identities

A theoretical framework for studying socially constructed identities

Abstract

This study explores how a concept of social construction of reality (Berger &

Luckmann, 1966) can be revisited so that it benefits researchers interested in multiple

identity construction. A theoretical approach is offered for studying multiple identities in

public relations. The author argues for a social construction perspective to insure a

comprehensive analysis of multiple identity construction of PR professionals. The study

critiques previous research on identity construction and negotiation, develops an

argument for a theoretical framework of social construction of identity, and concludes

with a description of a framework and its major assumptions.

2

With a growing interest in postmodernism, many communication scholars seek

new ways to examine and analyze identities of individuals. Although a great deal of work

has been done in the area of identity negotiation (Buzzanell, 1995; Sasson-Lavy, 2002;

Trethewey, 1999; Yerby, 1995), no previous research appears to specifically focus on the

field of public relations. This study holds a promise of advancing our knowledge of

multiple identities in the field of public relations based on social, professional, cultural,

and gender expectations. Such research would also provide a basis for future comparative

cross-national investigations, particularly in relation to multiple identity construction by

Western female practitioners, which lately has been a focus of some U.S. scholars such as

Aldoory (1998) and Toth (2001).

The growth of the public relations field makes it a particularly interesting area in

which to examine how professionals talk about their jobs, their profession, and their

identities. Most previous studies have concentrated only one social identity of PR

practitioners, gender (Aldoory & Toth, 2002) and did not analyze multiple identities and

their connection with one another. This study argues that the failure to provide a complex

examination is a direct result of lack of functional, comprehensive framework for

multiple identity analysis.

The study develops a basis for studying multiple identities in a systematic way. It

provides a foundation for future examination and comparison of social identity

constructions in the field of public relations. Specifically, it proposes a theoretical

framework for studying social constructed identities which allows researchers to explore

how PR practitioners characterize themselves and their roles as complex and multi-

layered social constructions. The study is based in the original work on social

3

construction of reality by Berger and Luckmann (1966) in order to better understand

processes and products of social construction in the field of public relations. This study

argues for re-examination of the concept of social construction of reality for the field of

public relations. In what follows, I demonstrate how this concept can benefit studies of

multiple identity construction and negotiation and provide a basis for complex analysis of

identities within the field of public relations. The study also speculates how social

construction of identity may influence social construction of reality.

The proposed here theoretical framework helps to better understand how PR

practitioners socially construct identities in postmodern society. The framework provides

ways to analyze the construction and negotiation of multiple identities by professionals in

the field of public relations based on their professional, cultural, and gender

characteristics.

This study begins with a classical description of the concept of social construction

of reality and examination of the relationship between social construction and

postmodernism. Then, the study discusses heuristic value of social construction approach

in communication and demonstrates how social construction has been used in other social

scientific fields, such as international relations. Next, it addresses a poststructuralist

feminist tradition link to social construction. The study concludes with the literature

critique of previous research that used social construction for multiple identity analyses

and explains the proposed theoretical framework.

Social Construction of Reality

The roots of social construction can be found in sociology (Craig, 1995; Shotter &

Gergen, 1994). Berger and Luckmann (1966) were the first to define and

4

comprehensively examine a phenomenon of social construction of reality. Practically

every social construction project, grounded in sociology, social psychology, or

communication (particularly, interpersonal communication), appeared after publication of

this benchmark work. Berger and Luckmann’s project was largely a sociological way to

approach a new kind of knowledge – an attempt that was taken on by others in more

comprehensive ways (Bloor, 1976; Hekman, 1986). At the time this study was published,

the nature of dialogue (Buber, 1965/1970), phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty, 1962), and

symbolic interaction (Burke, 1966, 1978) emerged as central concerns in philosophy

(Rorty, 1979). Hermeneutics (Gadamer, 1976; Palmer, 1969) and deconstruction

(Derrida, 1976) were also on the rise. Examination of language and its interpretations was

also in focus of many scholars including Goffman (1974), Heidegger (1971), and Hymes

(1972).

Berger and Luckmann (1966) situated their idea of social reality in Durkheimian

theory and French school of sociology:

Our view of the nature of social reality is greatly indebted to Durkheim and his school in French sociology, though we have modified the Durkheimian theory of society by the introduction of a dialectical perspective derived from Marx and an emphasis on the constitution of social reality through subjective meanings derived from Weber. (p. 15)

Looking for systematic theoretical reasoning, they referenced to theories of Durkheim

(1950) in The Rules of Sociological Method and Weber (1947) in Wirtschaft und

Gesellschaft, “two of the most famous and most influential ‘marching orders’ for

sociology”:

Durkheim tells us: “The first and most fundamental rule is: Consider social facts as things.” And Weber observes: “Both for sociology in the present sense, and for history, the object of cognition is the subjective meaning-complex of action.” These two statements are not contradictory. Society does indeed possess objective

5

facticity, and society indeed built up by activity that expresses subjective meaning. And, incidentally, Durkheim knew the latter, just as Weber knew the former. It is precisely the dual character of society in terms of objective facticity and subjective meaning that makes its ‘reality sui generis,’ to use another key term of Durkheim’s. The central question for sociological theory and then be put as follows: How is it possible that subjective meanings become objective facticities?” (p. 16)

Conscious of the multiple realities of everyday life, Berger and Luckmann (1966)

wrote, “The language used in everyday life continuously provides me with the necessary

objectifications and posits the order within which these make sense and within which

everyday life has meaning for me” (p. 21). Language, in this sense, coordinates one’s life

in society and fills it with meaningful objects. Language makes subjectivity “more real”

(p. 36), not only for conversational partners, but also for oneself. The capacity of

language to identify and preserve one’s subjectivity, albeit with modification, is

conserved even after face-to-face interaction is over: “This very important characteristic

of language is well caught in the saying that men [sic.] must talk about themselves until

they know themselves” (p. 36). Language, therefore, becomes one’s primary reference to

everyday life.

