are someone else’s: the

understanding or emotions generated are controlled by forces off-stage. The actor in the

Hollywood sense ‘appears’ and the actor in Burke’s sense remains behind the scenes, not a


part of the scene” (Crable, 1990, p. 123).

Taken together, such differences point to the need for a revamped rhetorical theory

for organizations. Several attempts have been made in public relations to achieve this goal, as

illustrated in the following.

Rhetoric in Public Relations Studies

Public relations pioneer Edward L. Bernays (1952) may well have been the first to

mention rhetoric in conjunction with public relations. Nonetheless, an observer writing in

1970 noted the absence of any real exploration of the role of rhetoric in the early public

relations literature (Knapp, 1970). Ten years later, however, Robert L. Heath (1980)

published an article that laid the groundwork for much of the subsequent research on rhetoric

and public relations. Heath proposed rhetoric to be the essence of an organization’s

relationship with its environment. One of the arguments that he has repeated since is that

rhetoric affords public relations the possibility of ethical and pragmatic practice: “the good

organization communicating well” (Heath, 2001, p. 39). With the help of rhetoric,

organizations can achieve specific goals, such as legitimacy. Rhetoric can also help

organizations to focus on the different interpretations and zones of meaning of stakeholders

(Heath, 1993). Rhetoric helps to co-define and co-create meaning. According to Heath,

concurrence is the aim of the rhetorical process, and a clash of viewpoints strengthens the

public opinion process. Based on these ideas, much effort has since been made to argue for

the legitimacy and usefulness of a rhetorical approach to public relations (Heath, 2009; Toth,

2009).

Public relations scholars have suggested several analytical models for public relations

based on the work of ancients such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian (Heath, 2009; Ihlen,

2002; Porter, in press), Isocrates (Heath, 2009; Marsh, 2003; Porter, in press), and new

rhetoricians such as Toulmin (Skerlep, 2001), Bitzer (Heath, 2009; Ihlen, in press), and


Burke and Perelman (Heath, 2009; Ihlen, 2004; Mickey, 1995). Although it would be wrong

to claim that the rhetorical approach to public relations is flourishing, a considerable number

of rhetorical concepts and cases have been analyzed in edited volumes such as Rhetorical and

Critical Approaches to Public Relations (Toth & Heath, 1992), Public Relations Inquiry as

Rhetorical Criticism (Elwood, 1995), Corporate Advocacy: Rhetoric in an Information Age

(Hoover, 1997), Power and Public Relations (Courtright & Smudde, 2007), and Rhetorical

and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II (Heath, Toth, & Waymer, 2009). The field

has largely been dominated by US scholars (Ihlen, 2008), although useful exceptions include

the work by the UK scholar Jacquie L’Etang (1996, 1997, 2006).

Whereas some of the published rhetorical public relations studies have an intrinsic

historical character that contributes little to theory building, there are also several that discuss

particular rhetorical concepts. Authors have taken on enthymematic argumentation (Edwards,

2007), ethos (Bostdorff, 1992; Ihlen, 2009), paradoxes (German, 2007; Heath & Waymer,

2009), apologia (Hearit, 1995, 2001; Jerome, 2008), stasis theory (Marsh, 2006), metaphors

(Zhang, 2007), model and anti model arguments (Brand, 2007), employee recruitment

strategies (Russell-Loretz, 2007), and strategies for high-tech industries (Baker, Conrad,

Cuadhy, & Willyard, 2009). Nevertheless, the best-developed line of rhetorical public

relations research remains the studies of organizational self-defense and image restoration

during or after crises (e.g., Benoit, 1995; Coombs, 1999, 2009; Hearit, 2006; Millar & Heath,

2003). Other rhetorical situations (Bitzer, 1968) are largely unexplored, a point that will be

revisited later.

Scholars in the field of organizational communication have also made use of rhetoric

(see Cheney, et al., 2004 for an overview). These theorists have typically made a strong case

for focusing on how reality is defined and created through the use of rhetoric, in line with the

epistemological debate already touched upon. Indeed, some propose that the use of rhetoric,


or symbols, is the essence (if not the substance) of organizations. This means, they argue, that

public relations practitioners should be taught to manage symbols, rather than substance

(Cheney & Dionisopoulos, 1989; Tompkins, 1987).

