Gordon, Joye C. 1997.

“Interpreting Definitions of Public Relations: Self Assessment and a

The question, "What is public relations?" has concerned many public relations practitioners and
scholars alike. Gruning and Hunt aptly observe that most definers of public relations "describe: (1)
the kinds of things public relations practitioners do, (2) what effect they think public relations
should have, and (3) how they believe public relations should be practiced responsibly."(FN1)
Grunig and Hunt demonstrate one definitional characteristic of serving normative goals by noting
that public relations definitions posit how public relations "should" affect publics and how public
relations "should" be practiced. In addition to serving normative goals, however, definitions are also
characterized by their inadvertent effects, their inherent assumptions and world views, as well as
their exclusionary function of saying what something is not. Many communication scholars agree
that definitions are inherently rhetorical and that the formations of definitions are social processes
that shape reality. Schiappa states that "[d]efinitions represent claims about how certain portions of
the world are."(FN2) He adds, "[d]efinitions function to induce denotative conformity, which is
another way of saying that definitions are introduced or contested when a rhetor wants to alter an
audience's linguistic behavior in a particular fashion. A successful new definition changes not only
recognizable patterns of behavior but also our understanding of the world."(FN3) Therefore,
definition is crucial to the processes that society employs to understand the world. With the
perspective that definitions play crucial roles both in societal processes and in the minds of those
who study and practice public relations, this essay examines popular definitions of public relations
as presented in eight public relations texts. Based on cursory observations and discussion with
colleagues these eight texts have been identified as prominent in undergraduate public relations
education. My goal is twofold. First, I will interpret the current definitions' assumptions and world
views and analyze the effects such premises foretell. Secondly, utilizing Herbert Blumer's symbolic
interactionism, I will present an alternative definition of public relations that encompasses a
different set of assumptions. To serve these goals, I begin with a review of several popular public
relations definitions as presented in eight prominent public relations texts.
CURRENT DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
Perhaps the best known definition of public relations is presented by Grunig and Hunt. In their
introductory text, Managing Public Relations, Grunig and Hunt define public relations simply as
"management of communication between an organization and its publics."(FN4) Likewise, most
other public relations definitions also employ the three key terms: manage, organization, and public.
Cutlip, Center, and Broom in the text, Effective Public Relations, state that "[p]ublic relations is the

1
management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an
organization and publics on whom its success or failure depends."(FN5) "This conceptual
definition," they justified in an earlier edition of the text, "unifies the broad range of activities and
purposes in public relations practice" and "serves as a basis for determining what is not part of the
public relations function."(FN6) Baskin, Aronoff, and Lattimore provide this lengthy working
defintion in their text, Public Relations: The Profession and the Practice: Public relations is a
management function that helps achieve organizational objectives, define philosophy, and facilitate
organizational change. Public relations practitioners communicate with all relevant internal and
external publics to develop positive relationships and to create consistency between organizational
goals and societal expectations. Public relations practitioners develop, execute, and evaluate
organizational programs that promote the exchange of influence and understanding among an
organization's constituent parts and publics.(FN7) They add that "this description captures the
essential aspects of public relations practice."(FN8) Crable and Vibbert advance public relations as
"the multiphased function of communication management that is involved in researching,
analyzing, affecting, and reevaluating the relationships between and organization and any aspect of
its environment" in their text, Managing Public Relations.(FN9) While Simon's text, Public
Relations Concepts and Practices, does not provide a unique definition of public relations, Simon
does outline six elements of the field. They are: (1) management function, (2) relationships between
an organization and its publics, (3) analysis and evaluation through research, (4) management
counseling, (5) implementation and execution of planned program of action, communication, and
evaluation through research, and (6) achievement of goodwill.(FN10) Likewise, Wilcox, Ault, and
Agee's Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics also restrains from presenting a unique definition of
public relations but proposes the essential elements of public relations as (1) deliberate, (2) planned,
(3) performance, (4) public interest, (5) two-way communication, and (6) management function.
(FN11) Most popular texts including The Practice of Public Relations,(FN12) This is PR: The
Realities of Public Relations,(FN13) and Managing Public Relations(FN14) present one or more of
the definitions advanced by various professional interests. Three such interests are the Foundation
for Public Relations Research and Education, the First World Assembly of Public Relations
Associations (whose definition is commonly known as "The Statement of Mexico") and the
newsletter, PR News. Funded by the Foundation for Public Relations Research and Education,
Harlow collected hundreds of public relations definitions and interacted with over 80 leading
practitioners to develop the following definition: Public relations is a distinctive management
function which helps establish and maintain mutual lines of communication, understanding,
acceptance and cooperation between an organization and its publics; involves the management of
problems or issues; helps management keep informed on and responsive to public opinion; defines