Berger and Luckmann (1966) continued that all human activity is subject to

habitualization. If action is repeated frequently, it casts into a pattern and can be

reproduced later in a form apprehended by a performer in the beginning. Habitualization

implies that even undesirable actions may be performed again in the future “in the same

manner and with the same economic effort” (p. 50). This is true for social and non-social

activities. Since habitualization precedes institutionalization, “institutionalization occurs

whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of actors;” in

other words, “any such typification is an institution” (p. 51).

6

Construction of a Social Institution

Historically, institutions imply control (Foucault, 1979; Gramschi, 1929-

1935/1971). By the very fact of existence, they control human conduct by setting patterns

of conduct which are constantly distributed through as many channels as possible (Berger

& Luckmann, 1966). For individuals, institutions are similar to reality of everyday life;

social formations are transmitted to a new generation and become an objective reality. It

has been proposed that public relations can be seen as a social institution (Shishkina,

1999; Tsetsura, 1997). Shishkina, for example, argues that public relations is a social

institution in Russia. She defines social institution as following:

A complex that includes, on one hand, a sum total of normative value-dependent roles and statuses that aim to satisfy certain social necessities; on the other hand, social education that is created to use resources of society in the form of interaction to satisfy such necessity. (p. 123)

This definition, similar to one proposed by Tsetsura (1997), is drawn from Russian

sociological perspectives on institutions offered by Gavra (1995) and Komarov, Ionin,

and Osipov (1979) who, in their turn, base their knowledge of social institutions on

studies of social examination of realities by Durkheim and Weber. According to their

view, any formal societal order, established by continuous practice and education, which

presupposes normative roles, statuses, and practices to satisfy interests of society, and is

accepted to serve such interests, has a potential to become a social institution.

Ultimately, the process of acceptance of norms and rules of governance of such

institutions belongs to society at large (Shishkina, 1999). Juridical systems and medicine

are examples of such social institutions: their roles are clearly defined, norms and rules

are established and followed by both professionals who act in the field and society at

large which has a general knowledge about the field and legitimates the profession. In

7

that sense, public relations is an established social institution in the USA and emerges as

such in countries with developing economies and transitional democracies. The process

of social institutionalization of public relations, in my view, is not complete without a

general understanding of public relations’ goals, norms, and practices by society at large.

Public relations is still an emerging field today, and as a result it is an emerging social

institution with changing social norms, rules, and practices. From this transitional mode

of public relations as a newly emerging field comes an understanding of public relations

as a social institution which is yet to form completely.

An early stage of social institutionalization brings opportunities and challenges to

the field of public relations. On the one hand, a newly emerging social institution of

public relations implies certain historicity and control, which are evident from the very

start of institution formation (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Previous research on the rise

and development of public relations can help identify historicity and control within the

institution that specifically includes the process of creating and sharing common

knowledge about public relations, recording history of practices, and later, as more

practices come to play, establishing norms, rules and orders that govern this institution

(Cutlip, 1995; Tye, 1998). Historicity is necessary for successful and timely creation of

any social institution, but structure brings control and formation of hierarchy that is

resistant to change (Foucault, 1979; Mumby, 1989).

On the other hand, because this new social institution is unstable, it is more

dependent upon social influences than already formed institutions and can be more open

to change. Therefore, knowledge about what constitutes public relations is socially

formed and emphasized through various interactions. This knowledge essentially

8

penetrates to the building level of social institution and forms those normative value-

dependent roles of the field and, correspondently, offers social education about the roles

for individuals who perform such institutional roles.

As social institutions progress through history, move through time in society, and

develop sets of norms, rules, and orders (e.g., stabilize their social structures), they

become stronger and gain more control, which is perceived by society as given (Berger &

Luckmann, 1966).

Even though historicity and control, along with other factors that define public

relations or any other field for this matter, seem to be dominant, “it is important to keep

in mind that the objectivity of the institutional world, however massive it may appear to

the individual, is a humanly produced, constructed objectively” (Berger & Luckmann,

1966, p. 57). Such dialectical relationship between an individual and the social world puts

the product in a position to act “back upon producer” (p. 57).

Implications for one’s identity become clear: identification of oneself with the

objective sense of social action emphasizes both, self-experience and a social self. Social

identity is formed as a result of coming into terms with social reality. Institutionalization

of roles individuals play in the society calls for routine performances of such roles: “One

must also be initiated into the various cognitive and even affective layers of the body of

knowledge that is directly and indirectly appropriate to this role” (Berger & Luckmann,

1966, p. 72). Knowledge is seen as socially distributed, and through a dialectical

relationship between knowledge and its social base knowledge becomes a social product

and a factor in social change. Social distribution of knowledge has implications for social

construction of identity and repetitious practices of execution of different social

9

identities, depending on which identity is appropriate or desired at a specific point in

time. As a result, “whatever the experts do, the pluralistic situation changes not only the

social position of the traditional definitions of reality, but also the way in which these are

held in the consciousness of individuals” ( Berger & Luckmann, p. 115).

If socially constructed knowledge changes not only definitions of reality but also

constructions of this reality in minds of individuals, then socially constructed knowledge

can explain how specific ideas, including actions and knowledge about certain

professional practices, can be spread in society. If professionals themselves, specifically

public relations practitioners, can construct this knowledge about the institution of public

relations, then this knowledge can be potentially reflected upon individuals in the society

and their knowledge about that institution.

Social distribution of knowledge also happens as a result of secondary

socialization through means of division of labor and actions of carriers. The role-specific

vocabulary is learned by carriers of social institution through the acquisition of role-

specific knowledge when “the roles being directly and indirectly rooted in the division of

labor” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 127). Such distribution of knowledge can soon face

persistence from already formed reality because primary socialization (formation of

social structure) takes place first, and secondary socialization has to present knowledge

newly constructed through labor, so to speak. Thus, Berger and Luckmann state, “The

reality of everyday life maintains itself by being embodied in routines, which is the

essence of institutionalization. Beyond this, however, the reality of everyday life is

ongoingly reaffirmed in the individual’s interaction with others” (p. 137). Thus, reality is

originated by a social process and maintained by social processes.

