From a front page article on the New York Times of Sunday July 13, Nicolai Ouroussif interestingly describes how new architecture in China reflects the vigour and intellectual ferment
which is going on in that part of the world.
At a certain point, in describing the CCTV headquarters in Bejing (the state television authority) by architect Rem Koolhaas as among the most imaginative architectural feats in recent memory, he writes :….he has carved out ample space for places of social exchange…..The architect sees the dividing line between public and private spheres as an active battleground, one that is constantly shifting and readjusting as society’s norms change and evolve….
In a recent post concerning the London WPRF we read stimulating and varied suggestions from the likes of Austrian Markus Pirchner, New Zealander Catherine Arrow, UK’s Heather Yaxley, on how we, as public relators and -inevitably- organizers of the millions of pseudoevents which have possibly become today’s most serious social and economic pandemia, should make one serious effort to rethink and reinvent the classic 20th Century format.
This, in the context of at least one perspective of our efforts to reintermediate our professional role in this century where the dividing line between public and private spheres as an active battleground, one that is constantly shifting and readjusting as society’s norms change and evolve.
My scholar friend Giampaolo Azzoni, from the University of Pavia, says that our liquid and post-modern society is in dire need of new and different spaces for relationships, and that any organization finds itself increasingly involved, more or less consciously, in the effort to create places, events and tools (physical and virtual) capable of attracting interactions from its relevant stakeholder groups (amongst themselves and with the organization).
The implication is that we manage relationships not by attempting to control them, but by creating competitive spaces where relationships may better develop for all involved participants. On this issue please visit this other fairly recent post
This, in turn implies that the public relator needs to carefully and -almost to the single individual- identify the organization’s active stakeholders (subjects who are aware of and interested in a relationship, and therefore not selected by the organization). With this group, one simple push message announcing the availability of the space is usually sufficient to begin what, friendly or hostile, becomes a relationship.
Then, the public relator will also need to decide who the potential stakeholders are (subjects who are not aware of and therefore not attracted by a potential relationship but which s/he thinks would be interested if aware) and clearly communicate more con-vincingly (in the latin sense of vincere cum) in order to induce them to engage and move up to the active stakeholder group.
According to Giampaolo, a successful space will need to count on dwellers who are fully aware of where they are, no other strings attached (transparency); will necessarily need to facilitate polifonic (plural and different voices); and authentic (the rules of the game need to be based on consensus and not dictated by the convenor) conversations.
Thus, as Catherine Arrow points out in her last comment on the London post, public relations can become a highly creative activity.
Please read the past post, the suggestions, elaborate and comment. Thank you