Critical Theory

Critical theory can be defined in two main ways: broadly, as a wide range of philosophical approaches that take a critical view of existing power arrangements in society; and, narrowly, as the object of attention of certain traditions of thought (e.g., the Frankfurt School and their successors). In the narrower definition of critical theory, the leading contemporary representative is Jürgen Habermas. Habermas (1984) has been featured more frequently, and had more impact on public relations thinking, than any other continental philosopher. His concept of communicative rationality, with its [Page 227]core in “the unconstrained, unifying, consensusbringing force of argumentative speech” (Habermas, 1984, p. 10), predated the allied notion of two-way symmetrical communication. His associated promulgation of the ideal speech situation, whereby all stakeholders can participate equally in dialogue resolved in favor of the best argument, has affinities with, and usefully elaborates on, ideal practitioner goals. This remains true despite the fact that both communicative rationality and symmetry tend to exist much more in theory rather than in practice.

Critical theory originated in the European Enlightenment's raison d'etre, summed up in Immanuel Kant's famous dictum that enlightened people would “dare to know.” It gathered momentum as its proponents not only dared to know, but also dared to act to change the world on the basis of that knowledge. Most proponents retain elements of that optimistic starting point in the Enlightenment: the belief that applied rationality, which is free to be critical of the status quo, can influence human activities and social structures in a more democratic and life-enhancing way. In the corporate-oriented 21st century, public relations is still being challenged to recognize similar aspirations and acknowledge society itself as its ultimate stakeholder.

For Habermas, the aim of speech is to reach agreement on action and how to act. Additionally, all participants in conversation should accept a set of responsibilities as a result of taking part. These would include aspiring to agreement in a fairminded way, encouraging open (outside of church or state or business interests) debate, listening as well as talking, and honoring any consensus reached. Participation in fair process and acceptance of its outcome becomes, in itself, a legitimating process, which he extends beyond face-to-face talk into mediated public communication. In addressing the international crises associated with the spread of the antiglobalization movement, Juliet Roper (in press) has augmented Robert L. Heath's (1997) foundational work on issues management with Habermasian legitimation theory. Her work positions events such as the battle for Seattle in the context of Habermas's philosophy of the public sphere, which sets out and justifies normative guidelines for the consideration of public issues. The concept of a public sphere can be a physical place where citizens gather for a democratic exchange of ideas (e.g., a town square) or a media arena. The concept is anchored in, and partially restricted by, how he imagined the political interchanges of middle class men in the communal coffee houses of early modern Europe. In what he saw as the subsequent denigration of communication in a modern public sphere marked by consumerism, mass media, and state intrusion into the private space of families, Habermas positioned public relations as a negative, if powerful, agent in the change.

...