10

Of course, reality can be transformed through what Berger and Luckmann (1966)

call “alterations” (p. 144). Modifications of reality can happen overtime. However,

recipes for successful alteration have to include social and conceptual conditions in which

society is first willing to construct such a change and then implement it in reality. If one

expands Berger and Luckmann’s idea of construction to formulation of social conditions,

one can include social construction of knowledge through individuals’ interactions into

what constitutes a certain condition and explain how this condition can be changed.

Essentially, what this means is that the reality of social institution has an ability to

change itself and, if certain conditions exist, can be changed through socially constructed

and reconstructed knowledge. Knowledge is reflexive, that is interacting individuals are

involved in constructing reality processes. Reality of institution therefore is subjective;

there is no one right reality. Openness for continuous change becomes feasible, and only

openness can be the obvious permanent condition of reality. Institutions thus always have

ability to change.

Social Construction and Postmodernism

One can easily note a close connection between the concept of social construction

and postmodernism. In fact, social construction is one of the main features of a

postmodern worldview (Berger, 1998, 2003; Derrida, 1982, 2001). Even though it is very

tempting to discuss postmodern views in relation to social construction, to keep a

theoretical discussion of this study manageable the author leaves the exploration of this

connection to others.

Another close connection is established between social construction and

dialectical tensions between agency-structure. Generally, three main theoretical

11

frameworks that aim to integrate agency and structure are structuration, identification,

and critical theory (Conrad & Haynes, 2001). Such tensions have been studied to a great

extent in organizational communication (Buzzanell, 2000; Cheney, 1991, 1999; Mumby,

1989, 2001; M. Papa, Singhal, Ghanekar, & Papa, 2000; Putnam & Fairhust, 2001; Scott,

Corman, & Cheney, 1998; Trethewey, 2000; Witmer, 1997). Each of these approaches is

different. For instance, under the umbrella of structuration one can find a variety of works

that are largely based on a structuration theory by Giddens (1984), which examines

various angles of agency-structure relationship at large. The framework on identification

deals specifically with issues of unobtrusive control, identification, and identity formation

in organization (Cheney, 1991, 1999; Scott, Corman, & Cheney, 1998). Finally, critical

theories address the issues of power, empowerment/disempowerment, interests,

participation, and democracy and are examined by scholars like Mumby (1989) and

Trethewey (2000). One major thread that unites these studies is examination of agency-

structure relations in specific organizational settings.

Identity of individual is examined in studies by Cheney, for example, as tensions

between agency of individual and structure of organization implicit in discursive

practices. Cheney’s focus, however, is on rhetorical examination and classification of

identity in relation to organization and on the process of identification (Cheney, 1991).

He draws heavily on writings by Burke to establish rhetorical connections between the

individual and the social. Cheney concentrates on identification with organizations and

identity processes resulting in such identification as relevant to organizational

communication. Although these studies pose important questions, they deserve

appropriate attention elsewhere. This theoretical framework can help to examine social

12

construction of identity as in relation not to a single organization but to a whole field.

This is a social constructionist rather than rhetorical approach for studying identities. For

this reason the framework finds the notion of social construction by Berger and

Luckmann most useful.

Heuristic Value of Social Construction

Over the last forty years, the classic project on social construction of reality gave

rise to numerous theoretical concepts, theory-developing exercises, and a massive

number of studies in different fields that focus on social, non-objective, and interactional

constructs of reality (Wilmer, 2002). Some version of social construction of reality, as

Leeds-Hurwitz (1992) points out, is generally common to all social approaches, as social

approaches concentrate on events that occur in the process of individuals’ interactions.

Berger and Luckmann’s study, unfortunately, is often ignored (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1995). In

my opinion, researchers who choose not to start from reexamination of Berger and

Luckmann’s social construction of reality miss a great opportunity to ground their basic

assumptions in comprehensive analysis of the nature and origins of social construction.

Certainly, one major reason that this sociological project has long been neglected

particularly by communication scholars is that interpretive social approaches had not

been placed in the mainstream research for many years (Craig, 1995). At the same time, a

strong desire to part from theories of social psychology and sociology in order to develop

independent theories of communication is also evident from communication research

(Craig, 1995; Leeds-Hurwitz, 1995). Unfortunately, it seems that much has been lost as a

result of such distancing from the original work on social construction. Much

communication research, for instance, has analyzed a concept of social construction as a

13

broad, overarching framework to study the influence of social interactions on individual

(Ehrlich & King, 1992; Mumby, 1989; Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 2000; Shotter & Gergen,

1994). Constructivism has been advocated in the studies of interpersonal communication

in the last decade (Burleson, 1989; Pearce, 1995; Sigman, 1992).

Social construction, or constructionism, and constructivism are sometimes used

interchangeably (e.g., Neimeyer, 1993), but more often scholars distinguish between the

two concepts (Chen & Pearce, 1995; Lannamann, 1992; Pearce & Cronen, 1980; Sigman,

1992). Both views share the idea that knowledge is not absolute and cannot be separated

from the knower (Yerby, 1995). The major difference between the two is that while

constructivism emphasizes personal subjectivity (Burleson, 1989), social constructionism

focuses on social, interactive, and complex performative relations between individuals’

identities (Shotter, 1992). Instead of separating cognitions from communication and

predicting behavior based on patterns, social constructionists, such as Lincoln and Guba

(1985) and Shotter (1984) propose that individuals construct meanings as they interact

with one another. K. Gergen and Gergen (1991) claim that social construction stimulates

“the fuller realm of shared languages” (p. 79). In social construction, knowledge is a

product of language functions in communities of knowledge (K. Gergen & Gergen, 1991;

Pearce, 1995). The process of socially constructed meaning is accomplished through

historical and social reflections on how knowledge is understood in communicative

interaction (Lannaman, 1992; Pearce, 1995; Yerby, 1995).

The fact that researchers of social approaches to communication follow Berger

and Luckmann’s ideas is evident from the past research on social construction. Shotter

and Gergen (1994) define social construction as a process of creation, expression, and

14

reinforcement of understanding and acknowledgement of a phenomenon through

continuous social interaction of social agents situated in certain environments, identified

politically, socio-economically, and culturally. Miller (2002) specifically points out the

problems of studying social construction because of the constantly changing social

interaction. The process of social construction is difficult to pinpoint, and its study should

focus not only on one interactional event (e.g., single conversation) but also on the

variety of such events.

