A rhizomatous metaphor for dialogic theory

Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Full Length Article

A rhizomatous metaphor for dialogic theory Michael L. Kent a,∗ , Anne B. Lane b a b

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA Queensland University of Technology, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 27 July 2016 Received in revised form 24 February 2017 Accepted 24 February 2017 Available online 5 April 2017 Keywords: Dialogue Metaphor Rhizome Public relations Theory

a b s t r a c t Communication shapes both reality and thought. Communication is also influenced by the metaphors and paradigms that individuals and groups adhere to. This essay describes an alternative, dialogic, metaphor of public relations as a rhizome, or non-linear model of knowledge, communication, and culture. The rhizome is described in contradistinction to the more common arboreal or tree metaphor found throughout Western culture, as a means of changing how students and professionals reify public relations practice. The essay calls for educators to tend to the development of the rhizome by modeling the conduct of compassionate and empathetic interactions in the classroom, and contingent, negotiated, dialogic, knowledge and beliefs. © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In 1987, Deleuze and Guattari (1993) wrote a significant postmodern text, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. One of the most influential chapters was titled “Rhizome,” introduced as a metaphor for knowledge or understanding. Rhizomes consist of nodes or points of connection linked by rootstalk that do not follow arborescent patterns of growth. Deleuze and Guattari (1993) described how, like a rhizome, culture and knowledge spread through “ceaselessly establishe[d] connections” (p. 7) rather than via fixed points of interaction, a metaphor that resonates well with public relations. The rhizome is discussed here as a model or metaphor for public relations. To now, scholars have focused their attention on what is above the surface: posing questions about whether this or that website was dialogic, or how dialogic some technology like social media appear. In other words, we have looked at the outcomes of dialogue in public relations, the parts that are publicly visible (above the ground); and we have treated dialogue cybernetically rather than organically. The real story with dialogue, as in the case with a rhizome, is what is happening on (or in) the ground, via the assumptions and paradigms held by professionals. For dialogue to play a larger role in public relations as we move forward, dialogue needs to be more invasive, more rhizomatous, taught to undergraduates and young professionals, and modeled as a means for achieving more effective organization–public relationships. The mistake that many make is treating dialogue as a tool for persuasion in mass communication. Although persuasion and dialogue can coexist, as Theunissen (2015) has argued convincingly, dialogue itself is an interpersonal rather than a mass phenomenon. Dialogue should represent one theoretical tool among many in the arsenal of the professional communicator, but the skills related to developing dialogic virtuosity (cf., Pearce & Pearce, 2000; Pieczka, 2011) transcend many situations, and, as argued below, will lead to a stronger profession.

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.L. Kent), [email protected] (A.B. Lane). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.017 0363-8111/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

M.L. Kent, A.B. Lane / Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

569

This essay is divided into four sections. The first section conducts a review of the classic literature on dialogic communication, drawing attention to the diversity and similarity of views. The second section reviews recent dialogic public relations scholarship, identifies the models of dialogic communication present, and contrasts contemporary practice with classic theories and approaches. The third section presents an alternative metaphor of dialogic communication as a rhizome, contrasting it with the arboreal analogy so often used in extant literature. Section four concludes the paper by discussing the implications of the rhizomatous metaphor for the teaching of public relations. Specifically, this new metaphor for public relations requires changes in public relations education that move us away from quantitative studies toward more humanistic, critical, rhetorical, models. 2. A review of the classic dialogic literature Understanding the basic assumptions of a theory is the first step toward using that theory effectively. On the most basic level, the theory of dialogue is about talking with people and forming relationships. Dialogue is not about posting messages for mass audiences to read, engaging in symbolic rhetorical activities designed to assist marketing or advertising, or communicating with individuals and publics with the intent of persuasion. As Kent and Taylor (1998) argued, dialogue is a relational orientation: “dialogic communication refers to a particular type of relational interaction—one in which a relationship exists. Dialogue is product rather than process” (p. 323). In other words, in the vocabulary of systems theory, dialogue is more than the sum of its parts, and more than just a set of rules (wholeness and nonsummativity) (cf., Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). However, Kent and Taylor’s use of the term “interaction” also implies a mechanistic, functionalistic approach, and a hint of cybernation, which is definitely not a part of genuine dialogue. True dialogue requires that interlocutors treat each other with respect, solicit feedback from others, and, importantly, be willing to be changed (Lane, 2014). As Heath explained, “To be successful, people need to know and willingly participate in dialogue. That requires trusting a system or process and one’s role in that process or system” (Heath et al., 2006, pp. 350–351). Carey (1989) describes the dialogic process aptly with his transmission view and ritual view of communication distinction (p. 12). According to Carey, “The transmission view of communication is. . defined by terms such as ‘imparting,’ ‘sending,’ ‘transmitting.’. . . The center of this idea of communication is the transmission of signals or messages. . . for the purpose of control” (p. 12). A transmission view of dialogue would be what is seen in the scholarship that examines dialogue in social media and tries to reduce dialogue to a two-way sharing of information, rather than a dialogic relationship (e.g., Bonsón & Flores, 2011; Fieseler, Fleck, & Meckel, 2010; Smith, 2010), while the ritual view of communication fits more closely into the classic dialogic model of communication: The ritual view of communication, is linked to terms such as “sharing,” “participation,” “association,” “fellowship,” and “the possession of a common faith.” This definition exploits the ancient identity and common roots of the terms. . . “communion,” “community,” and “communication,” A ritual view of communication is directed not toward the extension of messages in space but toward the maintenance of society in time; not the act of imparting information but the representation of shared beliefs. (Carey, 1989, p. 15) What Carey describes is essentially an empirical view of two-way communication as strategic, informative, and repetitive, versus an ontological view of dialogue as experiential and relational. Another important point worth noting is that dialogue cannot be quantified. Relational quality cannot be measured by the number of interactions between those involved, or the length of time over which they occur. Dialogue is a communicative process much like dialectic. However, unlike dialectic, which tries to arrive at objective truth through the Socratic method, dialogic truths are contingent and rooted in the lived experience of the conversational participants. No persuasion or radical agreement is to be expected—dialogue does not exist to solve organizational problems—but neither should dialogue be seen as impotent, unable to foster understanding or resolve differences of opinion. Rhetorical and interpersonal scholars have understood for almost a century that the mere act of coming together, of forging a common identity (Burke’s [1966] notion of consubstantiality), of identification with others and expressions of mutual empathy (cf., Burke, 1969b), lead to positive persuasive and relational outcomes. 2.1. Classic theories of dialogue The theory and research on dialogue goes back almost a century to Martin Buber’s (1970/1923) seminal text I and Thou. Buber was one of the first relational philosophers to privilege the relationship over the individual. Buber believed that human interactions should be guided by a genuine concern for the other person. Human interaction should be guided by human kindness and not by manipulation. For Buber, presentness (propinquity) and acknowledgement of others was a prerequisite to interaction. As Buber (1970) explains in I and Thou, the present “exists only insofar as presentness, encounter, and relation exist. Only as the You becomes present does presence come into being” (p. 63). Buber continues, explaining, “Presence is not what is evanescent and passes but what confronts us, waiting and enduring” (p. 64). What matters are the spaces between interactions, the presentness of encounters, and relations that exists in the betweenness of actual experience (Buber, passim). Starting this section with Buber’s ideas is instructive because for Buber, genuineness and presence were not mediated states but points of human contact. Since most social media are public venues, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media