As indicated, the research streams of public relations and organizational

communication can inform each other, despite their different focuses on external and internal

communication, respectively. Indeed, given that organizational rhetoric has both an internal

and external audience, this traditional distinction often makes little sense (Cheney &

Dionisopoulos, 1989). Others have similarly argued for the blurring of boundaries with other

fields studying organizational rhetoric, such as propaganda analysis and social movement

theory (Meisenbach & McMillian, 2006). Organizational scholars of various kinds have made

great strides recently in bridging management and organizational rhetoric (i.e., Sillince &

Suddaby, 2008), and public relations scholars are now following suit (i.e., Heath, in press),

demonstrating the importance of external rhetoric.

Debates about Rhetorical Public Relations Studies

Various debates relating to orientation, ethics, epistemology, and ontology have

emerged from studies of public relations and rhetoric (Ihlen, 2008).

Scholars have argued that public relations should be studied like any other social

activity (Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2009), and several authors have explicitly linked the rhetorical

approach to the instrumental goals of organizations (i.e., Toth, 1992; Trujillo & Toth, 1987).

Some authors, however, question this administrative approach, and argue that it often

underpins the research agenda even when a critical orientation is supposedly espoused. Thus,

they contend, rhetorical public relations studies do not constitute an alternative paradigm to

the dominant theories in the field (L'Etang, 1997, 2006; Porter, in press). Others believe that

these rhetorical studies have been too critical, and that this explains why rhetoric is not a

larger field of study within public relations (Toth, 1999).


Still, rhetorical public relations studies range from applied work that suggests

strategies to help organizations survive crises (e.g., Coombs, 2009) to studies illustrating how

public relations rhetoric works for particular ideologies (e.g., Crable & Vibbert, 1995;

Holloway, 1995). This makes it difficult to argue that the rhetorical approach is one thing or

the other in terms of the administrative versus critical perspectives. It is also recognized that

public relations can play both a constructive and a destructive role in society (Heath, 2006).

A recurring issue for critics of rhetoric is its ethics, and whether persuasion can be

considered a legitimate activity. This criticism echoes the traditional criticism of rhetoric

(i.e., Platon, trans. 1960). Arguments for persuasion include the notion that practitioners are

hired precisely to engage in persuasion on behalf of their organization or clients, and that the

field must address the issue of ethics in persuasion rather than denying its role altogether.

Open and responsible dialogue is often suggested as the ethical ideal (Edgett, 2002; Kent &

Taylor, 2002; Pfau & Wan, 2006; Porter, in press).

Heath has argued that rhetoric is intrinsically ethical, as “rhetoric fosters truth as best

as can be done; it serves to solve problems that confront the public” (Heath, 2007, p. 50) and

“empowers participants to engage in dialogue” (Heath, 2001, p. 33). Heath’s view is also

reflected in the way in which he defines public relations, as “the management function that

rhetorically adapts organizations to people’s interests and people’s interests to organizations

by co-creating meaning and co-managing culture to achieve mutually beneficial

relationships” (Heath, 2001, p. 36).

Although such normative definitions certainly have a place in a field that wants to be

relevant for practice and to provide ethical guidance, much rhetoric and much of what goes

on in public relations fails to live up to such standards. The rhetoric of public relations thus

risks the conflation of the normative and the descriptive. Rhetoric and public relations may

certainly have ideal forms, but unethical public relations thrives, as indicated by the number


of front groups and public relations scandals that are covered in the mass media on a regular

basis (Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2009). Another view is that neither public relations nor rhetoric is

inherently ethical or unethical. Both disciplines, either alone or together, can be used

ethically and unethically, and for good or bad purposes.

