1

A Cultural Apparatus for Social Transformation?

An agenda for research in to public relations as a cultural intermediary

occupation.

Author: Carrie E.M. Hodges MA, DipM, ACIM.

Centre for Public Communication Research, Bournemouth Media School

Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, UK.

e-mail: chodges@bournemouth.ac.uk

Affiliation

Carrie E. M. Hodges is a PhD candidate and member of the Centre for Public

Communication Research at Bournemouth University. Her research interests

focus on the relationship between public relations and culture with a major

emphasis on investigating the ‘culture’ surrounding public relations practitioners

within the context of Latin America.

She is a member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, the Institute of Public

Relations and the International Public Relations Association. As well as the

Media, Communication and Cultural Studies Association (MeCCSA), Canning

House (The Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council and The Society for Latin

American Studies.

Abstract

This paper outlines an agenda for research into public relations as a cultural

intermediary occupation. A conceptual framework is proposed which advocates a

cultural approach to studying the practice of public relations and forms the basis

of larger ongoing investigation exploring the relationship between public relations

and culture in Mexico. This paper provides a critical review of the relevant

cultural, sociological and occupational theories applying them to develop the

concept of an occupational culture relevant to public relations. The paper

2

concludes by discussing how the application of such research approaches might

aid in our understanding of public relations’ influence on social and economic

development and, more particularly, the intermediary role of the profession within

Mexican culture.

Key Words: Cultural intermediaries, occupational culture, ‘practitioner’ culture,

practitioner values, occupational socialization.

Introduction

In recent years increasing importance has been placed on the new cultural

intermediary occupations (Bourdieu, 1984) and their involvement in the rapid

circulation of information between formerly sealed-off areas of culture. Such

occupations include advertising, marketing, the Media and public relations - the

latter of which is the focus of this paper. It might be argued that public relations

practitioners and those working in related occupations, “...play a pivotal role in

articulating production with consumption by attempting to associate goods and

services with particular cultural meanings and to address these values to [their

publics]” (du Gay 1997: 5). However, the roles of such cultural intermediary

groups extends beyond those involved in techniques of promotion. As advocated

by Kruckeberg and Starck (1988: 3), as a late twentieth (and now early twentieth-

century) phenomenon, public relations practitioners assume further mediating

roles as journalist–communicator, applied social and behavioural scientist, social

worker, and press-agent.

Heightened interest in these occupations has brought with it a need to

understand both the characteristics of the individuals who occupy such positions

in the circulation of culture and the way in which their cultural preferences and

dispositions shape the processes of symbolic production in which they are

involved (see Nixon 1997: 182 and Giddens, 1987: 98). This paper proposes to

address this by providing a conceptual framework for an in-depth study of the

occupational culture surrounding public relations practitioners within the context

3

of Mexico. Comprising both ethnographic and more general qualitative research

methods, such a framework will aim to explore such questions as, Who are they

(the practitioners)? What are their backgrounds and lifestyles? What, if any, are

those common values and world-views that guide this group’s behaviour?

Before addressing the concept of occupational culture, it is necessary to consider

the increasingly complex questions: What is meant by culture, and how might it

be defined?

Culture: some definitions relevant to this study

The term culture is used in a wide range of social sciences (e.g. anthropology,

sociology, psychology), and therefore has different meanings in the different

fields. Literature on the subject of culture often quotes Kroeber and Kluckhohn’s

(1952) identification of 164 different definitions of culture, the most significant of

which can be applied within both a societal and occupational context, and will be

discussed in this paper.

Whilst some researchers suggest the impossibility of defining culture, one of the

most commonly supported arguments is that from Hofstede (1983:77) who states

that, “there is no commonly accepted language to describe a complex thing such

as a culture…. In the case of culture such a scientific language does not exist”

(see also Williams, 1976 and Boddewyn, 1970). Despite this, many other

academics and social commentators have attempted definitions, which

demonstrate the breadth of the concept of culture. Some of the more widely

accepted follow:

Tylor (1871: 1 as cited in Sriramesh, Kim and Takasaki, 1999: 274) is credited

with providing the first comprehensive definition of the term. He saw culture as

“that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, custom, and

any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society”.

