Is nationalism bad public relations?
By Craig on Mar 18, 2010 in Public relations, Social issues, Strategic communication
Nationalism is the antithesis of public relations. The former is inherently opposed to the notions of diversity, multiculturalism and the sharing of power. As such, it is exclusive and not representative of two-way symmetrical communication, the most meaningful and resonant underlying theory of public relations.
Nationalism, then, is bad PR. Or is it?
National days, like Australia Day and the USA’s Independence Day, are a symbolic representation of nationalism. They are pure spin, based – in contemporary society – on little more than hubris. Getting drunk, castigating minority groups and engagement in non-reflective activities such as sport are the lingua franca of national days. But is this true?
Couldn’t our governments adopt more of the essence of what public relations is about to help make our society a better place in which to exist? Applying the key themes of public relations means society would be more inclusive of difference by championing behavioural and cultural change. Integrating ‘promotions’ into these programs would attract and drive great subscription to them.
Nationalism, despite what its promoters say, is an insular activity – the property of the social majority. Australia struggles to represent, and be inclusive of, its indigenous community at normal times. On Australia Day the situation is magnified.
This is the day that represents the arrival of the English First Fleet (i.e. foreigners landing on, and claiming for their own, indigenous Australian soil!), after all. No surprise, then, that indigenous Australians have a problem with the ‘celebrations’.
Superiority is not good PR
Nationalism is characterised by people bragging about their country’s superiority, not its brotherhood or collegiality. It is contradictory to the notion of multiculturalism, a notion that Australia and the United States (try to) position themselves as representing.
And why should we promote our country as being better than others? We are all human beings. Implicit in nationalism is a condescension and sense of superiority over other countries and their people. That is hardly conducive to people getting along and creating a society where all constituents feel valued, feel like they belong and feel like they can achieve their dreams.
Australia Day focuses on the simplistic, the tacky. Reflective discussions on the nature of being Australian and living in Australia are thin on the ground.
Pride: the good and the bad
A valuable pride in one’s country is surely a quiet pride, not a chest-beating one. It is humble. Yet national days provide little perspective to enable this to occur.
Beating chests may well incite the likeminded, but it is almost certain to repulse and alienate those who are not. This is hardly, then, an inclusive behaviour. It is a divisive one. It is not reflective of key tenets of public relations:
- Dialogue – this is at the very heart of effective public relations – so how have governments worked to impact on the culture of Australian society through their management of national days?
- Embracing of a plurality of perspectives (i.e. diversity – this being wonderfully analogous to multiculturalism, which is not effectively celebrated on Australia Day)
- Tolerance – how often do we see this characteristic embodied on Australia Day?
- Collaborative (working together to generate fresh perspectives, new ideas and resolutions to issues). Without this, individual, organisational and societal potential will never be reached
- ‘Accommodation’ (i.e. accommodating the interests of each other)
- Empowering the marginalised; giving voice to the voiceless (thus helping develop social equity; one of the most meaningful and rewarding dimensions of public relations).
If governments adopted the tenets that underpin strategic public relations, it would lead to an enriched society, one where its indigenous and multicultural elements became more effectively integrated into our culture as a whole.
Government relations helping society
Governments have introduced a range of activities on Australia Day that are inclusive of multicultural and indigenous communities, but they seem to have little impact on the nature of its day or its mood. What hope do these superficial activities have when more fundamental, ongoing and ‘cultural connectivity’ policies and programs are clearly required?
It is these policies and programs (and legislation?) that have the potential to be the manifestation of a true public relations approach, one where structures and processes are changed to facilitate the equalisation of society and integration of its human elements.
Public relations is about all relevant people/entities changing their behaviour (and by implication modus operandi) to accommodate each other. It is not simply about raising awareness or pulling the wool over people’s eyes
Australia has failed to do this with indigenous Australian culture (and I have no optimism this will change), but that is no excuse not to keep working to right the wrongs that have occurred, as well as being more assertive in embracing those non-Anglo-Saxon cultures which have decided to embrace the schizophrenic beast of Oz culture.
What do you think about the arguments put forward in this post? Would nationalism be better if it replicated elements of best practice public relations? Are the fundamental underpinnings of nationalism inherently opposed to those of public relations?
PS. I’d welcome you joining networks with me through my LinkedIn profile. Send me an invite!
Fantastic piece Craig. Talk about framing the conversation around the impact of true nationalism. You raise some really interesting points and I would love to hear comments back from any politicians out there who may read this.
I grew up in a truly divisive society (South Africa during the apartheid years) and I can honestly say that there is a lot to admire about the level of tolerance in Australian society. I’m not saying it’s perfect, show me a country that is but it is a great place from which to build on your ideals of nationalism and the role PR can play in this.
Craig Badings | Mar 19, 2010 | Reply
Wow, I had always thought Australians were nice — an interesting mixture of British humour and American know-how. Show’s you what I know! I’m not sure what happens in your celebrations, but it sounds like applying PR principals couldn’t hurt.
In Canada, we have been focussing on multi-cluturalism since I was a kid. It’s not perfect, and don’t get me wrong — however inclusive we seem to be on celebrations day is no reflection of how first nations people are treated, or immigrants accepted. I think we actually do a better job working with new-comers to Canada than we do with working with first nations people — and this isn’t something any of us are proud of.