570

M.L. Kent, A.B. Lane / Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

could never become places of dialogue unless two people gave themselves over to each other completely, and found an online and private space to have the conversation. Social media are dialogic only in a political rhetoric or marketing sense, as a conversational space for members of the general public to come together, but not in a genuine dialogue or Buberian sense. Implicit in Buber’s conceptualization of dialogue is a personal/interpersonal relationship that is intimate and private, not enacted publicly via textual messages or “threaded dialogue.” Thus, the private communication options of social media as a communication channel (instant messages, private messages, etc.) could be used by individuals or intimate groups to discuss issues of import, or extend a dialogic exchange, but social media as a public tool does not allow for dialogue. Following in Buber’s footsteps, dozens of scholars in domains ranging from feminism, language, psychology, philosophy, critical theory, and other areas have weighed in on the value of dialogic public relations. Dialogue has been considered an important communication concept for almost a century. Carl Rogers (1956/1992) is considered one of the earliest influential dialogic theorist for his contributions to dialogue as a principle in stable personality development and counseling. Rogers’ (1956/1992) famous phrase “unconditional positive regard” for the other (pp. 825 ff) has been cited by many dialogic scholars as a defining feature of dialogic communication (cf., Laing, 1969; Kent & Taylor, 2002). According to Rogers: To the extent that the therapist finds himself [sic] experiencing a warm acceptance of each aspect of the client’s experience as being a part of that client, he is experiencing unconditional positive regard. . . It means that there are no conditions of acceptance, no feeling of “I like you only if you are thus and so.” It means a “prizing” of the person. (p. 831) Laing (1969) focuses on another significant feature of dialogue, that of confirmation and disconfirmation (cf., also, Watzlawick et al., 1967; Buber, 1970). Confirmation is a fundamental human activity and essential for people to develop a strong sense of self and understand the value of others. Confirmation can be “partial and varying in manner, as well as global and absolute” (Laing, 1969, p. 82). Ultimately, all humans seek confirmation. Freire (1970), a political theorist, argued that dialogue was an essential part of a moral life. As Freire wrote, “Human Existence cannot be silent, nor can it be nourished by false words, but only by true words, with which men transform the world” (p 69). As Freire and others have argued (cf., Anderson, Cissna, & Arnett, 1994; Johannesen, 1971; Kent & Taylor, 2002), the dialogic orientation is one of humility, where one sets aside personal agendas: dialogue cannot exist without humility. The naming of the world, through which men constantly re-create that world, cannot be an act of arrogance. Dialogue, as the encounter of men addressed to the common task of learning and acting, is broken if the parties (or one of them) lack humility. How can I dialogue if I always project ignorance onto others and never perceive my own? (Freire, 1970, p. 71) A consistent theme among the early scholars of dialogue is a sense that the dialogic encounter is primarily an interpersonal and private collaboration of ideas, guided by sympathy, empathy, trust, and humility.

2.2. Dialogue in communication In one of the earliest treatments of dialogic theory in communication, Johannesen (1971) makes an effort to outline the “Emerging Concept of Communication as Dialogue.” As Johannesen explains, “Dialogue seems to represent more of a communication attitude, principle, or orientation than a specific method, technique, or format. One may speak of a spirit of dialogue in the human communication process” (p. 374). Johannesen’s point is important. Dialogue is not easy. Dialogic communicators must work hard to put aside their own prejudices, work hard to be inclusive, work hard not to be manipulative, etc. Dialogue is more than a skill or knack. By contrast, Hart & Burks (1972), in a polemical article responding to Johannesen (1971), argue against dialogue, fearing that dialogue was shifting the focus of communication study from language to “expressivist” “spleen venters” (p. 56). Although Hart and Burkes summarize some of the concerns about dialogue as a warm and fuzzy activity involving indiscriminate self-disclosure, and unsuited to serious contexts, their comments are ironic and exaggerated. The principles of dialogue (and dialectic) go back to the Hellenistic era. Hart and Burkes’ essay makes a straw man argument. Dialogue has never been about “venting,” or indiscriminate self-disclosure, but rather about understanding and collaboration, an important distinction to understand. Stewart (1978), in a highly cited essay several years later, brings us closer to the more contemporary ideal of dialogue in communication, outlining the philosophical assumptions of dialogue, and suggesting that: the primary object of their study is not the communication “message,” “effect,” or even the amalgamation of sourcechannel-message-receiver, but the dynamic, complex, context-dependent communicative “transaction,” “reciprocal bond,” “between,” or “relationship.” (p. 184) Stewart introduces one of the fundamental principles commending dialogue to public relations: relationship. As a second principle, Stewart identifies what has been called the encounter with “strange otherness” by some scholars, noting: “The accumulation of factual knowledge is a very small part of being educated. . . Learning comes when I seek and struggle and