Geertz (1973: 144) also identifies the close relationship between the terms

4

‘culture’ and ‘society’ proposing that culture and social structure are separable

only conceptually. For him, “Culture is the fabric of meaning in terms of which

human beings interpret their experience and guide their action” (Geertz

1973:145). Furthermore, Raymond Williams (1976 supported by Wernick, 1994

and McFall, 2000, amongst others) suggests that rather than opposing culture to

other ‘spheres’ of existence - whether ‘economic’, ‘natural’ or ‘political’- culture is

an inherent part of human society.

Both Tylor and Geertz provide definitions of culture which emphasise that our

culture provides us with a system of knowledge that allows us to know how to

communicate with others and how to interpret their behaviours. If we consider

this argument in light of the previously cited definitions, then culture serves as a

‘guide’ to appropriate action in all areas of everyday life.

The communication theorist, F.E. Jandt (1998) builds on those assumptions and

provides a useful perspective on culture which can be applied, in varying degrees

to the occupational field. Adapting these ideas, culture might be identified as:

1. The totality of a group’s thought, experiences, and patterns of behaviours

and its concepts, values, and assumptions about life that guide the

behaviour of its members and how these evolve with contact with other

cultures.

2. A process of social transmission of the thoughts and behaviours over the

course of generations.

3. Members who consciously identify themselves with that group (cultural

identity), that has a shared system of symbols and meanings as well as

norms for conduct – rules of how we should behave.

A further perspective on culture, particularly common amongst anthropologists, is

that culture defines ‘the ways in which one group or society of humans live that

5

are different from other groups’ (See Guirdham, 1999; Hofstede, 1984;

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961).

We can also employ the terms: Surface culture -referring to dress, food, music

and shared symbols- and Deep culture -to describe the senses, customs,

worldview, language, etc., shared by members of a culture- to the study of

occupational culture in order to explore the idea of a set of values and

behaviours and a lifestyle ‘shared’ by those working in the industry.

What is ‘occupational’ culture?

Out of the innumerable studies of national cultures (Geertz, 1973; Kroeber and

Kluckhohn, 1952; Williams, 1998 amongst others) several schools of thought

have developed which have applied many of the theories and concepts of culture

to the working environment, exploring both organisations and the occupational

cultures within them (Hofstede, 1984 and 2001; Salaman, 1974 and Trice, 1993).

Several critics suggest that the jobs people do consume a large portion of their

daily lives. Drawing on the work of Coxon and Jones (1978: 43) who define an

occupation as a collection of people “with typical skills, training, social class

background, income level, style of life and age structure”, it can be argued that

occupations play an important role in self identity and that it is the workplace to

which individuals turn for a set of values, norms and perspectives that apply to

and extend beyond, work-related matters (Trice, 1993; Durkheim, as cited in Bell,

1976; Hofstede, 2001); furthermore, that the social relationships formed there

merge the work and leisure environment.

Hofstede (2001: 414) suggests that occupational culture is placed halfway

between the national and organisational (or professional) culture. He proposes

that on entering the occupational field, an individual acquires both values and

practices (both within the immediate working environment and in a social context)

specific to that occupation. Trice shares this view, arguing that members of an

6

occupational culture share “collectively held beliefs or ideologies that impel

[them] to act in certain ways”. These ‘abstract beliefs’ are expressed in the

“special language, training, dress codes, and rituals that reflect what [these]

people do and how they socialize within the workplace” (Kelley, 1993: 19).

Furthermore, Hofstede (1994: 18) sees occupational culture as something

different from national culture in that its members usually had a certain influence

in their decision to join it, and may one day leave it again.

When applying the concept of occupational culture to the public relations

industry, this research framework is concerned not only with the abstract beliefs

previously highlighted, but also with exploring the occupational identity-giving

process and its relationship to reference group affiliation, choice of friends and

associates, and the leisure and social pursuits of practitioners.

The concept of a ‘practitioner’ culture?