Let us consider, for example, a social construction theory. Essentially, the social

construction theory argues against the idea that only one reality exists in the world, and

its fundamental assumption is that alternative realities exist (Yerby, 1995). A notion of a

“true” reality is challenged by the social construction theory which says that the process

of understanding “is a result of an active, cooperative enterprise of persons in

relationship” (Gergen, 1985, p. 267). In communication research, social construction

theory is actively used to examine shared meanings that individuals have in various

interactive environments, such as family interaction (Steier, Stanton, & Todd, 1982;

Yerby, 1995).

In addition to psychology and communication (Ehrich & King, 1992; Mumby,

1989; Postmes et al., 2000; Shotter & Gergen, 1994), a concept of social construction is

commonly used by other fields, including sociology (Nakano, 1999) and political

sciences, specifically international relations (Hopf, 2002; Kratochwil, 2001; Rissse,

Ropp, & Sikkink, 1999; Wapner, 1996). However, these studies for their specific

purposes define social construction differently. Social construction confirms to its nature

15

as a phenomenon: there is no one reality in social construction and there is no one

definition of what social construction is.

Social Construction in International Relations

Each field has developed an extensive line of research that looks at social

construction as a central theoretical framework. The following section illustrates how the

field of international relations adapted a social construction approach. I want to

concentrate specifically on the field of international relations to describe uses of this

framework in order to demonstrate the potential this framework has for studying socially

constructed entities in the field of international public relations for two reasons. First, this

area, unlike interpersonal (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1992, 1995) or organizational (Cheney, 1991)

communication, emphasizes the social nature of construction of any given entity in

society. Second, international relations crosses geographical, political, social, and cultural

borders and demonstrates how social construction can be used for studying processes that

happen during various interactions, such as establishing and maintaining relationships

with various publics such as governments, nongovernmental organizations, and

transnational corporations.

The field of international relations defines constructivism as a broad theoretical

approach that unites many scholars who think about interactions of different actors on the

international arena, such as governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and

transnational corporations, in terms of language (Rissse, Ropp, & Sikkink, 1999).

Political science scholars use constructivism instead of social construction to describe the

process of shared meaning creation among actors on the international arena. Based on

the discussion of differences between constructivism and social construction, or

16

constructionism, presented earlier in this section, it would be more accurate to call this

approach to international relations social construction. However, to keep the discussion

consistent with writings of many scholars in the field of political sciences, the author

refers to “constructivism” in the following discussion but emphasizes once again that the

important distinction, which is offered in communication and used in this study, has not

been addressed in political sciences.

The constructivism approach, heavily influenced by European philosophers of the

20th century, including Habermas (1984, 1987) and Foucault (1973), sees the human

world as created through the actions of actors themselves, not through the institutional

structures (Kratochwil, 2001). Actors’ intersubjective understanding of the world is a

result of intersubjectivity of the language through which shared meanings are created. As

a result, discourse creates a social order, and the language rules any activity. As

Kratochwil points out, constructivism most importantly contributes “to the analysis of

communication, and thereby, to a further understanding of social reality” (p. 30).

If ideas and meanings are constructed through discourse and discourse is essential

in creating a social reality, then ideas and meanings, presented on the international arena

and shared by actors, can influence a change (Zehfuss, 2001). This opens up new

possibilities for understanding how rules and norms are created in international relations:

they are influenced by agents’ discursive practices. Rules and norms are therefore not

static given entities: they can be redefined, reconsidered, and ultimately changed.

Discursive practices in international relations provide a new way of looking at the

society and allow reexamination of features initially thought to be simply prerogatives of

the states (Wendt, 1999). One of such issues is power. Essentially, power was understood

17

in political science materialistically and was seen in terms of territory or sovereignty

(Boli & Thomas, 1999). Now power is not an objective entity and can be seen at different

levels because it is situated in a social context (Wendt, 1999). Today, not only state

power is rethought, but also relational power of nonstate actors is emphasized (Rosenau,

1997). Discursive practices allow states to manipulate their power and decentralize power

from the states in society (Lipschutz, 1992). For example, Hochstetler, Clark, and

Friedman (2000) argue that states bargain their power as defined in terms of sovereignty

through their discourses on the international arena to reach their goals.

In sum, a constructivist approach in international relations creates a theoretical

basis for ongoing discussions in the field of political science about issues constructed

through interaction of nonstate actors with states as well as about a place of nonstate

actors in international politics. The primary arguments of constructivism, a constructive

view on the world and society through interactions, help to better understand the

democratizing role of NGOs in global politics. The constructivist view is used to create a

theory of networks and effectively demonstrates the democratizing role of NGOs (Keck

& Sikkink, 1998). By addressing an issue of framing and following discursive practices

of NGOs, Keck and Sikkink argue that the network on women’s rights showed how the

issue of women’s rights is problematic and needs to be addressed at the governmental

level. Women’s rights were presented as essential human rights, and this issue became

important to be pursued in many countries. Single country borders were crossed to bring

a socially constructed issue of women’s rights as human rights to the international arena.

It is rather easy to see that the basis for the constructivist approach to international

relations is in communication. Many essential features and concepts presented and

18

discussed are communicative in nature: the idea of shaping realities through discourse,

discursive power, and symbolic use of language to influence change are essential

rhetorical constructs (Burke, 1966; Mumby, 1988, 1989). Even though the main goal of

international relations is to study global political change, it comes close to the goals of

feminist social research (Harding, 1986; Hesse-Biber, Leavy, & Yaiser, 2004; Sprague &

Kobrynowicz, 2004), including those posed in the field of communication (Buzzanell,

1995, 2000, 2001), which are to study social change through human interaction if one

accepts Wapner’s (1995, 1996) idea that political change in a new society is inherently

social

The connection with Berger and Luckmann’s social construction of reality is

obvious. In the end, this approach to international relations studies how social

institutional changes happen through individuals’ interaction, through individuals’

construction of reality, and through mutual influence by institutions and individuals. If

international relations is interested in identifying the strategies for a social institutional

change through social construction, communication is interested in the products and

processes of social construction.