M.L. Kent, A.B. Lane / Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

571

dig for myself in the areas of my own greatest needs and desires” (p. 184). The third principle Stewart notes is the focus on the importance of awareness and sensitivity, including owning one’s feelings and thoughts, self-disclosure, and risk (p. 185). Finally, Stewart argues for the importance of the principle of wholeness and a “multitude of interdependent cognitive, affective, behavioral, and contextual variables” (p. 185). Obviously, as this brief review suggests, there is more to dialogue than can be summarized in a few pages. However, what this overview should make clear is that dialogue is more than just talking or interacting. A dialogic, relational orientation is a complicated activity that is not exploitative, genuinely takes into account the needs of others, and ultimately tries to improve the lives of all participants—not just the one who initiated or put into motion a dialogic exchange, or an individual organization. Although individuals are often responsible for setting into motion dialogue, once the dialogic exchange begins, no individual completely controls the direction or content of the interaction. 3. A review of the dialogic public relations literature As mentioned, there are too many articles on dialogic public relations to review them all in any single essay, short of a meta-analysis. To give a sense of how prevalent the dialogic approach in public relations has become, 22 articles containing the word “dialogue” were published in Public Relations Review in the first quarter of 2016. “Dialogue” entered into the public relations vocabulary in the late ‘80s and ‘90s and is on its way to becoming one of the most influential public relations theories. The first and most influential public relations scholar to write about dialogue was Ron Pearson (1989a), who proposed a dialogic framework for public relations in 1989 as part of his doctoral dissertation. Pearson’s work was a decade ahead of his time, as he struggled over how to reconcile an ontological concept like dialogue with the empirical world of Grunigian symmetry of his day (cf., Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Indeed, Pearson was one of the first public relations scholars to struggle with the now well-critiqued equivocation found in symmetry, and Grunig and other symmetrical scholars’ constant attempts to subsume every new theory under symmetry (cf., Pearson, 1989a, pp. 132 ff; Kent & Taylor, 2007). Pearson (1989b) published a number of influential book chapters and articles during his peak scholarly productivity, including chapters on dialogue in the first issue of Public Relations Research Annual, the publication that was to become Public Relations Review; a chapter in Botan and Hazleton’s Public Relations Theory (1989c) text; a chapter in Toth and Heath’s Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations (1992); and others. Pearson’s ideas on dialogue would probably have moved the field forward by decades; unfortunately, Pearson died quite young and was not able to continue his work. Ten years later, Kent & Taylor (1998, 2002) began extending Pearson’s work, drawing on Buber and others, and wrote several essays on dialogic public relations laying the groundwork for much of the current public relations scholarship (Kent, Taylor, & White, 2003; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001, etc.). Initially, Kent and Taylor’s (1998) “five dialogic principles” were applied to all types of organizations including museums, pharmaceutical companies, community colleges, and others (cf., Capriotti & Kuklinski, 2012; McAllister-Spooner & Taylor, 2007; Rennie & Mackey, 2002). Today, there are thousands of articles on dialogue, and more than a hundred on “dialogic public relations” theory and practice. The remainder of this section will review the most recent dialogic public relations scholarship, identify the models of dialogic communication present, and contrast the contemporary and classic theories and approaches. In spite of the complexity of dialogue found throughout the concept’s 100-year history, most scholarly treatments of dialogue in public relations ignore the complexities of the theory and instead focus on dialogue as being synonymous with a two-way symmetrical approach (cf., Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). Indeed, ever since the early studies on dialogue that examined dialogue as a potentially useful tool in new technology, most scholarly treatments of dialogue in public relations have focused on this same angle. Capriotti and Kuklinski (2012), for example, conducted a study of dialogic communication of Spanish museums, arguing, Research in the Public Relations field on the use of the Internet as a dialogic tool has increased considerably in recent years, and has mainly focused on analyzing the opportunities for the dissemination of information and interaction between organizations and their publics, on their websites. . . Dialogic communication is today a basic and essential expectation in the online communication of any type of organization. . . From our perspective, the dialogic loop is not simply a principle, but is instead the framework for dialogic communication. (p. 620) Capriotti and Kuklinski reify dialogue as a set of procedures that include “content management” (p. 620) and “interaction management” (p. 621). Similarly, Linvill, McGee, and Hicks (2012) examine “Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter,” by content analyzing Tweets using Kent and Taylor’s (2002) five principles of dialogue. As Linvill et al. note, “334 (29.6%) of the sampled tweets contained dialogic loop features. Of the tweets that were classified as meeting the principle of dialogic loop, 269 (80.5%) were so classified because they were a retweet” (p. 637). Once again, we see dialogue being reified as a symmetrical interaction, procedure, or set of steps. Like Linvill et al., Lee (2012) studies a Facebook social media campaign as a means of exploring dialogue. Lee examined the Singaporean government’s marriage campaign from 2009. Using, again, Kent and Taylor’s dialogic categories applied to focus group interactions, Lee sought to explore dialogic “potential.” As suggested above, however, Lee characterizes dialogue as simply symmetrical communication. More importantly, Lee offers no evidence that the communication agencies