A particular charge leveled against the rhetorical approach of Heath is its move away

from perspectivism toward relativism (Cheney & Christensen, 2001), The good organization,

communicating well is upheld as the ideal. “Well” in this context means adhering to norms

such as “truthfulness” and “appropriateness for the situation,” but also instructing, moving,

and charming the audience. The ideal orator of Quintilian is dead, however, and modern

rhetoric has an even less secure ontological and epistemological platform than its ancient

counterpart (Lunsford & Ede, 1994). For what is really “good,” and how is “good”

determined? The solution that Heath suggest for this problem is that of relativism, or the idea

that the “limit on any point of view is the counter statement that can gain more support”

(Heath, 1997, p. 60). Relativism is regarded as a practical solution, as this may at least

privilege “people in society to struggle in concert to reduce differences, to compromise and to

have opinions challenged. That is the essence of the process of rhetoric” (p. 60). This has led

to the criticism that Heath sometimes acknowledges reality to be socially constructed, yet at

other times assumes that there is really one universal truth, that some “facts” are better than

others. According to L’Etang (1997), the problem is that no hints are given as to how these

two perspectives can be distinguished and why.

Heath’s approach has also been subject to ontological criticism. Heath states that

rhetoric is built on “dialogue to define and advance . . . interests within the limited of other’s

opinions about these matters” (Heath, 2001, p. 32). The underlying assumption is that “no

entity can manipulate others forever, if at all” (Heath, 1993, p. 143). Public relations

practitioners must thus advocate not only the needs of the organization, but also the needs,


concerns, and points of view of the public. Cheney and Christensen (2001) have criticized the

ontological assumptions of this argument and the faith in a well-functioning “marketplace of

ideas” in which the resource issue plays no role. A better metaphor may be a “supermarket of

images in which large establishments offer their customers a limited number of brands

promoted by a few social leviathans” (Sproule, 1988, p. 484). Not all arguments are

guaranteed to be heard, neither is there a guarantee that the better arguments will prevail over

the self-interested argument (Ihlen, 2002). Indeed, commentators on rhetoric and

management have asserted that “rhetoric is a strategy of the powerful, a form of control”

(Hartelius & Browning, 2008, p. 33).

Rhetorical Typologies of Public Relations Strategies

As already mentioned, the study of crises is by far the largest branch of rhetorical

public relations studies (e.g., Millar & Heath, 2003). It has been demonstrated that

organizations in crisis typically rely on different archetypical strategies ranging from the

aggressive to the accommodative (Coombs, 2007). The rhetorical notion of apologia—or

speech of self-defense—has been explored at length (e.g., Hearit, 2001), strongly linked to

the writings of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969/1971) and the notion of disassociation,

or the separation of, for instance, the individual from the group.

Several other strategy typologies have been suggested. Cheney, in examining internal

communication, argued that organizations “assist” in identification processes with their

employees to induce cooperation or reduce the range of decisions to encompass only those

alternatives that benefit the organization (Burke, 1950/1969, 1972; Cheney, 1983, 1991). At

least three interesting strategies can be identified. The first is the use of common ground,

whereby the rhetor puts emphasis on the humble origins that he or she shares with the

audience. The second is antithesis, which is a strategy of congregation by segregation. The

rhetor holds up an antithesis that suggests that the rhetor and his or her audience has a


common enemy. The third is the device of the transcendent “we.” This strategy often works

on an unconscious level, as when an environmentalist identifies with a well-known activist

and wants to partake in the same protest actions as this activist.

Ihlen (2009) suggested four archetypical ways in which corporations attempt to come

across as credible environmental actors. Corporations will argue that (1) they make the world

better with their product or the positive leadership that they offer; (2) they have cleaned up

their own house by such actions as recycling or curbing emissions; (3) that others like them,

such as the authorities or NGOs, approve of their environmental efforts; and (4) that they care

about their stakeholders by, for instance, talking about the environmental challenges that they

share with them.

It is posited here that the development of several more of these typologies would go

some way toward establishing a rhetoric of public relations. Somewhat in line with this,

Cheney, Christensen, Conrad, and Lair (2004) argued that rhetoric can be useful in the study

public relations strategies in four instances that relate to how organizations: 1) respond to

existing rhetorical situations, for instance through crisis communication; 2) attempt to

anticipate future rhetorical situations, for instance through issues management processes; 3)

attempt to shape rhetorical situations, for instance through strategic definitions; and, 4) try to

shape their own identities (Cheney, et al., 2004).