The term ‘practitioner’ culture is used here to refer to the concept of an

occupational culture specific to public relations. As previously identified, this

paper draws on the work of French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu (1984) who

established the term ‘cultural intermediaries’ to capture shifts in the occupational

structure in France (and by implication other Western societies) since the 1960s

in both the public and private sector (Nixon & du Gay, 2002: 496). Whilst the

Bourdieusian concepts directly apply to developed societies, many of them may

be applied to a society such as Mexico which characterises what Sánchez and

Pita term ‘Incomplete modernization’ (Sánchez and Pita, 1999: 308).1

For Bourdieu, cultural intermediaries represent a distinctive occupational

grouping differentiated by their lifestyles and cultural preferences. In exploring

the distinctive cultural dispositions of these groups (often referred to as the ‘new’

1 Several other scholars of Mexican culture and society have developed similar concepts of modernization; according to Bartra (1992: 137) there are two Mexicos: one is rural and backward; the other is modern, urban and industrial.

7

petite bourgeoisie) he places much emphasis on the diverse social background

of the individuals who comprise them and on the relatively open nature of this

culture - often in terms of formal entry requirements and career paths.

Considering this emphasis, a conceptual framework for looking at ‘practitioner’

culture would explore the extent to which there is variety in the backgrounds of

public relations practitioners and the impact this may have on the development of

this occupational culture.

Whilst Bourdieu’s work has shaped the nature of the conceptual framework

outlined in this paper, it is essential to identify some gaps in his arguments:

1. When considering the cultural occupations as a whole, Bourdieu offers too

homogenous a picture of such creative practitioners. We need a more

differentiated picture of these occupations, particularly as regards

education and training.

2. Bourdieu emphasises the highly conservative values and lifestyles of

cultural intermediaries, but these could be interpreted differently within in

the context of public relations. We might consider, for example, Derina

Holtzhausen’s (2002) ‘postmodern’ approach to defining the public

relations practitioner as a change agent within organisations or the social

role assumed by many practitioners in Latin America as identified by Juan-

Carlos Molleda (2002; 2003).

These ideas will be explored further as this paper progresses. In order to apply

them to ‘practitioner’ culture, it is necessary to explore the characteristics of such

a concept significant for such research.

Characteristics of ‘practitioner’ culture

(1) Lifestyles

8

As a cultural form (Trice, 1993), the lifestyles of public relations practitioners

constitute part of the surface culture of the occupation. The idea of a ‘shared’

lifestyle refers to the way in which goods and social pursuits are used to draw the

lines of social relationships amongst practitioners. Graeme Salaman (1974: 21)

proposes that members of an occupational culture associate with, and make

friends of, other members of their occupation in preference to having friends who

are outsiders, and that they carry work activities and interests into their non-work

lives; pursuing work-connected hobbies and belonging to work-related societies

of clubs. Furthermore, it would be interesting to apply the suggestion of Douglas

and Isherwood (1980) that our enjoyment of goods is only partly related to their

physical consumption, being also crucially linked to their use as markers. Can it

be argued that public relations practitioners might share common attitudes

towards certain goods, fashions and social pursuits, using them as signifiers of

their association with one another? (see Featherstone, 1992: 87).

Research would need to consider the extent to which public relations

practitioners want to differentiate themselves as a group from other occupational

groups. Mike Featherstone (1992: 83) argues that, “while the term (lifestyle) has

a more restricted sociological meaning in reference to the distinctive style of life

of specific status groups (Weber, 1968; Sobel, 1982; Rojek, 1985), within

contemporary (…) culture it connotes individuality, self expression, and a stylistic

self-consciousness”. This may be particularly true for those practitioners working

within the areas of promotion and marketing communications, where increasing

importance is being placed on personal style as a means of identifying creative

individuals (for an empirical study which offers an insight into the importance of

dress within the field of publishing see Dellinger, 2002). Secondly, Can common

values regarding products, social pursuits or fashions, be placed on the same

level as common values regarding behaviour on such issues as human rights?

Rusciano (1998: 91) proposes that “while some issues may be more important

(by whatever standard one uses) than others, they are all reflective of an

9

underlying process of symbolic meaning which goes into the creation of norms

which bind [cultures]”.