This study, therefore, reexamines the concept of social construction and

specifically concentrates on social construction of identity from a communicative

perspective. As a result it proposes a theoretical framework for analyzing the social

construction of identity by practitioners of one professional field, public relations.

Social Construction and Poststructuralist Feminist Tradition

19

Analyses of social construction of identity are often drawn from a poststructuralist

feminist tradition (Weedon, 1987, 1999). As Buzzanell (2001) argued, a poststructuralist

perspective presents multiple visions of socially constructed identities of individuals. In

poststructuralism, there are no fixed understandings of identity, and the knowledge and

perceptions are constructed socially, as for example, through cultural, social, and

historical factors. One of the major poststructuralist premises formulated by Weedon

(1987) emphasizes the importance of language through which identities of individuals are

socially constructed. Language executes the ways in which organizing, power, meanings,

and individual consciousness are presented. According to Berger and Luckmann (1966),

society, identity, and reality all together are subjectively crystallize in this process

through the utilization of language which “constitutes both the most important content

and the most important instrument of socialization” (p. 123). Language takes on the main

function of translating objective reality into subjective and back. Discourse becomes a

focus in studies of socially constructed identities.

Because meanings can be transformed through language, there are no fixed

meanings to any phenomenon (Weedon, 1999). Subjectivity, therefore, comes at the

center of a poststructuralist perspective. Studying subjectivity (i.e., one’s personal views

and experiences expressed through language) can help to reveal the complexity of

multiple identities (more than one identity that an individual has) and processes of

negotiation in the process of social construction of such identities through discourse.

It is important to mention that this discussion of a poststructuralist feminist

tradition does not make this study a poststructuralist feminist project. Instead, it only

20

demonstrates why the concept of multiplicity of identities is important for the analysis of

negotiation of socially constructed identities.

Gaps in the Communication Literature on Social Construction of Identity

So far, many communication projects that use the concept of social construction

of identity have not broken into the mainstream of communication research, in my view,

for the following reasons: a) a lack of definitions and conceptualization of social

construction at a theoretical level; b) a lack of strong, developed connections to the

primary sociological source on social construction; and c) an inability to theoretically

problematize socially constructed multiple identities.

First, a lack of definitions of social construction in numerous studies of socially

constructed realities and phenomena (including identities) is striking (e.g., studies by

Beall & Sternberg, 1995; Brants, 1989; Buzzanell, 1995; Ehrlich & King, 1992; Nakano,

1999; Sasson-Levy, 2002; Seccombe, James, & Walters, 1998; Thorne & Murray, 2000;

Wood & Rennie, 1994). It is always assumed that a reader knows what it is. Definitions

are never provided and explained. Most of the studies that use a concept of social

construction of identity refer to it simply as a “socially enacted process occurring through

language, discourse practices, and interaction” (Buzzanell, 1995, p. 328), and no

connection to other socially important factors that contribute to social construction of

reality is demonstrated. The main problem with such view is that it narrows down social

construction to merely language practices and did not account for any societal factors

(Jensen, 1991). This view becomes problematic once it is challenged to demonstrate how

language and specific discursive practices can construct and influence realities of social

structures (Wendt, 1999; Zeihfuss, 2001). It is difficult to explain why it is not merely a

21

language problem but a social problem and how deconstruction of discourse can help to

reconstruct reality and bring a social change (see critique of Derrida by Megill, 1985;

Norris, 1990). Social change is often a goal in social action research and is essential for a

feminist perspective, as many argue (e.g., Bhavnani, 2004; Devault, 1999; Hesse-Biber,

Leavy, & Yaiser, 2004; Hesse-Biber & Leckenby, 2004).

Second, contemporary communication studies on social construction fail to

recognize Berger and Luckmann’s work as a primary source. Most often social

construction studies in interpersonal communication cite K. Gergen (1985) and Shotter

and Gergen (1994) when talk about social construction as a concept in communication.

Craig (1995) and Leeds-Hurwitz (1995) mention Berger and Luckmann’s project but

never elaborate on that. Even though Gergen and Shotter provide a solid view on social

construction in communication, they use social construction for the purposes of

interpersonal communication research in a sense that individual is studied in terms of

how he or she is influenced by socially constructed practices individually. Social

constructionism, separated from constructivism, is distinguished and defined but never

gets “on its feet” to theorize about socially constructed identities. Moreover, connections

between laborers’ identities and social institutions often are not established. It seems that

examination of sociological roots of the phenomenon of social construction will help to

start problematizing the notion of multiple identities as related to social institutions.

Finally, current communication studies are unable to theoretically problematize

social construction of identities because they do not theorize about identity construction

per se. I argue that communication scholars should carefully reexamine studies in

postmodern sociology that focus on identity construction to set basics for studying

22

socially constructed identities in relation to communication. Postmodern theories can

help us to understand social processes and outcomes of such construction, so that

communication can provide meaningful ways to examine products of such construction

through shared discourse.

To understand a difference between studying processes and products of social

construction one can refer to distinction offered by Pearce ad Cronen (1980) and

reexamined by Pearce (1995). They observe social constructionism as a continuum and

argue for two approaches: one is studying the process of social construction and the other

one is studying the products of such construction. Pearce and Cronan specify their own

interest as constructing social realities and distinguish it from Berger and Luckmann’s

interest in the social construction of reality. These two approaches are critical for the

ontology of communication, in Sigman’s view. Sigman (1992) sees theorizing about the

process and the products of communication as two main foci for communication scholars

who use social approaches. Social approaches in communication, therefore stand on the

one hand on the process which studies “the situated, interactional patterns that creatively

evoke, sometimes validate, sometimes negotiate, sometimes embattle, sometimes

transform, social selves, relations, and institutions”; and, on the other hand, on products

which are “the locally distinguished symbols, symbolic forms, and meanings that

participants themselves consider significant and important” (Carbaugh & Hastings, 1992,

p. 157).