2
and emphasizes the responsibility of management to serve the public interests; helps management
keep abreast of and effectively utilize change, serving as an early warning system to help anticipate
trends; and uses research and sound ethical communication techniques as its principal tools.(FN15)
Not only did Harlow develop the preceding definition, he provided an additional description-
definition which includes a thirteen-item list which describes public relations practitioners. The
Statement of Mexico which was developed in 1978 by the First World Assembly of Public Relations
Association is the only definition that does not use the word "manage." However, like the other
definitions, it emphasizes organizations and publics. The Statement of Mexico reads: [Public
relations practice is] the art and social science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences,
counseling organizational leaders, and implementing planned programs of action which will serve
both the organization and the public interest.(FN16) The final definition being reviewed is that
advance by PR News. It reads: Public relations is the management function which evaluates public
attitudes, identifies the policies and procedures of an individual or an organization with the public
interest, and plans and executes a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance.
(FN17) Based on this short review of definitions presented in eight prominent public relations texts,
we see that many definitions of public relations are available. Seitel states, "although a generally
accepted definition of public relations still eludes practitioners, substantial headway toward a
clearer understanding of the field is being made."(FN18) Perhaps Seitel is correct in his assessment.
While, each of the reviewed definitions is different in some way, there are common elements shared
among all the definitions reviewed here.
CHARACTERISTICS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND EFFECTS OF CURRENT DEFINITIONS
As already pointed out, three elements (management, organization, and publics) are repeated among
the definitions. With the exception of the Statement of Mexico, all the definitions contain the term,
management. Public relations is either presented as a management function or the management of
communication. Most commonly, public relations is specifically defined as a management function.
Defining public relations by its management characteristic serves to promote the importance of
public relations departments within an organization. However, research has continually shown that
public relations' influence in an organization is dependent upon the dominant coalition.(FN19)
Likewise, public relations' failure to gain access to the dominant coalition has been lamented and
repeated calls have been made that public relations "should" be included in the dominant coalition.
(FN20) Defining public relations as a management function constitutes a normative
conceptualization of public relations and excludes public relations which is not involved in an
organization's decision making process. The normative conceptualization that public relations is or
"should" be a part of the dominant coalition reflects the assumption that public relations gains
influence through or from the dominant coalition. This assumption has had inadvertent effects in the

3
field. Most notably is the trend of self-study. Scholars repeatedly ask what qualities and situations
promote public relations participation in management decision-making. While I do not assert that
public relations should not be part of an organization's management, I do assert that such a focus
needlessly limits our self conceptualization and that we need to question our methods. If it is our
goal to advance public relations, should we not consider that power can be self-cultivated as
opposed to being taken from or shared with organizational dominant coalitions? Common to all the
definitions are the terms organization and publics. All the definitions dictate a specific setting where
public relations functions as a "middleman" between an organization and a public. Only the
definition advance by PR News considers that public relations may be practiced on the behalf of an
individual. However, despite the efforts to encompass the essential characteristics of public relations
practice, I contend that the definitions collectively have failed to describe reality. Public relations
not only can be practiced on behalf of an individual, public relations activities can also be targeted
at one individual. Commonly, individuals such as politicians and celebrities employ public relations
strategies to promote favorable relationships for themselves. Likewise, public relations personnel
often target individuals such as media representatives, politicians, or business leaders as specific
"publics" of interest. This phenomena is now getting consideration with the newly developed
personal influence model. Perhaps more notable than the restriction of public relations to a
particular setting is how public relations definitions describe the activities between organizations
and publics. Public relations, the definitions assert, "maintains mutually beneficial
relationships,"(FN21) "create[s] consistency between organizational goals and societal
expectations,"(FN22) "establish[es] and maintain[s] mutual lines of communication,"(FN23) and
"serve[s] both the organization and the public interest."(FN24) Clearly a normative goal is served
by presenting public relations as functioning within an idealistic model of two-way symmetrical
communication. Studies show, however, that public relations is most commonly one-way
communication or is two-way asymmetrical in nature.(FN25) The normative assertion common
among the definitions is that two-way symmetrical communication is the ethical way that public
relations "should" be practiced. Moreover, what is conspicuously missing from any of the
definitions is the term, "persuasion." According to our definitions' omissions, persuasion is part of
what public relations is not. Different world views dictate that persuasion can either be inherently
unethical, inherently ethical, or lacking in moral character in and of itself. If one believes that
dominant actors in society have the ability to dictate meaning to others, they see persuasion as
unethical. To conclude that persuasion is ethically undesirable assumes a Marxist world view.
Grunig describes this world view as assuming that "dominant actors in society are most able to
produce information subsidies and that poor, consumers, and other information-poor people are
least likely to be able to afford nonsubsidized information."(FN26) Within such a conceptualization,

