Frontier imaginings and subversive Indigenous spatialities

One of the most powerful and enduring aspects of publicly projected Anglo-Australian national identities is part of what [Howitt, R., 2001. Frontiers borders, edges: liminal challenges to the hegemony of exclusion. Australian Geographical Studies 39, 233–245.] has referred to as frontier imaginings: the carving out of the Australian physical and socio-cultural landscape into familiar, settled, and productive spaces. These frontier imaginaries have been leveraged to exact social control and ‘zealously order rural space’ [Philo, C., 1992. Neglected rural geographies: a review. Journal of Rural Studies 8, 193–207, 197]. Government policy has historically been imbued with frontier imaginaries, privileging population movements that are constructed as appropriately bounded, and disciplining those which are not. Much Indigenous mobility falls into the latter category. This paper tells a story of competing rationalities about the purpose and nature of rural ‘settlement’, both past and present, and the implications of these rationalities for contemporary Indigenous population dynamics. In so doing, it creates a discursive space for examining the cultural content and hidden assumptions in constructions of appropriate ‘settlement patterns’. Ultimately, it speaks of spatial struggles across the Australian geographical and temporal landscape. It also opens windows onto the fragile geographies of co-existence that need to be engaged with to shift the discourses of rural livelihood and well being toward discourses of accommodation, recognition and sustainable ways of being together.     

Standing their ground: Southern white hegemonic defense of place through camouflaged narrative continuity

Public relations research typically conceptualizes the practice as organization-centric by emphasizing strategies, tactics, and tools used to achieve objectives that advance organizational interests. Often less organizational but essential to understanding community self-governance, grassroots actors use public relations to defend, advance, or challenge ideographs such as freedom, democracy or environmental quality. The ideograph analyzed in this case is the postbellum narrative continuity of “Southern Heritage not Hate” which served as camouflage for redeeming the Lost Cause, the argument that the South did not lose the Civil War. This essay normatively identifies, interprets and judges public relations strategies southern advocates used to “stand their ground” by defining place as a cultural issue and source of relational agency. This grassroots public relations campaign sought to defeat the post-Civil War Reconstruction narrative continuity that fostered the societal agency of African Americans; postbellum activists re-imposed a narrative favorable to Southern white male hegemony. To stand their ground, “Southern” voices used military textuality, focused on CSA General Robert E. Lee, as narrative continuity during the U.S. Civil War (1861–1865), Reconstruction (1865–1876), and Jim Crow (1877–1954). The term “camouflage” is used to explore this narrative and critically illuminate how text can define place so as to make it seem different than it is. Camouflage encodes messages differently to different decoders; it conceals as it reveals. Such strategies are typically more emergent contextually than the result of a grand plan. Through grassroots activism by groups such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and Sons of Confederate Veterans, what once was overt became covert regarding national military culture.     

Explicating the public memory dialectic in public relations: The case of Donald Trump,The Oath Keepers,and January 6, 2021

The public relations practice participates in making, shaping, telling, and interpreting societal memory to influence issue positions and related actions. That claim implies several themes. One, societal memory is a useful concept for understanding the strategic processes of meaning and meaning making, narratives which constitute society. Two, the content of their prevailing memories shapes the choices individuals make separately and collectively. Public relations’ centrality to societal memory remains an underappreciated and underexplored research area. Scholars have explored the role public relations plays in societal memory by examining, for instance, the textuality of art as well as memorials and statues, their erection and erasure. To better understand this process, scholarship needs to examine strategic public relations efforts to “blur” societal memory as a means of creating alternative versions (revisionist history) of lived truth, values, norms, and policies. After examining memory, including blurring, we use the January 6, 2021 United States presidential election (Congressional Certification) Capitol “protest event” to demonstrate how blurring occurs and its potential adverse implications. We suggest and conceptualize in a model that societal memory occurs as a dialectic; some etched version of history (i.e., thesis) comes under question (i.e., antithesis), and through either a process of blurring, erasure, or retention, that etched history is then muddied, expunged, or lives on (i.e., synthesis). Meaning matters in the enactment and critical assessment of public relations’ role in societal agency.