Burleson (1992) argues there are few theories of communication per se, and thus

communication is not taken “seriously.” Witnessing the absence of philosophies of

communication, he points out the necessity to focus on developing theories of

23

phenomena per se, which reflect critical attitudes toward communication and

problematize communication phenomena. In Burleson’s view, it would confirm one’s

“serious” intent toward communication. I take the same position as Burleson and agree

that in the context of our field scholars should be concerned with essential questions

about the nature of human communication phenomena, not with a second level of

questions, such as communication effects or message production. To take communication

seriously, scholars need to focus on the nature of existence of phenomena in interaction.

Theorizing about social construction of identity is one of the ways for taking

communicative phenomena seriously. Surely, one must remember that since

communication is highly complex, to take communication seriously, according to

Burleson (1992), is to accept the impossibility of creating one general scientific theory of

communication. Theoretical perspectives on identity construction can and should be

diverse, and the focus on fundamental structures, processes, and products of its creation

needs to be seriously studied and problematized.

Proposed Theoretical Framework for Studying Complex Identities

The idea of multiple identities comes directly from the social construction of

reality. Berger and Luckmann (1966) argued, “Identity is, of course, a key element of

subjective reality, and like all subjective reality, stands in a dialectical relationship with

society” (p. 159). Multiplicity of identities exists because identities can be formed,

modified, maintained, and reshaped by multiple social relations. Identities emerge from

the dialectic between individual and society. Identities are social products and thus need

to be examined as such. Berger and Luckmann argue that any theorizing about identities

24

has to occur within the framework of theoretical interpretations of socially constructed

realities in which identities are located.

In the past twenty years, identity construction research in sociology as introduced

and developed by Berger and Luckmann and Cooley and Mead, has been concentrating

on the three important trends: issues of group agency and political action; identification

processes as mechanics by which agency created, maintained, and changed; and the

relationship between new communication technologies and construction of self (Cerulo,

1997).

The nature of collective identity is grounded in classic sociological constructs

such as Durkheim’s “collective conscience,” Marx’s “class consciousness,” and Weber’s

Verstehen (Cerulo, 1997). It is the notion of “we” in a group that lately has been argued

as a more viable basis for the collective self. Much of the social construction work in

sociology has been done on gender identity (Connell, 1995; Margolis, 1985; West &

Zimmerman, 1987) and examination of gender and sex roles (Stacey & Thorne, 1985).

The concept of social construction is also actively used in the literature on national

identity (Cerulo, 1997; see works of Bloom, 1990; Bruner, 2002; Gillis, 1994; Spillman,

1997). Fewer studies, however, have examined professional identities from a social

constructionist perspective (Lingard, Reznick, Devit, & Espin, 2002; Marks, Scholarios,

& Lockyer, 2002).

Thus, this project proposes to adapt a theoretical framework for studying socially

constructed complex identities. Studying the nature of identity as socially constructed is

central for this study of identities of public relations practitioners. This framework

provides a basis for the development of two distinct interests in identities construction:

25

identities as products of social construction and identity negotiation as process of social

construction, in which individuals engage during the construction process. Since the

process of social construction presumes a change, identity negotiation can be

problematic. The problem could come from dialectic tensions between a newly emerging

social structure and a previously socially constructed reality as well as from negotiation

of multiple identities.

In a newly emerging field of public relations a change in social structure of a

social institution comes at price of a previously constructed reality of what understood as

public relations. For instance, those who started to practice public relations in the early

years could construct their own reality of what public relations is. That view of reality

could be incommensurable with today’s more sophisticated and developed view of the

field. The question remains: are there any actual reflections of changes a socially

constructed institution goes through that can be found in discourse of PR professionals or

are they merely theoretical speculations of the researchers? More importantly, can social

construction research help to understand which identity transformations PR professionals

undergo as they practice public relations? Specifically, can a study demonstrate what it

means to be a public relations practitioner?

My argument is that it is possible to answer these questions if one uses social

construction of identity as a framework. Previous studies in the field of public relations

failed to answer these questions, and in the past public relations research as a whole

provided no conceptual framework for approaching such questions, which were

formulated as a result of the active development of the social institution of public

relations in a postmodern society.

26

A lack of research on theorizing about multiple identities in public relations

motivated me to develop a framework to study socially constructed identities of public

relations practitioners. Following Berger and Luckmann (1966), my theoretical

framework will “seek to take cognizance of the transformations of identity that have

actually occurred” (p. 165). Theorizing itself may also be transformed in the process. As

a result of such theoretical development, I seek to problematize identity at the level of

theory itself (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). By problematizing I mean a comprehensive

critical examination of identity per se (Burleson, 1992).

Major Assumptions of the Proposed Theoretical Framework

By going back to the roots of social construction, this study aims to

reconceptualize social construction of identity (following Berger and Luckmann and

building on later works by others). I propose a theoretical framework for analyzing social

construction of identities by public relations practitioners. This framework is based on

major assumptions about social construction of reality.

First, there is no one true reality because reality is constructed through

individuals’ interactions. Second, social institutions are created in society through

construction and maintenance of sum total of value-dependent roles of individuals

directly connected with institutions as laborers and thus individuals influence

construction of social institutions in society. Next, there is a dialectical relationship

between individuals and socially constructed reality of social institutions in which such

reality affects and is affected by individuals’ interactions with one another. Then, since

multiple socially constructed realities exist, multiple identities of individuals also exist in

this dialectical relationship. These identities are socially constructed by individuals in

27

order to make sense of constantly changing socially constructed reality and their place in

such reality. In their turn, constant changes in realities, specifically in realities of social

institutions, require individuals to continuously negotiate their social identities so that

identities can interact with one another and shift in interaction to accommodate or resist

changes.

Thus, a twofold process of social construction takes place: a social institution is

influenced by individuals’ identity constructions and at the same time negotiations of

individuals’ identities are the products of socially constructed reality. Therefore, to study

social construction of any field such as PR one needs to study the essential components

of socially constructed realities – socially constructed identities. The proposed theoretical

framework theorized and executed in this study contributes to theories of social

construction of identity and delivers a potential for theorizing about social construction of

professional social institution of public relations.

This theoretical framework also opens up possibilities for future analyses to

provide a unique insight into studying the products of multiple identity construction as

well as processes of social construction of the social institution of public relations.

28

REFERENCES

Aldoory, L. (1998). The language of leadership for female public relations professionals.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 73-101.