By developing a conceptual framework to study the lifestyles of public relations

practitioners, it is possible to assess the pervasiveness of the occupational

culture – in essence, those activities inside or outside of the occupation for which

the occupation sets the norms (Trice, 1993: 33). An initial review of the relevant

literature has highlighted four key areas in which to assess the pervasiveness of

a ‘practitioner’ culture:

The extent to which practitioners,

• build their lives around work

• extend work relationships in to their non-work lives

• encourage their children to follow the same profession

• share work-based beliefs about the world

This paper proposes that one might also add to this list,

• [the extent to which practitioners] share common attitudes towards

patterns of consumption and leisure pursuits.

This leads us to consider what might be the significance of commonly held

worldviews amongst practitioners of public relations.

(2) Practitioner Values, Norms and Worldviews

If lifestyle is taken to form part of the surface make-up of an occupational culture,

then norms, values and worldviews comprise the deep element (Trice, 1993: 33).

Clifford Geertz (1973: 27) defines worldview as the “picture of the way things in

sheer actuality are, their concept of nature, of self, of society”, whilst Kuhn (1970,

as cited in Grunig, 1992: 35) describes it as a “paradigm…that stands for the

entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the

members of a given community”.

10

The concepts of values and norms within a culture are closely allied to the idea of

worldview but are concerned with how the thoughts shared by members of a

culture impact on their behaviour. Hofstede (1984: 19) sees values as

unconscious and conscious feelings, which manifest themselves in human

behaviour. Values differ by intensity and direction, he explains this as follows, “If

we “hold” a value, this means that the issue involved has a certain relevance for

us (intensity) and that we identify certain outcomes as “good” and others as “bad”

(direction)”. Trompenaars (1993: 23) argues that whilst norms might give us a

feeling of “this is how I normally should behave”, a value is a feeling of “this is

how I aspire to behave”.

Salaman (1974: 91) applies the concept of value systems explicitly to

occupational culture, suggesting that they “contain a view of the occupation, its

role in society, the nature of the contribution it makes to the general good, the

relationship between the occupation and other related lines of work, and the

conditions necessary to ensure an adequate flow for ‘suitable’ recruits to the

occupation”. The work of Elizabeth Toth (2002) and Derina Holtzhausen (2002;

2000) which looks at the existence of modernist and postmodernist values in the

public relations profession, together with Larissa Grunig’s studies of the feminist

values shared by many practitioners in the United States (see Grunig, Toth and

Hon, 2000), have paved the way for subsequent studies that place greater

emphasis on the role of occupational values in setting the future direction for the

practice of public relations. For example, Vasquez and Taylor (2000: 433)

suggest that public relations practitioners who have collectivist values tend to

practice two-way models of public relations, whilst there is also a link between

individualist values and the use on one-way communication approaches.

However, there remains much fertile ground in this area for critics to explore.

Factors influencing the development of ‘practitioner’ culture

Any study of a given culture cannot be fully understood without considering the

variables necessary in its survival. Initial secondary research on the development

11

of culture has highlighted three key areas in which a culture is able to develop

and which can be employed to the conceptual framework proposed in this paper:

(1) a ‘shared’ knowledge (or education); (2) communication between members

and; (3) member socialization.

(1) Knowledge and education

The importance of shared knowledge in the development of ‘practitioner’ culture

should be considered in two parts. Firstly, the idea of a common education, seen

here as the extent to which practitioners receive a formal education in the subject

- considering the impact of teaching material and practices, as well as the

knowledge gained from the university experience itself- and secondly, the

importance of continued professional development and the influence of

professional associations in the process.

A review of the relevant literature on the influence of university education on the

development of ‘practitioner’ culture highlights the following viewpoints. Hofstede

(2001: 414) argues that individuals receive their most influential cultural

education between childhood and starting work, “the place of socialization is the

school, apprenticeship, or university, and the time is between childhood and

entering work”. Whilst, Bourdieu (1984: 14) reflects on the nature of this

education as regards the cultural intermediary occupations, identifying what he

terms as the “economic-political culture taught in the universities or business

schools and the modernistic economic and social world view which is bound up

with it and which [practitioners] help to produce in their conferences,

commissions and seminars.”

There is a clear argument amongst academics that public relations education

plays an important role in homogenizing practitioners’ values regarding good

public relations practices and public relations organizational roles, but further

research is needed to understand its role in the development of ‘practitioner’

culture (Berkowitz and Hristodoulakis, 1999: 100).