Here it is argued that future research should aim to develop typologies and a fully-

fledged rhetoric for the organizational activities described. However, avoiding the trap of

“rhetoric-as-technique, rhetor-as-magician pole” remains a basic challenge (Conrad &

Malphurs, 2008, p. 134). It is necessary to keep in mind the complex, dialectical relationships

that exist between action, agency, and structure that help define rhetorical action. This could

help to avoid the reductionism that Burke, Perelman, and others warned against when they

sought to revitalize the rhetorical tradition.


Conclusion

This chapter sets out why and how rhetoric is crucial for public relations, with

particular emphasis on the epistemological perspective. In summary, it is argued that the

epistemic and the ontological have a dialectic relationship. Rhetoric is seen as enacting and

creating the environment, and facts as being conditioned by social agreement. At the same

time, however, it is acknowledged that an environment exists and that humans must

presuppose the existence of something that is true. The main implication is that a pluralism of

perspectives should be invited, as truth with a capital “T” is impossible to achieve.

Adopting this perspective propels rhetoric to the forefront. However, some rhetorical

scholars have argued that rhetoric should not be conceived of as a general all-encompassing

epistemological theory because it has a normative ambition (Kock, 1997). Rhetoric strives to

tell us how everything in an utterance should be in the context of the text, that is, the

“opportune moment,” or kairós (Sipiora & Baumlin, 2002). This is a reminder that scholars

should also research whether public relations rhetoric has achieved what it set out to do. Still,

here it is argued that such research endeavor should also be informed by a critical-analytical

agenda. Public relations must be viewed within a wider cultural, economic, and political

context (Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2009), and rhetorical theory could help to analyze the symbolic

strategies that organizations use. Creating new typologies of archetypical rhetorical strategies

may be the first step toward a fully-fledged rhetoric of public relations. The obvious

conclusion here is that public relations needs its big sister: the grand dame of communication

studies.


References

Andersen, Ø. (1995). I retorikkens hage [In the garden of rhetoric]. Oslo, Norway:

Universitetsforlaget.

Aristotle. (trans. 1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Baker, J. S., Conrad, C., Cuadhy, C., & Willyard, J. (2009). The devil in disguise: Vioxx,

drug saftey, and the FDA. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical

and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 170-194). New York: Routledge.

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration

strategies. New York: State University of New York.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.

Bernays, E. L. (1952). Public relations. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1(1), 1-14.

Booth, W. C. (1967). The revival of rhetoric. In M. Steinmann Jr. (Ed.), New rhetorics (pp. 1-

15). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Bostdorff, D. M. (1992). "The decision is yours" campaign: Planned Parenthood’s character-

istic argument of moral virtue. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and

critical approaches to public relations (pp. 301-314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Brand, J. D. (2007). Restoring investor confidende via model and antimodel advocacy by

Merrill Lynch. In J. L. Courtright & P. M. Smudde (Eds.), Power and public relations

(pp. 107-123). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Burke, K. (1950/1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Burke, K. (1972). Dramatism and development. Barre, MA: Clark University Press.


Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational

communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 143-158.

Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities.

Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Public relations as contested terrain: A critical

response. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 167-182). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Conrad, C., & Lair, D. J. (2004). Corporate rhetoric as

organizational discourse. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick & L. L. Putnam (Eds.),

The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 79-103). London: Sage.

Cheney, G., & Dionisopoulos, G. N. (1989). Public relations? No, relations with publics: A

rhetorical-organizational approach to contemporary corporate communications. In C.

H. Botan & V. Hazelton Jr. (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 135-157). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cherwitz, R. A., & Hikins, J. W. (1999). Rhetorical perspectivism. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M.

Condit & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory: A reader (pp. 176-193).

New York: Guilford Press.