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2002). Gender discrepancies in a gendered profession: A

developing theory for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14,

103-126.

Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationship, 12, 417-438.

Berger, A. A. (Ed.) (1998). The postmodern presence: Readings on postmodernism in

American culture and society. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Berger, A. A. (2003). The portable postmodernist. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

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

sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday & Company.

Bhavnani, K.- K. (2004). Tracing the contours: Feminist research and feminist

objectivity. In S. N. Hesse-Biber, & M. L. Yaiser (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on

social research (pp. 65-77). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bloom, W. (1990). Personal identity, national identity and international relations.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bochner, A., & Ellis, C. (1992). Personal narrative as a social approach to interpersonal

communication. Communication Theory, 2, 165-172.

29

Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1999). INGOs and the organization of world culture. In J.

Boli, & G. M. Thomas (Eds.), Constructing world culture: International

nongovernmental organizations since 1875 (pp. 13-49). Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Brants, K. (1989). The social construction of the information revolution. European

Journal of Communication, 4, 79-97.

Bruner, M. L. (2002). Strategies of remembrance: The rhetorical dimensions of national

identity construction. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Buber, M. (1965/1970). I and Thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons.

Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Burke, K. (1978). (Nonsymbolic) motion/(symbolic) action. Critical Inquiry, 4, 809-838.

Burleson, B. R. (1989). The constructivist approach to person-centered communication:

A research exemplar. In B. A. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O’Keefe, & E. Wartella

(Eds.), Rethinking communication: Paradigm exemplars (vol. 2) (pp. 29-46).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Burleson, B. R. (1992). Taking communication seriously. Communication Monographs,

59, 79-86.

Buzzanell, P. M. (1995). Reframing the glass ceiling as a socially constructed process:

Implications for understanding and change. Communication Monographs, 62,

327-354.

30

Buzzanell, P. M. (Ed.) (2000). Rethinking organizational and managerial communication

from feminist perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Buzzanell, P. M. (2001). Revising sexual harassment in academe: Using feminist ethical

and sense making approaches for analyzing macrodiscourses and micropractices

of sexual harassment. Unpublished manuscript.

Carbaugh, D., & Hastings, S. O. (1992). A role of communication theory in ethnography

and cultural analysis. Communication Theory, 2, 15-165.

Cerulo, K.A. (1997). Identity construction: New issues, new directions. Annual Review of

Sociology, 23, 385-409.

Chen, V., & Pearce, W. Barnett (1995). Even if a thing of beauty, can a case study be a

joy forever? A social constructionist approach to theory and research. In W.

Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to communication (pp. 135-154), New

York: The Guilford Press.

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

Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.

Cheney, G. (1999). Values at work: Employee participation meets market pressure at

Mondragón. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press/Cornell.

Connell, R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Conrad, C. & Hayes, J. (2001). Development of key constructs. In F. M. Jablin & L. L.

Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in

theory, research, and methods (pp.47-77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Craig, R. T. (1995). Foreword. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to

communication (pp. v-ix). New York: Guilford Press.

31

Cutlip, S. M. (1995). Public relations history: From the 17th to the 20th Century.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (G. C. Spival, Trans.). Baltimore: John Hopkins

Press.

Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, J. (2001). Acts of religion. New York: Routledge.

Devault, M. L. (1999). Liberating method: Feminism and social research. Philadelphia:

Temple University.

Durkheim, E. (1950). The rules of sociological method. Chicago: Free press.

Ehrlich, S., & King, R. (1992). Gender-based language reform and the social construction

of meaning. Discourse and Society, 3, 151-166.

Foucault, M. (1973). The order of things: An archeology of the human sciences. New

York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of prison. New York: Vintage.

Gadamer, H.- G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. Linge, Ed., Trans.). Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

Gavra, D. P. (1995). Formirovanie obschestvennogo mneniya: Tsennostnyi aspect.

Reprint nauchnogo doklada (Forming public opinion: Value aspect. Published

scholarly presentation). St. Petersburg, Russia: Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk.

Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.

American Psychologist, 40, 266-275.

Gergen, K., & Gergen, M. (1991). Toward reflexive methodologies. In F. Steier (Ed.),

Research and reflexivity (pp. 76-95). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

32

Giddens, A. (1984). The construction of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.


Gillis, J. (1994). Commemorations: The politics of national identity. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper.

Gramsci, A. (1929-1935/1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio

Gramsci (Hoare, Q., & Smith, G. N. Eds. and trans.). New York: International

Publishers.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the

rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1987). Philosophical discourses of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Haidegger, M. (1971). On the way to language (P. D. Hertz, Trans.). San Francisco:

Harper & Row.

Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. New York: Cornell University

Press.

Hekman, S. J. (1986). Hermeneutics and the sociology of knowledge. Notre Dame, IN:

University of Notre Dame Press.

Hennessy, J., & West, M. A. (1999). Intergroup behavior in organizations: A field test of

social identity theory. Small Group Research, 30, 361-382.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., Leavy, P., & Yaiser, M. L. (2004). Feminist approaches to research

as a process: Reconceptualizing epistemology, methodology, and method. In S. N.

Hesse-Biber, & M. L. Yaiser (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on social research (pp.

3-26). New York: Oxford University Press.

33

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leckenby, D. (2004). How feminists practice social research. In S.

N. Hesse-Biber, & M. L. Yaiser (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on social research

(pp. 209-226). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hochstetler, K., Clark, A. M., & Friedman, E. J. (2000). Sovereignty in the balance:

Claims and bargains at the UN conferences on the environment, human rights,

and women. International Studies Quarterly, 44, 591-614.

Hopf, T. (2002). Social construction of international politics: Identities and foreign

policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the inteaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz, &

D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of

communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wonston.

Jensen, K. B. (1991). When is meaning? Communication theory, pragmatism, and mass

media reception. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 14 (pp. 3-32).


Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Komarov, M. S., Ionin, L. G., & Osipov, G. V. (1979). Istoriia burzhuaznoi sotsiologii

pervoi poloviny XX veka (History of bourgeois sociology in the firs half of the

20th century). Moscow: Nauka.

