Public relations theory: An agonistic critique of the turns to dialogue and symmetry

This is a conceptual article that seeks to apply agonistic theories of democracy to critique the embracing of dialogic communication in public relations theory. Several strands of scholarship, despite their vastly different starting points and epistemological assumptions, have converged on advancing dialogic forms of communication as representing the best normative theories for shifting practice towards what might be considered civic, democracy- friendly norms. As a consequence, theorising has emphasised compromise and consensus which pressurises practitioners to adopt ostensibly non-partisan styles of communication. In contrast, agonistic democratic theory elevates the value of permanent contest, dissensus and performance in vibrant public spaces which expose and test the legitimacy of those who hold power and privilege. However, the disputes in other academic fields between advocates of deliberative and agonistic approaches have up to now been largely absent in the public relations literature. This article uses agonistic theory, particularly the work of Chantal Mouffe, to critique some of the assumptions that have been used to apply to public relations: (a) Habermasian deliberation and (b) two-way symmetrical communication. Finally, the article discusses the value of the agonistic framework for building new models for understanding the forms of public relations that would support democratic practice.