572

M.L. Kent, A.B. Lane / Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

that orchestrated the campaign on behalf of the government knew anything about dialogic theory, nor that the Facebook posts examined were dialogic. In another recent study, McAllister-Spooner (2012) explores the use of Facebook as a dialogic tool. As McAllister-Spooner explains: Viewed through the lens of the dialogic theory of public relations, the purpose of this study is to empirically examine if universities use new media tools and how the world’s top universities use Facebook as an interactive forum that give voice to key stakeholders such as current students, prospective students, and international students. (p. 320) McAllister-Spooner, like many other dialogic scholars (e.g., Wigley & Lewis, 2012), reifies dialogue as an interactive exchange—something Facebook is not really suited for. Conducting a content analysis of university Facebook sites’ “dialogic potential,” McAllister-Spooner assumes that interaction equals dialogue, and, based on that criterion, concludes that most university websites are not dialogic. As with the other studies mentioned, Pettigrew and Reber (2011) studied dialogic public relations and gave away their orientation to dialogue in the first sentence of their abstract, explaining, “This study examines the opinions of print journalists regarding the use of dialogic components by Fortune 500 company web pages” (p. 422). Early in the essay the authors explain their assumptions about dialogue, when they write “A series of in-depth interviews was conducted among the business press to inquire about their use of interactive website elements for the companies they cover” (p. 422). From the fairly common functionalist orientations toward dialogue, we still see the treatment of dialogue as simply a set of rules identified early in the literature by Pearson, and Kent and Taylor. Ironically, both Pearson (1989a), and Kent and Taylor (1998), argued for a relational model of organization–public communication, suggesting relationships were the key: “The principles discussed here provide guidance to practitioners on how to develop Web pages, structure content, organize information, appeal to publics, and most importantly, build relationships with publics. The WWW has enormous potential as a communication tool” (Kent & Taylor, 1998, p. 331). Although dozens more articles have explored public relations dialogue, the focus is almost always on functional features intended to increase the “potential” for a positive outcome for organizations, with little regard for the actual needs or interests of stakeholders (cf., Lane, 2014). A humanistic approach to dialogue that treats one’s interlocutors as “partners in naming the world,” as Freire put it (1970, pp. 78 passim), rather than behaving as elites, exploiting the channels of communication for their own benefit, and mechanistically inviting others to engage with an organization simply to achieve organizational goals. 3.1. Differences between classic and contemporary theories What should be obvious from the two discussions above is that what dialogic theorists and some of the early public relations scholars meant by dialogue, and how the current studies of dialogue have been conducted, represent two distinct worldviews. These worldviews differ from Pieczka’s (2011) alignment of the “two directions present in the western conception of dialogue: inquiry and will formation” (p. 114) and the classic concepts of Socratic and Athenian dialogue. On the one hand, an argument could be made that studies of dialogue necessarily have to deal with abstractions and use existing tools like social media to examine the theory. However, on the other hand, there are scholars in other fields studying “genuine dialogue” using small groups of people interacting around real social issues (cf., Miles & Kivlighan, 2012; Toledano, 2017). What we often see in public relations is the “theory” in “dialogic theory” ignored in favor of a focus on the concept of dialogue reified as interaction. Theunissen and Wan Noordin (2012) offer one of the few critiques of public relations dialogue since Pearson’s work in  89, describing the clash of ideas: process-driven, dialogic theory per se appears to have made little inroads in mainstream public relations thinking. While functionalism and the systems theory have important roles to play in public relations theory, these paradigms have resulted in unintended consequences. One of these is that “dialogue” has been uncritically equated to “two-way symmetrical” communication as if they were two sides of the same coin, and in instances where dialogue is mentioned, the focus remains on two-way communication rather than dialogue per se. (p. 5) Theunissen and Wan Noordin (2012) continue, arguing that what is often forgotten is that dialogic theory, and two-way symmetrical theory “are based on underlying philosophical differences (and differences in communicative processes and exchanges). Not recognizing such an important facet effectively stifles growth and development of further public relations theory” (p. 6). As argued early in the history of dialogic public relations (Kent & Taylor, 1998), dialogue has great potential, but not until the field is actually studying dialogue. The next section of this essay describes the power of the rhizomatous metaphor to help advance the study and understanding of dialogue. 4. The power of the rhizomatous metaphor The reason that so many of the previous studies of dialogue in public relations have failed to find dialogue (cf., Meisenbach & Feldner, 2009) has been because the authors were looking in the wrong place. Proof of dialogue is not found in the public

M.L. Kent, A.B. Lane / Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

Diagram 1. Study of a rhizome.

573

(Creative Commons License, http://roerichproject.artefati.ca/author/rhizome-collective).