4
public relations that is practiced in forms other than two-way symmetrical model (in forms that
attempt persuasion of others while disallowing reciprocal persuasion of the self) is an agent of
domination and, therefore, unethical. Alternatively, a separate world view posits that persuasion is
inherently ethical. In the Burkean tradition, persuasion "involves choice, will; it is directed to a man
only insofar as he is free."(FN27) Within this conceptualization public relations is ethical because
its efforts, including persuasion, operate in societies where recipients are free to accept or reject the
ideas advanced by public relations practitioners. Lastly is the view that persuasion's and public
relations activities' ethical nature is not inherent but is determined by the situation. Miller states that
"effective, ethically defensible persuasion and effective, ethically defensible public relations are
virtually synonymous."(FN28) While situational ethics bring on a host of problems and
considerations that will not be addressed here, Miller advances that persuasion does fall within the
definition of public relations and that "[w]henever control of the environment hinges on the
attitudes and behaviors of others, attempts to control these attitudes and behaviors are
inevitable."(FN29) While the purpose is not to draw conclusions about the ethicality of persuasion
and persuasive public relations activities, it is the goal to exemplify the fact that our most popular
definitions of our field assumes a Marxist-influenced world view. The effects of this position has
been the condemnation of our field and self doubt. Not adopting alternative world views has also
severely limited research options. If we could adopt different conceptualizations of persuasion and
public relations' participation in the affecting of attitudes and behaviors, our research activities
could adopt different perspectives and legitimately branch into other areas such as persuasion
theories. The function of this interpretation has not been to condemn all those who have taken on
the enormous challenge of trying to define the complex nature of public relations, but, hopefully, to
highlight some of the assumptions and guiding premises that prevail in our field. While admirable
normative goals are pursued, it has been shown that negative effects and dilemmas are also
presented by our assumptions. Often our assumptions and assertions not only contradict factual
findings but also contradict each other. While asserting that public relations should be part of the
dominant coalition, the management function, we simultaneously assert that the dominant coalition
has the ability and motive to dominate other sectors of society. We have restricted public relations to
the specific setting of serving as a "middleman" between organizations and publics and have taken
on the enormous responsibility of establishing a "mutualness" between these groups. We have
accepted a world view that denies corporate advocacy and persuasion in favor of conceptualizing
ourselves as "ombudsman" with the public interest at heart and a moral duty to facilitate
organizational change. While Seitel asserts that we have made "substantial headway toward a
clearer understanding of the field,"(FN30) we are nonetheless in a perplexity of competing and
conflicting assumptions to which I contribute though yet another definition of public relations.