An interesting thing happened last year. There was supposed to be a re-encactment of the battle of the Plains of Abraham (the Brits beat the French — Canada came under English rule), but there was so much opposition, the re-enactment was cancelled. It was viewed that the event was tantamount to rubbing the noses of the French in thier defeat.
I don’t think I ever considered the history of Canada on such a win/lose basis before, but this exercize certainly changed that for me.
On Canada Day (formerly Dominion Day), we have entertainment and fireworks. It seems with every passing year there is more (embarrassing) exhuberance from young people than there was when I was a kid. This seems to coincide with the idea that Canadians are forever battling our inferiority complex of our neighbours to the south. It’s worrisome and I think in future generations, there will be a Canadian making the exact comments you have — the rank exhibitions of nationalism as an expression of identity.
If PR can help us deliniate the difference between “feeling good” about ourselves and our accomplishments and hooting like drunken bigots our about superiority by simple virtue of living in a geographical area, then let’s get busy and make it happen.
Stephanie Michaels | Mar 20, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for the comments, Craig and Stephanie.
Stephanie, it will come as no surprise for you to hear this, considering the many parallels between our countries, but the Canadian experience as articulated by you sounds very, very similar to Australia.
I think PR does have the potential to help create a healthier, more equitable and even a more sustainable society. But people have to adopt its core methodology. It won’t happen by itself.
Craig | Mar 20, 2010 | Reply
Interesting and thought provoking. As an American who has spent more of my life outside of the USA than in, and a permanent resident in the UK who is studying “Life in the UK” (an extremely ODD publication) in preparation for taking my UK citizenship test, I find national identity an interesting concept. I teach intercultural communication, and have done major consulting projects in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia and the Ukraine. In every case, national identity is a shifting, sometimes slippery concept. Yet, everyone seems to want to belong…. somewhere. But political boundaries change, national characteristics change (communist/USSR, then CIS, for example).
I think nationalism is just a way of affirming our belonging to a culture that is shared. It does not have to be “multicultural”; groups define by exclusivity, too. I would argue with anyone who thinks that America is “multicultural”- it isn’t; rather it insists on a thin veneer of “Americanism” to be applied to different emigrant communities- the ultimate “melting pot”. The UK is more multicultural in character, in that it is more tolerant of true diversity than the US. Celebrating a geographic affiliation is no more peculiar than celebrating a religious one; it’s all part of the “in group” connections we seek as homo sapiens. What is actually in the “box” of a particular national identity is perhaps more interesting, and we might all learn lessons of respecting how diversity contributes to national identity. Interesting that comments are from “recent” nationalities- Australian, Canadian, US- maybe the “newer” nationalities have more to prove when it comes to social cohesion?
Catherine Sweet | Mar 21, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for your wise comments, Catherine. When I look at ‘old’ countries like China, India and the fractured Balkan states, I don’t think the old world has any less to prove than the new. Just look at India’s caste system, which seems to me to be one of the great unmentionables of world racism.
Craig | Mar 21, 2010 | Reply
Hi Craig,
You raise a good topic here Craig. I don’t think that nationalism as such is bad PR. Bastille Day and St Patricks Day are generally a time of celebration and though the latter tends to be focused around the pub they are both pretty good natured. St Patrick’s Day is an unofficial national day that openly invites people to be Irish for the day.
What I think has changed many national days, particularly in the English speaking world is societies attitude. I am referring to a growing trend for drunken, disrespectful and usually yobbish behaviour. To Stephanie’s point if national day celebrations can be de-coupled from such minority behaviour all the better.
I still firmly believe that there is a place for nationalism. It provides a sense of belonging and a culture to identify with. As a Brit expat new to Australia I have to say that although Britain is very multicultural it is at the cost of Britain’s own culture. This over the last 20 years has regrettably been watered down to the point that displays or discussion of nationalism is often deemed unPC (I am not talking draping flags over yourself and drunken hollering here). Perhaps this is because it can be associated with imperialism?
Having taken part in my first Australia day I agree with your point Craig that the date being celebrated could be better.
To Stephanie’s point like Canada I tend to feel Australia also does a much better job of welcoming and accommodating new comers than aboriginal people. I think the actual date is also a cause of friction, but then a date of historical significance does make it more relevant.
I actually believe that dates such as Anzac Day and Remembrance Day (though not ‘National’ days) are more effective for evoking humble pride, reflection and community collaboration. Ironic being they were born out conflict. Unfortunately as time marches on this too is becoming a excuse for commercialism and boozing.
In summary I do feel PR has a part in creating a more positive attitude to nationalism but I also believe that the issue requires a more wholesale approach than PR alone.
Gareth Lathey | Mar 23, 2010 | Reply
Thanks fo ryour comments, Gareth. Your point about Anzac and Remberence Days is a valid one. I wonder, though, if they became the ‘official’ national days if they would descend into the farce of Australia Day, however.
It may well be that days that celebrate defeat (Anzac) make us more humble. Bit as a Pom I am speculating here), be careful, as it was you lot that sent us knowingly into the jaws of hell – but don’t worry, we don’t blame you specifically!!
Don’t forget that when I say PR I mean the its fundamental underlying principle of two-way symmetrical communciation, an explanation of which is linked into the post. It is very important not to get this ‘real version’ of PR mixed up with media relations, events and publicity stunts.
Craig | Mar 23, 2010 | Reply