conversational exchanges found on social media websites, but in the relational give and take, and the process by which discussants engage ideas and interact with other interlocutors. As Kent and Taylor (1998) controversially argued, “Dialogue is product rather than process” (p. 323), meaning evidence of dialogue is not found in a set of conversational rules or procedures, but in genuine, ethical, mutually satisfying relationships. The relationship is the product, not the talk that is produced in building the relationship, which is where many dialogic social media studies have failed. Counting tweets or responses to Facebook messages is no evidence of dialogue. Dialogue is an interpersonal process. As the classic interpersonal communication text by Watzlawick et al. (1967), explains of homeostasis, relationships are more than just a collection of communicative exchanges. Relationships involve a lot more, including trust, risk, acknowledgement, self-disclosure, nonverbal communication, and a personal relationship dimension. The rhizome metaphor for dialogic communication is apt because it accounts for the fact that the bulk of the theory is the hidden, un-public part: the hard work, risk, self-disclosure, and time, that go into relationships. Metaphors provide analogies to help us understand more-complicated issues. As Kent (2001) explains, “Metaphors function as analogies or perspectives that correspond, ‘fact for fact,’ with what we are trying to describe” (p. 360; cf., also, Burke, 1984, p. 95; Burke 1969a, pp. 503–517). And as Varan (1998) explains, metaphorical analogies “provide a link between academic and popular discourse. In this sense, metaphors are not only important as tools for intellectual analysis, but offer a unifying vehicle through which academics and audiences can better understand each other” (p. 59). 4.1. The rhizome metaphor and dialogue What makes the rhizome an attractive metaphor for dialogue is the fact that as with rhizomes, the real action happens below ground, out of the public view. The power of the rhizome is in its roots. The more common metaphor in the academy is to talk about knowledge and ideas as trees (e.g. Maturana & Varela, 1987; Nonaka, 1994). Our attention is usually on what is above ground, but trees only exist because of their roots. The most impressive part of a rhizome is not the part that is publicly visible above ground but what is below the surface (see Diagram 1 below). As Riddle (2013) explains: Contrasted against this image of the tree, the rhizome has multiple possible entry points, connecting and rupturing in endlessly changing and dynamic ways. The image of the rhizome is characterised [sic] by the principles of multiplicity, connection and heterogeneity. The rhizome offers no stable points of reference, as no particular entry or line is privileged as the truth or the reality as. . . there are always many possible truths and realities that can all be viewed as social constructs. (pp. 45–46) Dialogue is similar. Dialogue invites and accepts multiple points of entry by participants, forging and breaking connections as members choose to observe, contribute, or withdraw. Dialogic connections do not grow in a linear fashion from one point to the next, but instead flourish in random patterns as a result of complex interactions. The path of dialogue that develops is organic and always emergent. Dialogic skill is not based on a knack, but a solid foundation (or root system) of theory, principles, experience, ethics, etc. Dialogue takes time to grow, and like a rhizome, is expansive and powerful. Dialogue is not the one-off message of the tree, but the longevity of the rhizomatous relationships developed, their strength and endurance, their connection to other parts of a network through hidden bonds.

574

M.L. Kent, A.B. Lane / Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

Additionally, as noted above, not every conversation is dialogic, and not every rhizomatous conversation is dialogic, unless the participants are aware of the unique conversational constraints of dialogue, and understand some of the principles of dialogic theory. Thus, a conversation between two parents and their child about his/her school activities might chain out as the parents relate parts of their conversation with their friends (cf., Bormann, 1972), taking on new life depending on the ideological bent of the interlocutors (progressive, conservative, etc.). Although such a “conversation” is an apt example of a rhizomatous exchange, all ongoing conversations are not dialogic per se, simply because they are protracted and civil. As mentioned previously, rhizomes are plants that exist mostly at or below the ground, and shoot up sprouts when necessary. All rhizomes are female, and all reproduce via cloning, meaning the rhizome is self-perpetuating. In practice, rhizomes will grow effectively unchecked for thousands or even tens of thousands of years (cf. Grant, 1993; Steinger, Körner, & Schmid, 1996), largely impervious to events like forest fires, floods, and insects, because of their decentralized, protected existence below the surface of the ground. Rhizomes thrive, survive, and flourish even when the outside environment is inhospitable. Dialogue is similar. The basis of dialogue is ethical practice and sound rhetorical and communication theory. Dialogue cannot be understood simply as asymmetrical or symmetrical messaging between individuals and organizations. Dialogue has been present in theory and in practice for over two millennia. Dialogue is not a fad, any more than being ethical and learning to be a skilled communicator is a fad. Dialogue, as an enduring rhizome, passes on its DNA over time. Effective communication begets effective communication. Thus, given the proper environment, dialogue has the potential to become a thousand-year-old rhizome in public relations. In addition to its status as one of the most enduring theoretical perspectives in public relations, dialogue’s connection to the rhizomatous metaphor also provides links to new and emerging viewpoints. The cocreational perspective, espoused by Botan and Taylor (2004) among others, describes a role for public relations as a facilitator of connections between organizations and their stakeholders. These connections result in—and are the result of—what Burke (1969b) refers to as “consubstantial” meshing, or understanding of the other. Out of these rhizomatous links are generated shared ideas that lead to mutually-acceptable organizational decisions and mutually-beneficial behaviors. The rhizome metaphor therefore describes and reflects the ongoing, inclusive, dialogue that goes on largely out of sight to foster publicly visible outcomes. A model of the dialogic rhizome may help to illustrate the relationship of the two concepts. 4.2. A model of rhizomatous dialogue In order to provide a model or visual metaphor of dialogic, relational, cocreational knowledge, verses the monolithic knowledge of the tree, two figures are provided. The first figure illustrates the rhizome: dialogic, long-lived, pervasive, collaborative, durable, and relational or interpersonally grounded. Epistemologically, dialogue requires the presence of at least two parties collaboratively constructing knowledge. Ontologically, dialogue is a world of lived experience and relational trust, informed by the actions of others, and past interactions and experiences. Although dialogue is never easy, understanding dialogue as process of relational interaction rather than a problem solving or strategic tool leads to an understanding and treatment of dialogue as an ethically positive activity (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The dialogic rhizome model. Adapted from http://roerichproject.artefati.ca/author/rhizome-collective, creative commons license.