5
AN ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
Perelman states that "all those in favor of some definition want it, through some slant or other, to
influence the use which would probably have been made of the concept had they not intervened and
mostly to influence the relations of the concept with the whole system of thought."(FN31)
Likewise, Zarefsky succinctly states, "to choose a definition is to plead a cause."(FN32) It is with
motive that I advance an alternative definition of public relations. It is not my goal to see this
definition accepted as the universal understanding of public relations, for this definition like others
is open to much legitimate criticism. It is my goal, however, to present an alternative
conceptualization that presents a different world view, a different set of assumptions, as well as a
different set of effects. One vehicle that provides such an alternative basis for conceptualizing
public relations is the symbolic interactionism of Herbert Blumer. Blumer's symbolic interactionism
is an orientation focused on meaning and the construction of meaning and social reality through
symbols and social interaction. The symbolic interactionism of Herbert Blumer can be described
much like one description of Blumer's predecessor, George Herbert Mead. Griffin states of Mead's
approach that "[s]ymbolic interactionism isn't so much a theory ... as it is a perspective or
orientation."(FN33) Whereas Mead focus on the development of one's self through interaction with
others, Blumer focuses on the construction of all meaning through the use of symbols and societal
dynamics. The best and most expedient explication of symbolic interactionism is provided by
Blumer: This approach sees a human society as people engaged in living. Such living is a process of
ongoing activity in which participants are developing lines of action in the multitudinous situations
they encounter. They are caught up in vast process of interaction in which they have to fit their
developing actions to one another. This process of interaction consists in making indication to
others of what to do and in interpreting the indications made by others. They live in worlds of
objects and are guided in their orientation and action by the meaning of these objects. Their objects,
including objects of themselves, are formed, sustained, weakened, and transformed in their
interaction with one another. This general process should be seen, of course, in the differentiated
character which it necessarily has by virtue of the fact that people cluster in different groups, belong
to different associations, and occupy different worlds, and guide themselves by different sets of
meanings. Nevertheless, whether one is dealing with a family, a boys' gang, an industrial
corporation, or a political party, one must see that activities of the collectivity as being formed
through a process of designation and interpretation.(FN34) Symbolic interactionism provides an
excellent grounding for reconceptualizing public relations. The ideals are consistent with our
tradition of systems theory and our conceptualization that an organization's survival is dependent on
its interaction with other segments of society. Lyman and Vidich maintain that symbolic
interactionism asserts that "[s]ocieties have no fixed, predetermined, or system-generated shape.

6
They are and become what people define them to be or become."(FN35) Blumer even asserts what
public relations practitioners have long posited, "Both the functioning and fate of institutions are set
by this process of interpretation as it takes place among the diverse set of participants."(FN36) By
utilizing Blumer's advancements concerning symbolic interaction, I advance that public relations is
the active participation in social construction of meaning. Such a definition is admittedly broad and
throws us into a paradox long addressed by students of rhetoric: either public relations is everything
or nothing. Despite the proposed definition's failure to use exclusion to separate public relations
from other communication activities, the reconceptualization of public relations offers multitudes of
opportunities for reassessing and redefining our assumptions. Most notably, symbolic interactionism
offers an alternative to the Marxist ideology that has guided so much of our thought. The
organization, rather than being a dominant player capable of assigning meaning for others, is more
realistically cast as one player among many in a larger social dynamic that continually forms
meanings. As such public relations personnel need not be viewed so much as agents of domination,
as participants in the ongoing societal construction of meaning. Blumer was not blind to constraints
on the free formation of opinion in society. He maintained that effective public discussion affects
the quality of public opinion, and that effective public discussion "depends on the availability and
flexibility of the agencies of public communication such as the press, radio, and public
meetings."(FN37) To Blumer what was unethical was that which interfered with effective public
discussion, when contended views are "barred from gaining presentation to the disinterested public
or suffer some discrimination as to the possibility of being argued before them."(FN38) Such a
reconceptualization allows us to question our assumed ethical responsibilities and to explore
different avenues of ethical self development. As symbolic interactionism casts a different
conceptualization of the power of organizations, it also casts a new perspective upon persuasion.
Within Blumer's system of thought, "indications" and "interpretations of indications" are imbedded
in the praxis of persuasion. Persuasion is recast as a naturally occurring and ongoing phenomena of
social interaction. While the alternative definition of public relations is quite broad, public relations
is no longer confined to specific settings. Our reconceptualization is open to more cross-cultural
applications and alternative models of interaction. We are offered a new identity as constructors of
meaning who have the ability of self-empowerment rather than being relegated to obtaining power
from organizational dominant coalitions. The possibilities of new research directions and methods
abound under this alternative conceptualization. Symbolic interactionism offers multitudes of
opportunities for reassessing and redefining not only our assumptions, but our world views, our
profession goals, our societal roles, and our ethical development. Just when we thought that we
were gaining a clearer understanding of the field, we are presented with alternative
conceptualizations that may direct us to question the field rather than define it.