Kratochwil, F. (2001). Constructivism as an approach. In K. Fireke & K.E. Jorgensen

(Eds.), Constructing international relations: The next generation (pp. 13-35).

Albany, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

34

Lannamann, J. W. (1992). Deconstructing the person and changing the subject of

interpersonal studies. Communication Theory, 1, 179-203.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1992). Forum introduction: Social approaches to interpersonal


Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1995). Introduction to social approaches. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.),

Social approaches to communication (pp. 3-20). New York: Guilford Press.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Lingard, L., Reznick, R., DeVito, I., & Espin, S. (2002). Forming professional identities

on the health care team: discursive constructions of the “other” in the operating

room. Medical Education, 36, 728-734.

Lipschutz, R. D. (1992). Reconstructing world politics: The emergence of global civil

society. Millennium: A Journal of International Studies, 21, 389-420.

Margolis, D. R. (1985). Re-defining the situation: Negotiations on the meaning of

“woman.” Social Problems, 32, 332-334.

Megill, A. (1985). Prophets of extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida.


Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. New York: Humanities Press.

Miller, K. (2002). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts.

Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Mumby, D. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: discourse, ideology,

and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

35

Mumby, D. K. (1989). Ideology and the social construction of meaning: A

communication perspective. Communication Quarterly, 37, 291-304.

Mumby, D. (2001). Power and politics. In F. M. Jablin, & L.L. Putnam (Eds.), The new

handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and

methods (pp. 585-623). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nakano, G. E. (1999). The social construction and institutionalization of gender and race:

An integrative framework. In M.M Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.),

Revisioning gender (pp. 3-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neimeyer, G. J. (Ed.) (1993). Constructivist assessment: A casebook. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Norris, C. (1990). What’s wrong with postmodernism: Critical theory and the ends of

philosophy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Palmer, R. T. (1969). Hermeneutics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Papa, M. J., Singhal, A., Ghanekar, D. V., & Papa, W. H. (2000). Organizing for social

change through cooperative action: The [dis]empowering dimensions of women's


Pearce, W. B. (1995). A sailing guide for social constructionists. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz

(Ed.), Social approaches to communication (pp. 88-113). New York: Guilford

Press.

Pearce, W. B., & Cronen, V. E. (1980). Communicating action and meaning: The

creation of social realities. New York: Praeger.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-

mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341-371.

36

Putnam, L.L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations: Issues and

concerns. In Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L.L. (Eds.), The new handbook of

organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods

(pp.78-136).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rissse, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (1999). The power of human rights: International

norms and domestic change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Rosenau, J. N. (1997). Along the domestic-foreign frontier: Exploring governance in a

turbulent world. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Scott, C. R., Corman, S. R., & Cheney, G. (1998). Development of a structurational

model of identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8, 298-336.

Seccombe, K., James, D., & Walters, K. B. (1998). “They think you ain’t much of

nothing”: The social construction of the welfare mother. Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 60, 849-865.

Shishkina, M. (1999). Public relations v sisteme soctsialnogo upravleniya (Public

relations in the system of social management). St. Petersburg, Russia: St.

Petersburg State University Press.

Shotter, J. (1984). Social accountability and selfhood. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Shotter, J. (1992). “Getting in touch”: The meta-methodology of a postmodern science of

mental life. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Psychology and postmodernism (pp. 58-73).


37

Shotter, J., & Gergen, K. J. (1994). Social construction: Knowledge, self, and continuing

the conversation. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 17 (pp. 3-33).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sigman, S. J. (1992). Do social approaches to interpersonal communication constitute a

contribution to communication theory? Communication Theory, 2, 347-356.

Spillman, L. (1997). Nation and commemoration: Creating national identities in the

United States and Australia. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sprague, J., & Kobrynowicz, D. (2004). A feminist epistemology. In S. N. Hesse-Biber,

& M. L. Yaiser (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on social research (pp. 78-98). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Stacey, J., & Thorne, B. (1985). The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Sociology

Problems, 32, 301-316.

Steier, F., Stanton, M. D., & Todd, T. C. (1982). Patterns of turn-taking and alliance

formation in family communication. Journal of Communication, 32, 148-160.

Thorne, S. E., & Murray, C. (2000). Social constructions of breast cancer. Health Care

for Women International, 21, 141-159.

Toth, E. L. (1988). Making peace with gender issues in public relations. Public Relations

Review, 14, 36-47.

Toth, E. L. (2001). How feminist theory advanced the practice of public relations. In R.

L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 327-348). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Trethewey, A. (1999). Disciplined bodies: Women’s embodied identities at work.

Organization Studies, 20, 423-450.

38

Trethewey, A. (2000). Revisioning control: A feminist critique of disciplined bodies. In

P. Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and managerial communication

from feminist perspectives (pp. 107-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tsetsura, E. (1997). Public relations kak sotsialnyj institut v Rossii (Public relations as a

social institute in Russia). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Voronezh State

University, Voronezh, Russia.

Tye, L. (1998). The father of spin: Edward L. Bernays and the birth of public relations.

New York: Crown Publishers.

Wapner, P. (1995). Politics beyond the state: Environmental activism and world civic

politics. World Politics, 47, 311-340.

Wapner, P. (1996). Environmental activism and world civic politics. New York: State

University of New York Press.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. New York: Basil

Blackwell.

Weedon, C. (1999). Feminism, theory, and the politics of difference. Madlen, MA:

Blackwell.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, NJ: Cambridge

University Press.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Sociology, 1, 125-151.

Wilmer, F. (2002). The social construction of man, the state, and war: Identity, conflict,

and violence in the former Yugoslavia. New York: Routledge.

39

Witmer, D. E. (1997). Communication and Recovery: Structuration as an Ontological

Approach to Organizational Culture. Communication Monographs, 64, 324-349.

Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying

action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yerby, J. (1995). Family systems theory reconsidered: Integrating social construction

theory and dialectical process. Communication Theory, 5, 339-365.

Zehfuss, A. (2001). Constructivisms: Wendt, Onuf, and Kratochwil. In K. Fireke, & K. E.

Jorgensen (Eds.), Constructing international relations: The next generation (pp.

54-75). Albany, NY: M. E. Sharpe.