Conley, T. M. (1990/1994). Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Conrad, C., & Malphurs, R. (2008). Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Management

Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 123-146.

Coombs, W. T. (1999). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and

responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding

(2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Coombs, W. T. (2009). Crisis, crisis communication, and rhetoric. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth

& D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp.

237-252). New York: Routledge.

Corbett, E. P. J., & Connors, R. J. (1999). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (4 ed.).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Courtright, J. L., & Smudde, P. M. (Eds.). (2007). Power and public relations. Cresskill, NJ:

Hampton.

Crable, R. E. (1990). "Organizational rhetoric" as the fourth great system: Theoretical,

critical, and pragmatic implications. Journal of Applied Communication Research,

18(2), 115-128.

Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1995). Mobil's epideictic advocacy: "Observations" of

Prometheus bound. In W. N. Elwood (Ed.), Public relations inquiry as rhetorical

criticism: Case studies of corporate discourse and social influence (pp. 27-46).

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Crowley, S., & Hawhee, D. (1999). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students (2 ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Edgett, R. (2002). Toward an ethical framework for advocacy in public relations. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 14(1), 1-26.

Edwards, H. H. (2007). Avon calling-you! The influence of corporate sponsorship of the 3-

day Walk for Breast Caner. In J. L. Courtright & P. M. Smudde (Eds.), Power and

public relations (pp. 39-58). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Elwood, W. N. (Ed.). (1995). Public relations inquiry as rhetorical criticism: Case studies of

corporate discourse and influence. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Farrell, T. B. (1999). Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M.

Condit & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory: A reader (pp. 140-152).


New York: Guilford Press.

Fogarty, D. S. J. (1959). Roots for a new rhetoric. New York: Bureau of publications,

Teachers College, Columbia University.

Gaonkar, D. P. (2001). Contingency and probability. In T. O. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

rhetoric (pp. 151-166). New York: Oxford University Press.

German, K. M. (2007). Hillary Rodham Clinton and the rhetorical decpiction of family in

"talking it over". In J. L. Courtright & P. M. Smudde (Eds.), Power and public

relations (pp. 11-37). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2008). The application of rhetorical theory in managerial

research: A literature review. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 13-39.

Hearit, K. M. (1995). From we didn't do it to it's not our fault: The use of apologia in public

relations crisis. In W. N. Elwood (Ed.), Public relations inquiry as rhetorical

criticism (pp. 117-131). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Hearit, K. M. (2001). Corporate apologia: When an organization speaks in defense of itself.

In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 501-511). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of

wrongdoing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heath, R. L. (1980). Corporate advocacy: An application of speech communication

perspectives and skills-and more. Communication Education, 29, 370-377.

Heath, R. L. (1992). The wrangle in the marketplace: A rhetorical perspective of public

relations. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to

public relations (pp. 17-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heath, R. L. (1993). Toward a paradigm for the study and practice of public relations: A

rhetorical approach to zones of meaning and organizational prerogative. Public


Relations Review, 19(2), 141-155.

Heath, R. L. (1997). Legitimate ‘perspectives’ in public relations practice: A rhetorical

solution. Australian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 55-63.

Heath, R. L. (2001). A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good

organization communicating well. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations

(pp. 31-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations' research directions.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 93-114.

Heath, R. L. (2007). Management through advocacy: Reflection rather than domination. In E.

L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication

management: Challenges for the next generation (pp. 41-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Heath, R. L. (2009). The rhetorical tradition: Wrangle in the marketplace. In R. L. Heath, E.

L. Toth & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations

II (pp. 17-47). New York: Routledge.

Heath, R. L. (in press). External organizational rhetoric: Bridging management and socio-

political discourse. Management Communication Quarterly.

Heath, R. L., Toth, E. L., & Waymer, D. (Eds.). (2009). Rhetorical and critical approaches

to public relations II. New York: Routledge.

Heath, R. L., & Waymer, D. (2009). Activist public relations and the paradox of the positive.

In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to

public relations II (pp. 195-215). New York: Routledge.

