Public

Inpublicandcommunication,publicsare groups of individualpeople,andthe public(a.k.a.the general public) is the totality of such groupings.^[1]^[2]This is a different concept to the concept of theÖffentlichkeitorhere.^[1]The concept of a public has also been defined inpolitical science,,,and advertising. In public relations and communication science, it is one of the more ambiguous concepts in the field.^[3]Although it has definitions in the theory of the field that have been formulated from the early 20th century onwards, and suffered more recent years from being blurred, as a result of conflation of the idea of a public with the notions of audience, market segment, community, constituency, and stakeholder.^[4]

Etymology and definitions[edit]

The name "public" originates with theLatinpublicus(alsopoplicus), frompopulus,to the English word 'populace', and in general denotes some mass population ( "the people" ) in association with some matter of common interest. So in political science and history, a public is a population of individuals in association with civic affairs, or affairs of office or state. In social psychology, marketing, and public relations, a public has a more situational definition.^[5]John Deweydefined (Dewey 1927) public as a group of people who, in facing a similar problem, recognize it and organize themselves to address it. Dewey's definition of a public is thus situational: people organized about a situation. Built upon this situational definition of a public is thesituational theory of publicsbyJames E. Grunig(Grunig 1983), which talks ofnonpublics(who have no problem),latent publics(who have a problem),aware publics(who recognize that they have a problem), andactive publics(who do something about their problem).^[6]^[7]

In public relations and communication theory, a public is distinct from astakeholderor amarket.A public is a subset of the set of stakeholders for an organization, that comprises those people concerned with a specific issue. Whilst a market has an exchange relationship with an organization, and is usually a passive entity that is created by the organization, public does not necessarily have an exchange relationship, and is both self-creating and self-organizing.^[8]Publics are targeted by public relations efforts. In this,target publicsare those publics whose involvement is necessary for achieving organization goals;intervening publicsare opinion formers and mediators, who pass information to the target publics; andinfluentialsare publics that the target publics turn to for consultation, whose value judgements are influential upon how a target public will judge any public relations material.^[6]The public is often targeted especially in regard to political agendas as their vote is necessary in order to further the progression of the cause. As seen in Massachusetts between 2003 and 2004, it was necessary to "win a critical mass of states and a critical mass of public support" in order to get same-sex marriage passed in the commonwealth.^[9]

Public relations theory perspectives on publics are situational, per Dewey and Grunig; mass, where a public is simply viewed as a population of individuals; agenda-building, where a public is viewed as a condition of political involvement that is not transitory; and "homo narrans",where a public is (in the words of Gabriel M. Vasquez, assistant professor in the School of Communication at theUniversity of Houston) a collection of "individuals that develop a group consciousness around a problematic situation and act to solve the problematic situations" (Vasquez 1993,pp. 209).^[5]^[4]Public schools are often under controversy for their "agenda-building," especially in debates over whether to teach a religious or secular curriculum.^[10]The promotion of an agenda is commonplace whenever one is in a public environment, but schools have exceptional power in that regard.

One non-situational concept of a public is that of Kirk Hallahan, professor atColorado State University,who defines a public as "a group of people who relate to an organization, who demonstrate varying degrees of activity—passivity, and who might (or might not) interact with others concerning their relationship with the organization".^[4]

Samuel Mateus's 2011 paper "Public as Social Experience"^{[undue weight?–discuss]}considered to view the concept by an alternative point of view: the public "is neither a simple audience constituted by media consumers nor just a rational-critical agency of a Public Sphere". He argued "the concept should also be seen in the light of a publicness principle, beyond a critic and manipulative publicity (...). In accordance, the public may be regarded as the result of the social activities made by individuals sharing symbolic representations and common emotions in publicness. Seen with lower-case, the concept is a set of subjectivities who look publicly for a feeling of belonging. So, in this perspective, the public is still a fundamental notion to social life although in a different manner in comparison to 18th century Public Sphere's Public. He means above all the social textures and configurations where successive layers of social experience are built up."^[11]

Social publics[edit]

Social publics are groups of people united by common ideas, ideology, or hobbies. Networked publics are social publics which have been socially restructured by the networking of technologies. As such, they are simultaneously both (1) the space constructed through networked technologies and (2) the imagined collective which consequently emerges as a result of the intersection of humanpersons,shared technologies, and their practices.^[12]

References[edit]

^^a ^bHeath 2005,pp. 707.
^Rawlins & Bowen 2005,pp. 718.
^Vasquez & Taylor 2001,pp. 139.
^^a ^b ^cJahanzsoozi 2006,pp. 65.
^^a ^bVasquez & Taylor 2001,pp. 140.
^^a ^bRawlins & Bowen 2005,pp. 720–721.
^Toth 2006,pp. 506–507.
^Rawlins & Bowen 2005,pp. 721.
^Denise Lavote (November 16, 2013)."A Decade After Massachusetts' Landmark Gay Marriage Ruling, The Gains Are Clear".Huff Post Politics.Archived fromthe originalon 2013-11-19.Retrieved2013-11-17.
^Shorto, Russell (February 11, 2010)."How Christian Were the Founders?".The New York Times Magazine.Archivedfrom the original on December 30, 2017.RetrievedMay 6,2018– via NYTimes.com.
^Mateus, Samuel (2011)."The Public as Social Experience".Comunicação e Sociedade.19:275–286.doi:10.17231/comsoc.19(2011).911.hdl:10400.13/2917.
^Varnelis, Kazys (October 31, 2008)."Networked Publics".MIT Press.Archivedfrom the original on June 10, 2017.

Bibliography[edit]

Heath, Robert Lawrence, ed. (2005). "Public sphere (Öffentlichkeit)".Encyclopedia of public relations.Vol. 2. SAGE.ISBN 978-0-7619-2733-4.
Jahanzsoozi, Julia (2006). "Relationships, Transparency, and Evaluation: The Implications for Public Relations". In L'Etang, Jacquie; Pieczka, Magda (eds.).Public relations: critical debates and contemporary practice.Routledge.ISBN 978-0-8058-4618-8.
Rawlins, Brad L.; Bowen, Shannon A. (2005). "Publics". In Heath, Robert Lawrence (ed.).Encyclopedia of public relations.Vol. 2. SAGE.ISBN 978-0-7619-2733-4.
Toth, Elizabeth L.(2006). "Building Public Affairs Theory". In Botan, Carl H.; Hazleton, Vincent (eds.).Public relations theory II.LEA's communication series. Routledge.ISBN 978-0-8058-3384-3.
Vasquez, Gabriel M.; Taylor, Maureen (2001). "Research perspectives on" the Public "".In Heath, Robert Lawrence; Vasquez, Gabriel M. (eds.).Handbook of public relations.SAGE.ISBN 978-0-7619-1286-6.

Public

Etymology and definitions[edit]

Social publics[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

Further reading[edit]