M.L. Kent, A.B. Lane / Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

575

An example of this rhizomatous dialogue in action can be seen in the situation in the Standing Rock Reservation in the Dakotas, where a sacred Native American site was included in the development plans for a new oil pipeline, the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Concerns were also raised about the potential impact of the pipeline on the local peoples’ water supplies. Initially, conversations about opposing the DAPL plans took place between members of several different groups of Native Americans, described as “the largest gathering of Native Americans in more than 100 years” (BBC News, 2016). From the empathetic discussions that took place prior to, and during, this gathering arose co-created, shared understanding of the significance of the Standing Rock site to all Native Americans. The conversational interactions led to a shared, co-created reality, and joint demonstrations of opposition to DAPL (Medina, 2016). At this point, the rhizomatous nature of the conversation became evident as some communication paths were shut down or cut off. Facebook, for example, was accused of censoring a livestream broadcast by protestors (RT News, 2016), and mainstream media were alleged to be ignoring the protests (see, for example, Bernabe 2016; Jones, 2016; Railton, 2016). Adopting the traditional arboreal perspective on this situation, cutting off such a powerful communication branch should have negatively impacted the growth and spread of the anti-DAPL message. However, the relevance of the non-linear and decentralized rhizome metaphor was demonstrated in the way alternative communication paths—interpersonal and/or online—were created and explored, reaching people who might otherwise never have become involved in the situation. An example of the rhizomatous nature of the anti-DAPL communication is the spread of a related video on YouTube. A journalist on the American TV show Democracy Now! released a graphic video of dogs being used against protestors, which went viral on YouTube and other media. Content cannot be made to go viral: online content relies on interpersonal communication where individuals share pictures and videos that have strongly resonated with them on a cognitive and/or emotional level (Berger & Milkman, 2012; Dobele, Lindgreen, Beverland, Vanhamme, & van Wijk, 2007). Viral communication is uncontrolled and uncontrollable (Bampo, Ewing, Mather, Stewart, & Wallace, 2008). This decentralized freeform spread of communication exemplifies the relevance of the rhizome to this example. But what evidence is there of the dialogic nature of the communication? The DAPL example is not intended to suggest that the various conversations that tool place followed a Buberian model of dialogue. However, the communication from the anti-DAPL protestors resonated with viewers to the extent that the communicative exchanges resulted in a perceived feeling of relationship with the Native American groups among people who had previously had no sense of connection to them. One example of this is the response by people around the world who “checked in” on Facebook at the Standing Rock reservation as an expression of their support for the protestors (Russell, 2016). Others chose to engage in a policy of divestment from banks funding the DAPL (Devitt, 2016). This support for the anti-DAPL protestors was fostered through online and offline interactions between and among interested parties (e.g., Friesen, 2016; Hayes, 2016; The US Department of Arts and Culture, 2016) resulting in sympathy, solidarity, and a feeling of community between previously unconnected groups and individuals. A sense of relationship was generated between those who might not have been reached or persuaded/influenced by simple, linear forms of communication. Existing relationships between netizens provided a non-linear, rhizomatous network that allowed anti-DAPL messages to reach many people who would otherwise not have heard them. The tone and content of the messages engendered the creation of “the dynamic, complex, context-dependent communicative ‘transaction,’ ‘reciprocal bond,’ ‘between,’ or ‘relationship”’ (Stewart, 1978, p. 184), that distinguishes dialogue as a form of communication. The anti-DAPL supporters’ response to the perceived relationships was to provide a statement-through-action of their positive perceptions of the Standing Rock protestors. Signing in on Facebook and the comments provided there demonstrated contributors’ feelings of mutuality and empathy to and for the protestors, a willingness to take the risk of making these statements in public, and arguably a commitment to continuing this support until the DAPL project is abandoned. Such responses and feelings are all distinguishing characteristics of dialogue (Kent & Taylor, 2002), and demonstrate the dialogic nature of the rhizomatous communication. The rhizomatous, dialogic nature of the Standing Rock Native Americans’ communicative interactions could therefore be argued to have created a sense of shared understanding and community, despite the hostility of the above-ground network of traditional media—and perhaps some forms of social media. The hidden, below ground, dispersed nature of the Standing Rock communication, and its reliance on face-to-face and interpersonal connections (online and offline), demonstrate how relevant the rhizome metaphor is in this case. Rhizomatous exchanges occur seemingly randomly and haphazardly as participants actively seek contact from others who might not be identified by more linear (arboreal) lines of thought or ways of researching. This almost anarchic approach to identifying interlocutors, and circumventing traditional communication channels that inhibit free and open communication, are vital points of difference between the metaphors of the rhizome and the tree. By contrast, the well-known metaphor of the tree is fundamentally different. Although knowledge can be thought of as a process of ideation, empirically, knowledge and ideas exist prior to interaction and indeed are treated as a priori concepts. The biblical “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” which contained the knowledge hidden from humankind provides an apt correlate. The tree represents a monological approach to epistemology where knowledge is discovered or housed (see Reddy, 1979, for an excellent and comprehensive treatment of these ideas). The tree is closer to a hermeneutic of interpretation. Ontologically, choice is informed by extant information rather than past experience or co-created information. Under the arboreal metaphor, humans make choices among competing alternatives, rather than collaborating on contingent truths and solutions. Choices are bound by rationality rather than concretionally constructed (see Fig. 2).

576

M.L. Kent, A.B. Lane / Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

Fig. 2. The monologic arboreal model.

Stock Photo (8628553), licensed by authors, www.123RF.com.

