Citation

Heath RL. Public Relat. Rev. 2021; 47(2): e102013.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102013

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Mutually beneficial relationships (MBRs), a concept used to define public relations processes and outcomes, has been featured relatively uncritically for many years. This normative concept became a defining theme in the romantic era (1970s-1990s) of public relations: an elixir for collective problem solving and shared decision making. Careful consideration of highly contested issues, however, reveals evidence that within-group MBRs can prevent overarching issue solutions, decisions between issue-groups, and can constitute stalemating, hegemonic tribalism. Strategic issues management (SIM) provides decision-making intelligences by which conflict between businesses and other members of society can be understood. Issue advocates' adversarial strategies, however, can frustrate a society's ability to solve problems and make meaningful decisions, even when parties share a common motivating value. Stalemated public policy interpretations create sores that cannot heal; problems cannot be solved. Within-group MBRs can prevent between-group MBRs. This paper reviews the MBR and SIM literatures to analyze the National Rifle Association's (NRA) marketplace and public policy role in a battle over gun regulation with students of Parkland, Florida. Parkland voices emerged after 17 students were killed with an assault weapon on February 14, 2018, in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Language: en

Keywords

Gun control; Intelligences; Legitimacy gap; Mutually beneficial relationships; Resistance; Social activism; Strategic issues management