7
Added material
Charles Lubbers is an Assistant Professor of Public Relations in the A. Q. Miller School of Journalism and Mass
Communications at Kansas State University and Diane Gorcyca is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at
Missouri Western State College.
FOOTNOTES
1. James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, Managing Public Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984), p. 7.
2. Edward Schiappa, "Arguing About Definition," Argumentation 7 (1993), p. 406.
3. Ibid. pp. 406-407.
4. James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, op. cit., p. 6.
5. Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen L. Broom, Effective Public Relations, 7th ed. (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1994), p. 6.
6. Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen L. Broom, Effective Public Relations, 6th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1985), p. 4.
7. Otis W. Baskin, Craig E. Aronoff, and Dan Lattimore, Public Relations: The Profession and the Practice, 4th ed.
(Dubuque: Brown and Benchmark, 1997), p. 5.
8. Ibid. p. 5.
9. Richard E. Crable and Steven L. Vibbert, Public Relations as Communication Management (Edina, MN: Bellwether
Press, 1986), p. 5.
10. Raymond Simon, Public Relations: Concepts and Practices, 3rd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984), pp. 6-7.
11. Dennis L. Wilcox, Phillip, H. Ault, and Warren K. Agee, Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics (New York:
HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995), p. 8.
12. Fraser P. Seitel, The Practice of Public Relations, 5th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1995).
13. Doug Newsom, Judy Vanslyke Turk, and Dean Kruckeberg, This Is PR: The Realities of Public Relations, 6th ed.
(Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1996).
14. James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, op. cit.
15. Rex F. Harlow, "Building a Public Relations Definition," Public Relations Review 2 (1976), p. 36.
16. Doug Newsom, Judy Vanslyke Turk, and Dean Kruckeberg, op. cit., p. 4.
17. James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, op. cit., p. 8.
18. Fraser P. Seitel, The Practice of Public Relations, 5th ed. (New York Mcmillan Publishing Company, 1992), pp. 7-8.
19. Larissa A. Grunig, "How Public Relations/Communication Departments Should Adapt to the Structure and
Environment ... and What They Actually Do," in James E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and
Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 467-481; and Larissa A. Grunig,
"Power in the Public Relations Department," in James E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and
Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 483-501.
20. H. W. Close, "Public Relations as a Management Function," Public Relations Journal 36 (1980), pp. 11-14; and
Larissa A. Grunig, "Power in the Public Relations Department," in Larissa A. Grunig and James E. Grunig (eds.), Public
Relations Research Annual (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990), pp. 115-155; and John White and
David M. Dozier, "Public Relations and Management Decision Making," in James E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public
Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 91-108.
21. Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen L. Broom, op. cit., p. 6.
22. Otis W. Baskin, Craig E. Aronoff, and Dan Lattimore, op. cit., p. 5.
23. Rex F. Harlow, op. cit., p. 36.

8
24. Doug Newsom, Judy Vanslyke Turk, and Dean Kruckeberg, op. cit., p. 4.
25. James E. Grunig and Larissa A. Grunig, "Models of Public Relations and Communication," in James E. Grunig
(ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1992), pp. 285-326; and James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, op. cit.; and Judy Vanslyke Turk, "Public Relations in State
Government; A Typology of Management Styles," Journalism Quarterly 62 (1985), pp. 304-315.
26. James E. Grunig, "Symmetrical Presuppositions as a Framework For Public Relations Theory," in Carl H. Botan and
Vincent Hazleton Jr. (eds.), Public Relations Theory (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, 1989), pp. 36-37.
27. Kenneth Burke, Rhetoric of Motives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1950), p. 50.
28. Gerald R. Miller, "Persuasion and Public Relations: Two 'Ps' in a Pod," in Carl H. Botan and Vincent Hazleton Jr.
(eds.), Public Relations Theory (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, 1989), p. 45.
29. Ibid. p. 47.
30. Fraser P. Seitel, op. cit., p. 7.
31. Chaim Perelman and Lucie Obrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric (London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969),
p. 213.
32. David Zarefsky, President's Johnson's War on Poverty: Rhetoric and History (University, AL:University of Alabama
Press, 1986), p. 8.
33. Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991), p. 72.
34. Herbert Blumer, "Symbolic Interaction," in Richard W. Budd and Brent D. Ruben (eds.), Interdisciplinary
Approaches to Human Communication (Rochelle Park: Hayden, 1979), p. 151.
35. Stanford M. Lyman and Authur J. Vidich, Social Order and the Public Philosophy: An Analysis and Interpretation of
the Work of Herbert Blumer (Fayetville: The University of Arkansas Press, 1988), pp. 56-57.
36. Herbert Blumer, op. cit., p. 150
37. Herbert Blumer, "Collective Behavior," in Alfred M. Lee (ed.), New Outline of the Principles of Sociology (New
York; Barnes and Noble, 1951), p. 191.
38. Ibid. p. 192.