Of course, not every metaphor is perfect, and the rhizome metaphor used here does require some imagination. Beautiful rhizomes such as the Iris spring from a mass of tangled roots and bulbs that grow below ground, just as an impressive grove of Quaking Aspen, a deciduous North American tree, has been found to propagate from shared rhizomatous roots that go back as far as 80,000 years. Perceiving dialogue as a rhizome alters the nature of the dialogic interaction. Indeed, as Heath et al. (2006) explored in their forum on The Processes of Dialogue, “a self-interested intent can be masked into dialogue so that it may advantage one side through masking” (p. 348). Pearce (Heath et al., 2006) hints at the rhizomatous treatment of dialogue when he, responding to Heath, posits: “What would happen if we used the term human normatively, as describing ‘us’ at our best, capable of more than usual empathy and compassion, within the span of our compassion” (p. 353)? A rhizomatous model of dialogue is not about finding truth or solving problems, nor is dialogue “an available option for all people at all times in all situations” (Heath et al., 2006, p. 349). By the same token, the monologue of the tree that treats “information” as the same as knowledge is insufficient for understanding the complexity of dialogue. The dialogic rhizome model helps to illustrate that the process of relationships and cocreation do not take place to solve problems or extract information for adversarial parties. Ongoing organizational dialogue should be an organizational ethic rather than a strategic tool. The final section of this essay will discuss the ethical approach to the teaching and application of rhizomatous dialogue in public relations. 5. Implications of the dialogic rhizome metaphor in the public relations classroom Adopting the rhizomatous metaphor to understand dialogue in public relations has important implications for how the discipline is taught. Treating dialogue as a rhizome means we need to start with the root system: the classroom and textbooks. Educating and training future professionals to appreciate and utilize the unique rhizomatous qualities of dialogue requires a radical review of standard teaching approaches. Preparing future practitioners to enter the rhizome of dialogue requires them to become skilled in dealing with questioning and understanding, not necessarily consensus and agreement. A dialogically-focused classroom would push students to negotiate and discuss explanations for the actions and activities of others: that is, to understand dialogue in a radically different way to the linear progression of communicative cause and effect suggested in textbooks. Textbooks represent uncontested arboreal information. A return to teaching content via journals articles, scholarly books and book chapters, and other contested content might be in order.

M.L. Kent, A.B. Lane / Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

577

The shift from the instrumentalist emphasis in the teaching of one and two-way communication to the inclusive and serendipitous notion of dialogue-as-rhizome requires educators to more deeply invest in rhetoric. This means not only teaching the mechanics of rhetoric to students, but also adopting a rhetorical approach to the form and function of classes. Implementing rhetorical classrooms will model the conduct of dialogue, demonstrating to those involved its rhizomatous nature through the unexpected connections that can result, and their unanticipated consequences. Making students—and therefore future practitioners—aware of the existence of rhizomatous dialogue will encourage them to develop an appreciation of the uncontrolled and sometimes random nature of the effects of communication. This awareness should encourage educators to adopt a perspective on their own role as facilitators, observers, and sometimes participants in the communication they initiate, rather than as its controllers and directors. Acknowledging their position as a node on a wandering rhizome rather than a root on a linear tree will require a significant mind-shift among current and future practitioners. Such a change in perspective will require a willingness among public relations practitioners to cede notions of power and control over communication and its effects in favor of learning to recognize the pattern of the rhizome and interpret its meaning. 6. Conclusion In this essay we have used the metaphor of the rhizome to present a reasoned argument for a shift in emphasis in the education and training of communicators. Dialogue, as a flourishing activity of theory and practice in public relations, is founded on a largely hidden and un(der)appreciated rhizomatous root system of education and skill-building. Unlike the linear form of other root systems, a rhizome gains strength and longevity from its decentralized, nodal structure. Similarly, dialogue is based on a series of fractal connections between participants. These communicative connections constitute nodes on the rhizome of dialogue. Fostering the growth and spread of dialogue will result in the rise of the decentralized communicator, capable of engaging stakeholders and publics on many levels, and capable of genuine relationship building. Through a detailed understanding of dialogue, and high levels of skills and training in its implementation, communicators can build, maintain, and enhance relationships between organizations and their stakeholders. Tending to the rhizomatous roots of dialogue through research, study, education, modeling, theory, and practice will enable public relations to spread itself more fully and create a stronger profession. References Anderson, R., Cissna, K. N., & Arnett, R. C. (Eds.). (1994). The reach of dialogue: Confirmation, voice, and community. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc. Bampo, M., Ewing, M., Mather, D., Stewart, D., & Wallace, M. (2008). The effects of the social structure of digital networks on viral marketing performance. Information Systems Research, 19(3), 273–290. BBC News (2016, 2 September). Life in the Native American oil protest camps. Available at www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37249617. Retrieved November 7, 2016. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. Bernabe, B. (2016, 25 August). Why there’s a media blackout on the Native American oil pipeline blockade. The Anti-Media. Available at http://theantimedia.org/native-american-pipeline-media-blackout. (accessed 7 November 2016). Bonsón, E., & Flores, F. (2011). Social media and corporate dialogue: the response of global financial institutions. Online Information Review, 35(1), 34–49. Bormann, E. G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58(4), 396–407. Botan, C., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 645–661. Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons [Trans., W. Kaufmann) (1970/1923] Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Burke, K. (1969a). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Burke, K. (1969b). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Burke, K. (1984). Permanence and Change. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Capriotti, P., & Kuklinski, H. P. (2012). Assessing dialogic communication through the Internet in Spanish museums. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 619–626. Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. New York: Routledge. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1993). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. New York: Continuum Publishing Company. Devitt, C. (2016). How Standing Rock’s Divest Campaign can stop future pipelines. Yes! Magazine [Available at www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/how-standing-rocks-divest-campaign-can-stop-future-pipelines-20161216. (accessed 7 February 2017), December 16] Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J. L., & van Wijk, R. (2007). Why pass on viral messages? Because they connect emotionally. Business Horizons, 50(4), 291–304. Fieseler, C., Fleck, M., & Meckel, M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in the blogosphere. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(4), 599–614. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Company [Trans. M. B. Ramos]. Friesen, K. (2016). Mennonite delegation shows solidarity at Standing Rock encampment. The Mennonite [https://themennonite.org/mennonite-delegation-shows-solidarity-standing-rock-encampment. (accessed 7 November 7 2016), October 10] Grant, M.C. (1993, October 1). The trembling giant: The Quaking Aspen, one of this country’s most beautiful trees, also makes up the world’s most massive organism. Discover Magazine, online edition. Available at http://discovermagazine.com/1993/oct/thetremblinggian285. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hart, R. P., & Burks, D. M. (1972). Rhetorical sensitivity and social interaction. Speech Monographs, 39(2), 75–91. Hayes, K. (2016, September 2). Where movements meet: Black lives matter organizers visit #nodapl.truthout. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37468-where-movements-meet-black-lives-matter-organizers-visit-nodapl. (accessed 7 November 2016). Heath, R. L., Pearce, W. B., Shotter, J., Taylor, J. R., Kersten, A., Zorn, T., et al. (2006). Forum: The processes of dialogue: Participation and legitimation. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(3), 341–375. Johannesen, R. L. (1971). The emerging concept of communication as dialogue. Quarterly Journal of Speech LVII, 4, 373–382.