12

(2) Communication

Culture is learned, acted out, transmitted, and preserved through communication

(Samovar and Porter, 2001: 21).

Public relations as a profession has come under considerable attack in recent

years as the debate surrounding so-called ‘spin’ has escalated. Academics and

practitioners alike have often criticised the industry for not being able to ‘PR

itself’. However, successful public relations for the industry itself can only be

achieved externally if there is effective and consistent ‘internal’ communication

i.e. communication between practitioners themselves and between practitioners

and education and/or industry bodies. In their analysis of public relations as

practised in three Asian cultures, Sriramesh, Kim and Takasaki (1999) propose

that cooperative relationships are the key to the success of the public relations

profession [and to the development of ‘practitioner’ culture], and suggest that

cooperation can only be found in an occupation that also values communication.

Not only is the role of communication in the transfer of information and the

process of recognition and reception of messages key to sustaining culture, but,

more recently the challenge has been set communication researchers to take a

more ‘interpretivist’ approach and concentrate on how humans “achieve co-

ordination by managing the ways messages take on meaning” (Cronen and Band

Harris, 1982: 68). Indeed, Stephen Banks (1995) argues that culture is

constructed by people in communicative interaction and that what is important in

this process is the meanings people assign to the messages they receive.

If culture is something which lives in the minds of individuals and is constantly

being recreated in their daily lives, every communication encounter is to some

extent cultural. A public relations practitioner is open to the influences of

‘practitioner’ culture in all areas of their working life -working as a part of a public

relations team, as a member of a professional association, reading industry-

13

related magazines and socializing with work colleagues. In order to understand

such communication encounters effectively, research should also explore the

role of language in ‘practitioner’ culture. Salaman (1974: 24) suggests that

cultural knowledge may be transmitted and referred to through a specific ‘argot’.

“This argot serves to separate the insiders from the outsiders and as a technical

language – a way of describing the techniques, processes, methods and tools of

the trade”.

(3) Occupational ‘Socialization’

Watson (1987: 293) defines socialization as “the process whereby individuals

learn about the norms, values, customs and beliefs of an occupation”. There are

two significant approaches to the study of the processes of socialization

undertaken by members of a culture.

Firstly, a social cognition orientation suggests that people construct their own

views of reality, as advocated by Reeves, Chaffee and Tims (1982: 289). This

assumes that each receiver “is mentally active, organising and processing stimuli

from the environment rather than simply responding directly to them”. These

views of reality for public relations practitioners are, again, created by the

information and opinions individuals obtain in the workplace, through education

and membership of industry bodies; the images presented in the media; and their

social contacts. The impact of this contact results in individual or shared opinions

that become a residue of multiple influences. As active participants in this

communication process, public relations practitioners are therefore capable of

recalling and adding information and thoughts to that which they receive from

various aspects of their everyday lives.

Secondly, from the work of GH Mead and the distinction he identified between

symbolic and non-symbolic interaction, the symbolic-interactionism approach to

member socialization suggests that, “[whilst engaged] in … non-symbolic

interaction human beings respond directly to one another’s gestures or actions;

14

in symbolic interaction they interpret each other’s gestures and act on the basis

of the meaning yielded by the interpretation… Symbolic interaction involves

‘interpretation’, or ascertaining the meaning of the actions or remarks to the other

person, and ‘definition’, or conveying indications to another person as to how he

is to act.” (see du Gay, 1996: 28). The concept of symbolic interaction suggests

that member socialization is a process in which members of a culture associate

with one another- a process where participants fit their own acts to the ongoing

acts of one another- and guide others in doing so. For example, it may be argued

that the processes of socialization for public relations practitioners working as

government communicators are quite different from those who are involved in a

corporate communications role (see Park, 2003 - a study which explores the

extent of the discrepancy between the professional standards of government and

corporate public relations practitioners).