Heide, M. (2009). On Berger: A social constructionist perspective on public relations and

crisis communication. In Ø. Ihlen, B. van Ruler & M. Fredriksson (Eds.), Public

relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts (pp. 43-61). New York:


Routledge.

Holloway, R. L. (1995). Philip Morris Magazine: An innovation in grass roots issue

management. In W. N. Elwood (Ed.), Public relations inquiry as rhetorical criticism:

Case studies of corporate discourse and social influence (pp. 135-156). Westport,

CT: Praeger.

Hoover, J. D. (Ed.). (1997). Corporate advocacy: Rhetoric in the information age. Westport,

CT: Greenwood.

Ice, R. (1991). Corporate publics and rhetorical strategies: The case of Union Carbide's

Bhopal crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(3), 341-362.

Ihlen, Ø. (2002). Rhetoric and resources: Notes for a new approach to public relations and

issues management. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 259-269.

Ihlen, Ø. (2004). Norwegian hydroelectric power: Testing a heuristic for analyzing symbolic

strategies and resources. Public Relations Review, 30(2), 217-223.

Ihlen, Ø. (2008). Rhetorical theory of public relations. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The Blackwell

International Encyclopedia of Communication (pp. 4395-4397). Oxford, England:

Blackwell.

Ihlen, Ø. (2009). Good environmental citizens? The green rhetoric of corporate social

responsibility. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical

approaches to public relations II (pp. 360-374). New York: Routledge.

Ihlen, Ø. (in press). Corporate social responsibility and the rhetorical situation. In J. Raupp,

S. Jarolimek & F. Schultz (Eds.), Handbuch Corporate Social Responsibility:

Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Grundlagen und methodische Zugaenge.

Wiesebaden: VS Verlag.

Ihlen, Ø., & Verhoeven, P. (2009). Conclusions on the domain, context, concepts, issues and

empirical avenues of public relations. In Ø. Ihlen, B. van Ruler & M. Fredriksson


(Eds.), Public relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts (pp. 332-349).

New York: Routledge.

Jarratt, S. C. (1991). Rereading the Sophists: Classical rhetoric refigured. Carbondale, IL:

Southern Illinois University Press.

Jerome, A. M. (2008). Toward prescription: Testing the rhetoric of atonement's applicability

in the athletic arena. Public Relations Review, 34(2), 124-134.

Kennedy, G. A. (1991). Introduction to Aristotle's On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse

(G. A. Kennedy, Trans.) (pp. 3-22). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public

Relations Review, 28, 21-37.

Knapp, M. L. (1970). Business rhetoric: Opportunity for research in speech. Southern Speech

Communication Journal, 35, 244-255.

Kock, C. (1997). Retorikkens identitet som videnskab og uddannelse [The identity of rhetoric

as a science and education]. Rhetorica Scandinavica, 1(1), 10-19.

L'Etang, J. (1996). Public relations and rhetoric. In J. L'Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Critical

perspectives in public relations (pp. 106-123). London: International Thomson

Business Press.

L'Etang, J. (1997). Public relations and the rhetorical dilemma: Legitimate "perspectives,"

persuasion, or pandering? Australian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 33-53.

L'Etang, J. (2006). Public relations and rhetoric. In J. L'Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public

relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 359-371). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lucaites, J. L., Condit, C. M., & Caudill, S. (1999). What can a "rhetoric" be? In J. L.

Lucaites, C. M. Condit & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory: A

reader (pp. 19-24). New York: Guilford Press.


Lunsford, A. A., & Ede, L. S. (1994). On distinctions between classical and modern rhetoric.

In T. Enos & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Professing the new rhetorics: A sourcebook (pp.

397-411). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Marsh, C. (2003). Antecedents of two-way symmetry in classical Greek rhetoric: The rhetoric

of Isocrates. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 351-367.

Marsh, C. (2006). The syllogism of apologia: Rhetorical stasis theory and crisis

communication. Public Relations Review, 32(1), 41-46.

Mayhew, L. H. (1997). The new public: Professional communication and the means of social

influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meisenbach, R. J., & McMillian, J. J. (2006). Blurring the boundaries: Historical

developments and future directions in organizational rhetoric. Communication

Yearbook, 30(1), 86-123.