578

M.L. Kent, A.B. Lane / Public Relations Review 43 (2017) 568–578

Jones, D. (2016, 17 October). Why Has Mainstream Media Ignored Dakota Access Pipeline? The Daily Voice News. Available at http://thedailyvoicenews.com/2016/10/17/why-has-mainstream-media-ignored-dakota-access-pipeline. (accessed 7 November 2016). Kent, M. L. (2001). Managerial rhetoric and the metaphor of the World Wide Web. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18(3), 359–375. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2007). Beyond excellence in international public relations research: An examination of generic theory in Bosnian public relations. Public Relations Review, 33(1), 10–20. Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. (2003). The relationship between Web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 66–77. Laing, R. D. (1969). Self and others (2nd ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. Lane, A. (2014). Pragmatic two-way communication: A practitioner perspective on dialogue in public relations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) http://eprints.qut.edu.au/72558. Australia: School of Advertising, Marketing, and Public Relations, Queensland University of Technology Business School, Queensland University of Technology. Lee, S. T. (2012). Beautifully Imperfect: Using Facebook to change a population’s attitudes toward marriage. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 515–517. Linvill, D. L., McGee, S. E., & Hicks, L. K. (2012). Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter: A content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 636–638. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: New Science Library/Shambhala Publications. McAllister-Spooner, S. M. (2012). How the world’s top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized voices. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 319–327. McAllister-Spooner, S. M., & Taylor, M. (2007). Community college Web sites as tools for fostering dialogue. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 230–232. Medina, D. A. (2016). Dakota pipeline company buys ranch near Sioux protest site, records show. NBC News [Available at: www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dakota-pipeline-company-buys-ranch-near-sioux-protest-site-records-n653051. Retrieved November 7, 2016, September 23] Meisenbach, R., & Feldner, S. (2009). Dialogue, discourse ethics and Disney. In R. Heath, E. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 253–271). New York: Routledge. Miles, J. R., & Kivlighan, D. M. (2012). Perceptions of group climate by social identity group in intergroup dialogue. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(3), 189–205. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. Pearce, B., & Pearce, K. (2000). Combining passions and abilities: Toward dialogic virtuosity. Southern Journal of Communication, 65, 161–175. Pearson, R. (1989a). A theory of public relations ethics. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI: Ohio University. Pearson, R. (1989b). Beyond ethical relativism in public relations: Coorientation, rules, and the idea of communication symmetry. In J. E. Grunig, & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 1) (pp. 67–86). Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pearson, R. (1989c). Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and the idea of dialogue. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory (111–131). Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pearson, R. (1992). Perspectives on public relations history. In E. L. Toth, & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations (pp. 111–130). Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pettigrew, J. E., & Reber, B. H. (2011). Journalists’ opinions and attitudes about dialogic components of corporate websites. Public Relations Review, 37(4), 422–424. Pieczka, M. (2011). Public relations as dialogic expertise? Journal of Communication Management, 15(2), 108–124. Railton, B. (2016, September 5). Standing Rock and the forgotten history of Native American activism. The Huffington Post. www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-railton/standing-rock-and-the-for b 11865978.html Accessed November 7, 2016. Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 164–201). Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press. Rennie, C., & Mackey, S. (2002). Pharmaceutical companies’ public relations and representation by Internet. In Competitive paper of the ANZCA conference, communication reconstructured for the 21st Century Riddle, S. (2013). Youth as rhizome: Music, machines, and multiplicities. Social Alternatives, 32(2), 45–48. Rogers, C. R. (1992). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 827–832 [1956]. RT News (2016, September 15). Facebook censors Dakota Access Pipeline protest livestream—activists. Available at: www.rt.com/usa/359371-facebook-dakota-access-protest-censor. (accessed 7 November 2016). Russell, G. (2016, November 3). Profile: Dakota oil pipeline. The National. Available at: http://www.thenational.scot/world/14872960. Profile Dakota oil pipeline. (accessed 6 February 2017). Smith, B. G. (2010). Socially distributing public relations: Twitter, Haiti, and interactivity in social media. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 329–335. Steinger, T., Körner, C., & Schmid, B. (1996). Long-term persistence in a changing climate: DNA analysis suggests very old ages of clones of alpine Carex curvula. Oecologia, 105(1), 94–99. Stewart, J. (1978). Foundations of dialogic communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64(2), 183–201. Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 263–284. Theunissen, P. (2015). The quantum entanglement of dialogue and persuasion in social media: Introducing the Per-Di Principle. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 5–18. Theunissen, P., & Wan Noordin, W. N. (2012). Revisiting the concept dialogue in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 5–13. The US Department of Arts and Culture (2016, September 29). Standing with Standing Rock: Testimonies from the USDAC Lawrence Field Office. Available from: http://usdac.us/news-long/2016/9/29/83592nm4idvshsap6r0up03pyjqmde. (accessed 7 November 2016). Toledano, M. (2017). Dialogue with the enemy: Lessons for public relations on dialogue facilitation drawn from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In I. Somerville, O. D. W. Hargie, M. Taylor, & M. Toledano (Eds.), Public relations in deeply divided societies: International perspectives (pp. 27–45). London: Routledge. Varan, D. (1998). The cultural erosion metaphor and the transcultural impact of media systems. Journal of Communication, 48(2), 58–85. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton. Wigley, S., & Lewis, B. K. (2012). Rules of engagement: Practice what you tweet. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 165–167.