In their exploratory study of practitioner roles, education and professional

socialization within public relations, Berkowitz and Hristodoulakis (1999) compare

practitioners who once worked as journalists and those coming from alternative

routes. The study identified differing perceptions of the role of public relations

amongst these two groups and argued that this could be traced back to how

education and work socialization fit into practice. Despite the differences

highlighted between practitioners working in varying fields, further industry-wide

research is needed in order to identify whether public relations can claim some

consistencies in the socialization process, particularly regarding the definition

and communication of occupational values.

It is important that any framework for research considers that member

socialization will not be successful unless an individual feels sufficiently ‘involved’

in the occupational culture. Trice (1993: 120) proposes two ‘involvement-

arousing’ factors which are significant when applied to public relations:

15

(1) Skilled work – the work requires the application of specific knowledge and

expertise.

(2) The work is considered to have a ‘social value’ – being concerned with

core societal values and events. This aspect is highlighted in particular in

the literature on postmodern practices of public relations (Holtzhausen,

2002 and 2000).

Employing an ‘emic’ conceptual framework for research to understand the

relationship between PR and culture.

Argentine/Mexican anthropologist, Nestor Garcia Canclini (1993: viii) identifies

the need to encourage research that regards culture as a tool helpful for

understanding, reproducing, and transforming the social system, particularly

within the context of Latin America. In providing a conceptual culturalist

framework from which to explore the practices of public relations, we can see

how such an approach can aid our understanding of how the profession can

impact on wider society (in this case the national culture of Mexico).

The field of public relations has long recognised the need to research the

characteristics of its key publics, however, this paper argues that the profession

also needs to learn more about the link between practitioner culture, which in

public relations terms, may itself be considered a ‘public’ and the communication

programmes it produces. A good deal can be learnt from an analysis of the

practitioners themselves; it provides us with a route into the broader cultural

analysis of the way in which the intermediary professions add cultural values and

meanings to goods and services (see Nixon 1997: 209). Any contact between

public relations practitioners and their diverse publics (often from different cultural

backgrounds within a particular society) requires an examination of how cultural

similarities and differences shape communicative and relationship-building efforts

which impact on the overall efficacy of the campaign (Bardhan, 2003: 230). It has

been proposed here that the experiences and attitudes shared by members of a

16

‘practitioner’ culture affect the views regarding appropriate communication

practices which practitioners bring to a campaign.

It might be argued that public relations has played a significant role in Mexico

within a political context. This has been particularly evident in the creation of a

post-revolution ‘national identity’ programmes common in post-colonial societies;

resulting from the tendency towards centralisation that accompanied the state

formation process, in which attempts were made to eliminate differences in order

to create a unified integrating culture for the nation.2 However, as the country has

developed, public relations has itself developed to take on many other functions

in society.

In his study of the role of cultural intermediaries in the fields of production and

culture, Keith Negus (2002: 513) suggests that the cultural dispositions and

working practices shared by professionals in cultural intermediary roles

contribute to the formation of particular types of ‘industry’. In the case Mexico

and other ‘representative democracies’ within Latin America (Flas Borda, 1990:

81)3, an additional role taken on by the public communication ‘industry’ (taken

here to refer to the fields of public relations, organisational communication and

political communication) has been that of developing the knowledge necessary in

the creation of new social identities. For example, Bourdieu (1984: 305)

describes cultural intermediaries as a ‘younger’, modernist’ group which identifies

“more fully with the role of the modern executive who is oriented towards the

outside world (…) and is open to modern ideas...” It may be argued that public

relations practitioners are one of the first groups in Mexican society to become

aware of new goods and services; their social and cultural value and how to use

them appropriately, within the context of both their work environment and

lifestyle. This can have a significant impact on aspiring groups in society who

adopt a learning mode towards consumption and the cultivation of a lifestyle and

2 A concept adapted from Mike Featherstone’s (1996) work on postmodernity 3 Flas Borda (1990: 81) refers to ‘representative democracies’ as those countries undergoing the transition to full/late modernity.

17

are therefore more open to campaign messages claiming to enhance their way of

life and to emulate the lifestyles of the practitioners themselves (see

Featherstone, 1996: 19).

As this paper has already touched upon, in his work on the nature of public

relations as practised in Brazil, Juan-Carlos Molleda has identified a further

social function of public relations in Latin America which he refers to as “those

committed [to social] transformation towards a stage of higher social equality”

(Cicilia Peruzzo, 1993: 133 as cited in Molleda, Athaydes and Hirsch, 2003: 359).

