Upload
tamar-diskin
View
77
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
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).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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
communication. Communication Theory, 2, 131-139.
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.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
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
communication. Communication Theory, 10, 90-123.
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).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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.