The problem of definition of the term «рublic relations»

The article considers the trends existing in the definition of the term public relations. The reason for the variety of the definitions of the term PR is given on the basis of analysis of the described trends. The analysis of literature shows that it is possible to single out 4 understandings of the essence of public relations. Firstly, PR is understood as practical or professional activities. According to this approach, public relations is an activity of people engaged in establishing kind relations with the public and make recommendations to various organizations. The second approach characterizes public relations as a special kind of management. The public relations subject here is a control subsystem and the public is a controlled subsystem. In this case the essence of public relations is in the fact that the transformed information in the subject changes its state and influences the control subsystem. According to the third approach public relations is defined as a form of organization of communication. In this case public relations is connected with ensuring of understanding through knowledge. That is, communication between the company and the social system is organised in such a way as to provide understanding of the company's activity. And, finally, the fourth approach characterizes public relations directly as communication between the company and the public. The first three definitions can be combined, as, in the broad sense, public relations is a professional activity, the purpose of which is the specially organized communication between the company and the public. Thus, on the one hand, public relations is communication between the company and the public. On the other hand, public relations is treated as an area of Applied Communications, in other words, as a professional activity. We suppose that it is impossible to overcome this dualism in the understanding of public relations because it is based on different understandings of the communication process. It causes different, if not opposite, interpretations of the essence of public relations, its functions and prospects. So at this stage it is impossible to resolve the dualism of the definitions, because they originate from different bases. Perhaps, this situation is connected not only with the fact that different researches are based on different assumptions, but also with the fact that public relations science itself is still not developed well. It has not yet been able to resolve the contradictions that exist in this area.

Keywords

Authors

References