Mickey, T. J. (1995). Sociodrama: An interpretive theory for the practice of public relations.

Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Millar, D. P., & Heath, R. L. (Eds.). (2003). Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to

crisis communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Moran, M. G., & Ballif, M. (Eds.). (2000). Twentieth-century rhetorics and rhetoricians:

Critical studies and sources. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Ohmann, R. (1994). In lieu of a new rhetoric. In T. Enos & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Professing

the new rhetorics: A sourcebook (pp. 298-306). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969/1971). The new rhetoric: A treatise on

argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). London: University of Notre

Dame.

Pfau, M., & Wan, H.-H. (2006). Persuasion: An intrinsic function of public relations. In C. H.


Botan & V. Hazelton Jr. (Eds.), Public Relations Theory II (pp. 101-136). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Platon. (trans. 1960). Gorgias (W. Hamilton, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.

Porter, L. (in press). Communicating for the good of the state: A post-symmetrical polemic

on persuasion in ethical public relations. Public Relations Review.

Poulakos, J. (1999). Toward a sophistic definition of rhetoric. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit

& S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory: A reader (pp. 25-34). New

York: Guilford Press.

Quintilian. (trans. 1920/1996). Institutio oratoria: Books I-XII (H. E. Butler, Trans.).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Russell-Loretz, T. A. (2007). Cross-media comparisons of employee recruitment messages

between 1990 and 2000. In J. L. Courtright & P. M. Smudde (Eds.), Power and public

relations (pp. 179-204). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Scott, R. L. (1993). Rhetoric is epistemic: What difference does that make? In T. Enos & S.

C. Brown (Eds.), Defining the new rhetorics (pp. 120-136). London: Sage.

Scott, R. L. (1999). On viewing rhetoric as epistemic. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit & S.

Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory: A reader (pp. 131-139). New York:

Guilford Press.

Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. (1998). Communication, organization, and crisis.

Communication Yearbook, 21, 231-275.

Sillince, J. A. A., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Organizational rhetoric: Bridging management and

communication scholarship. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 5-12.

Sipiora, P., & Baumlin, J. S. (Eds.). (2002). Rhetoric and kairos: Essays in history, theory,

and praxis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Skerlep, A. (2001). Re-evaluating the role of rhetoric in public relations theory and in


strategies of corporate discourse. Journal of Communication Management, 6(2), 176-

187.

Sproule, J. M. (1988). The new managerial rhetoric and the old criticism. Quarterly Journal

of Speech, 74, 468-486.

Tompkins, P. K. (1987). Translating organizational theory: Symbolism over substance. In F.

M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of

organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 70-96).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Toth, E. L. (1992). The case for pluralistic studies of public relations: Rhetorical, critical, and

systems perspectives. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical

approaches to public relations (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Toth, E. L. (1999). Public relations and rhetoric: History, concepts, future. In D. Moss, D.

Verčič & G. Warnaby (Eds.), Perspectives on public relations research (pp. 121-

144). London: Routledge.

Toth, E. L. (2009). The case for pluralistic studies of public relations: Rhetorical, critical and

excellence perspectives. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical

and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 48-60). New York: Routledge.

Toth, E. L., & Heath, R. L. (Eds.). (1992). Rhetorical and critical approaches to public

relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tranøy, K. E. (1986). Vitenskapen: samfunnsmakt og livsform [Science: Society power and

life form]. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

Trujillo, N., & Toth, E. L. (1987). Organizational perspectives for public relations research

and practice. Management Communication Quarterly, 1(2), 199-231.

Zhang, J. (2007). Beyond anti-terrorism: Metaphors as message strategy of post-September-

11 U.S. public diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 31-39.

Public Relations and Rhetoric 1 Running head: PUBLIC ... · Public Relations and Rhetoric 2 The...

Documents

Transcript of Public Relations and Rhetoric 1 Running head: PUBLIC ... · Public Relations and Rhetoric 2 The...