Public relations practitioners working within this context would be disposed

towards building a free and fair society; recognising the rights of citizens;

encouraging the exchange of knowledge to encourage collective actions the

sharing of decision-making power within society. Might this be true of public

relations as practised in Mexico?

In an era of ‘desmodernidad’ in Mexico (Bartra, 1992: 9)4; typified by the de-

centralisation of power and the acknowledgement of local, regional and sub-

cultural differences (see Featherstone, 1996: 142) this paper also proposes that

those cultural intermediary occupations such as public relations, who value

seeking out and letting be heard those popular and uncommon cultures via an

expanding range of mass media might be defined as a cultural apparatus (Garcia

Canclini, 1993: 17) –those institutions that administer, transfer and renew cultural

capital- and, in so doing, these occupations have a significant role to play in the

transformation of the social and cultural system.

Summary

By proposing an agenda for research by way of outlining a conceptual framework

which considers the concept of an occupational culture relevant to practitioners

of public relations, this paper has considered the following key areas and applied

them within the context of Mexico:

4 Bartra used this term to denote an annihilation of tensions owing to an excess of modernity.

18

• The more widely accepted definitions and concepts of national culture,

which can be applied to occupational culture.

• The differences between the surface and deep elements of culture in

relation to occupational culture

• The key aspects of occupational culture that can be applied to the study of

a ‘practitioner’ culture relevant to public relations.

• How a study, which focuses on the occupational culture of public relations

practitioners, can be applied to aid in our understanding of the

profession’s role in the creation and circulation of societal culture.

19

References

Banks, Stephen P (1995), Multicultural Public Relations: A Social-Interpretive

Approach. Sage.

Bardhan (2003) “Rupturing Public Relations Metanarratives: The example of

India” in Journal of Public Relations Research, 15 (3), pp 225 - 248

Bell, Daniel (1976) The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism London:

Heinemann.

Berkowitz, Dan and Ilias Hristodoulakis (1999) “Practitioner Roles, Public

Relations Education, and Professional Socialization: An Exploratory Study” in

Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(1) pp. 91-103.

Bourdieu (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Trans,

R. Nice) London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.

Coxon, Anthony P.M. and Charles L. Jones (1978) The Images of Occupational

Prestige. The MacMillan Press.

Cronen VE, Pearce W, Band Harris, LM (1982), “The Coordinated Management

of Meaning: A Theory of Communication”. In F.E.X. Dance (Eds.) Human

Communication Theory: Comparative Essays New York: Harper and Row pp. 61-

89.

Dellinger, Kirsten (2002) “Wearing Gender and Sexuality “On Your Sleeve”:

Dress Norms and the Importance of Occupational and Organizational Culture at

Work”. Gender Issues, Winter pp.3-25.

20

Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. (1980) The world of Goods. Harmondsworth:

Penguin.

Du Gay, Paul (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work. Sage: London.

Fals Borda, Orlando (1990) “The Application of Participatory-Action Research in

Latin America” in Martin Albrow and Elizabeth King (eds) Globalization,

Knowledge and Society: Readings from International Sociology London, Sage

pp.79-100.

Featherstone, Michael (1992) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London:

Sage.

Garcia Canclini, Nestor (1993) Transforming Modernity: Popular Culture in

Mexico. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Geertz, Clifford (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books. (2000

Edition).

Grunig James E (ed.) (1992) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication

Management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Grunig, Larissa. A, Elizabeth Toth and Linda Childers Hon (2000) “Feminist

Values in Public Relations” in Journal of Public Relations Research, 12 (1) pp.

49-68.

Guirdham, Maureen (1999), Communicating Across Cultures (Macmillan

Business).

Hofstede, Geert (2001) Cultures Consequences (Second Edition) London: Sage

Publications.

21

Hofstede, Geert (1994) Cultures and Organisations, London Harper Collins

Publishers.

Hofstede, Geert (1984) Cultures Consequences London Sage Publications.

Holtzhausen, Derina R. (2002) “Towards a Postmodern Research Agenda for

Public Relations”. In, Public Relations Review, 28 pp. 251-164.

Holtzhausen, Derina R. (2000) “Postmodern values in Public Relations” In Public

Relations Research, 12 (1), pp. 93-114.

Jandt, F.E (1998) Intercultural Communication. An Introduction. (2nd Edition)

Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Kelly, Laurence (1993) “Occupational cultures” (Review of Occupational

Subcultures in the Workplace by Harrison M, Trice. ILR Press, 1993) in Worklife

Report, 1993, Vol.9 (2) p. 19.

Kluckhohn, F and Strodtbeck F (1961) Variations in Value Orientations.

Evanstone, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company.

Kroeber, A and Kluckhohn F (1952) Culture: A critical Review of Concepts and

Definitions, Cambridge Mass: Harvard Business Review.

Lash, S & Urry, J (1987) The End of Organised Capitalism. Oxford: Polity Press.

Mohammadi, Ali (Eds.,) (1997) International Communication and Globalization.

Sage Publications.

22

Molleda, Juan-Carlos, Andreia (accent on e) Athaydes and Vivian Hirsch (2003)

“Public Relations in Brazil: Practice and Education in a South American Context”

in Sriramesh, Krishnamurthy and Dejan Vercic (Eds) Global Public Relations

Handbook: Theory, Research, and Practice. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc., pp. 356-377.

Molleda, Juan-Carlos (2002) “International Paradigms: The Social Role of

Brazilian Public Relations Professionals” paper presented at the 85th Annual

Convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass

Communication, Miami, Florida.

Negus, Keith (2002) ‘The work of Cultural intermediaries and the enduring

distance between production and consumption’. In Cultural Studies 16(4) pp.

501-515.

Nixon, Sean and Paul Du Gay (2002) “Who Needs Cultural Intermediaries?” In

Cultural Studies 16 (4) Routledge pp. 495-500.

Nixon, Sean (1997) “Circulating Culture”, In Du Gay, Paul (eds,) (1997)

Production of Culture / Cultures of Production, Culture, Media and Identities

Series Sage in association with The Open University pp. 11-16.

Park, Jongmin (2003) “Discrepancy Between Korean Government and Corporate

Practitioners Regarding Professional Standards in Public Relations: A Co-

Orientation Approach” In Journal of Public Relations Research, 15 (3) pp. 249-

275.

Reeves B, Chaffee SH and Tims A (1982) “Social Cognition and mass

communication research”. In ME Roloff and CR Berger (Eds.) Social Cognition

and Communication pp. 287-326.

23

Rusciano, Frank Louis (1998) World Opinion and the Emerging International

Order, Praeger Series in Political Communication.

Salaman, Graeme (1974) Community and Occupation – An Exploration of

Occupational Prestige Cambridge University Press.

Samovar, Larry A and Richard E Porter (2001), Communication Between

Cultures (4th Edition) Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Sreberny-Mohammadi, Annabelle (1997) “The many Cultural Faces of

Imperialism”. In Golding, Peter and Phil Harris (eds) (1997) Beyond Cultural

Imperialism: Globalization, Communication & the new International Order

(Communication and Human Values Series) Sage Publications.

Sriramesh, K ., Kim, Y and Takasaki, M (1999) “Public Relations in Three Asian

Cultures: An Analysis.” In, Journal of Public Relations Research, 11 pp. 271-292.

Toth, Elizabeth. L (2002) “Postmodernism for modernist public relations: the cash

value and application of critical research in public relations” in Public Relations

Review 28 pp. 243-250.

Trice, Harrison Miller (1993) Occupational Subcultures in the Workplace. ILR

Press.

Trompenaars F (1993) Riding the waves of Culture, London: Nicholas Brealey

Publishing Ltd.

Vasquez, Gabriel, M and Maureen Taylor (2000) “What Cultural Values Influence

American Public Relations Practitioners?” In, Public Relations Review, 25 (4) pp.

433-449.

24

Watson, Tony (1987) Sociology, Work and Industry (2nd Edition) London,

Routledge.

Williams, Raymond (1998) “The Analysis of Culture”, In J. Storey (ed) Cultural

Theory and Popular Culture- A Reader (2nd Edition) Prentice Hall.