Racial gerrymandering in the U.S. state of South Carolina offers a case study to take a unique look at political control, power management, and government communication from the critical perspective of hidden reward structures. These reward structures result from strategic messaging by which an elite’s perspectives deliver to them power by marginalizing others and their perspectives. More specifically, we interrogate one dominant narrative advanced in the United States—American Exceptionalism—by highlighting the irony of how South Carolina elected officials use the 1965 Voting Rights Act to assure a Black Democratic member of the House of Representatives, but simultaneously by gerrymandering elected officials actually reduce the likelihood of a second Democratic representative of any race/ethnicity. Using the paradox of the positive as a critical political public relations framework, we highlight the ways that American Exceptionalism is used to impose control, a control that favors one voting perspective to the marginalization of others in U.S. Southern politics.
BarretoM. A.SeguraG. M.WoodsN. D. (2004).The mobilizing effect of majority-minority districts on Latino turnout. American Political Science Review, 98, 65-75.
BottomoreT. (2002). The Frankfurt School and its critics. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BrooksS. (2013). American exceptionalism in the age of Obama. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BurkeK. (1968). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7.
CameronC.EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1996). Do majority-minority districts maximize substantive black representation in Congress?American Political Science Review, 90, 794-812.
8.
CanonD. T. (1999). Race, redistricting, and representation: The unintended consequences of black majority districts. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
DeetzS. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
11.
DelgadoR.StefancicJ. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: New York University Press.
HabermasJ. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
16.
HarrisC. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106, 1707-1791.
17.
HeathR. L. (1986). Realism and relativism: A perspective on Kenneth Burke. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
18.
HeathR. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 93-114.
19.
HeathR. L.McComasK. (2015). Interest, interest, whose interest is at risk? Risk governance, issues management, and the fully functioning society. In PaleoU. F. (Ed.), Risk governance: The articulation of hazard, politics, and ecology (pp. 117-134). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
20.
HeathR. L.WaymerD. (2009). Activist public relations and the paradox of the positive: A case study of Frederick Douglass’ “Fourth of July Address.” In HeathR. L.TothE. L.WaymerD. (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 195-215). New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
HeathR. L.WaymerD. (2011). Corporate issues management and political public relations. In StrömbäckJ.KiousisS. (Eds.), Political public relations: Principles and applications (pp. 138-156). New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
HeathR. L.WaymerD. (2014a). John Brown, public relations, terrorism, and social capital: “His truth goes marching on.”Public Relations Inquiry, 3, 209-226.
23.
HeathR. L.WaymerD. (2014b). Terrorism: Social capital, social construction, and constructive society?Public Relations Inquiry, 3, 227-244.
24.
HuspeckM. (1997). Toward normative theories of communication with reference to the Frankfurt School: An introduction. Communication Theory, 7, 265-276.
25.
IhlenO. (2005). The power of social capital: Adapting Bourdieu to the study of public relations. Public Relations Review, 31, 492-496.
26.
IhlenO. (2007). Building on Bourdieu: A sociological grasp of public relations. Public Relations Review, 33, 269-274.
27.
IvieR. L.GinerO. (2009). American exceptionalism in a Democratic idiom: Transacting the mythos of change in the 2008 presidential campaign. Communication Studies, 60, 359-375.
KiousisS.StrömbäckJ. (2010). The White House and public relations: Examining the linkages between presidential communications and public opinion. Public Relations Review, 36, 7-14.
30.
LeeM. (2012). The president’s listening post: Nixon’s failed experiment in government public relations. Public Relations Review, 38, 22-31.
31.
LevenshusA. (2010). Online relationship management in a presidential campaign: A case study of the Obama campaign’s management of its internet-integrated grassroots effort. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22, 313-335.
32.
LipsetS. M. (1963). The first new nation: The United States in historical and comparative perspective. New York, NY: Basic Books.
33.
LipsetS. M. (1996). American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
34.
LoganN. (2011). The White leader prototype: A critical analysis of race in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 442-457.
35.
LublinD. (1997). The paradox of representation: Racial gerrymandering and minority interests in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
MotterJ. (2010). American exceptionalism and the rhetoric of humanitarian militarism: The case of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Relief Effort. Communication Studies, 61, 507-525. doi:10.1080/10510974.2010.514834
PompperD. (2005). “Difference” in public relations research: A case for introducing Critical Race Theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 139-169.
StrömbäckJ.KiousisS. (2011). Political public relations: Defining and mapping an emergent field. In StrömbäckJ.KiousisS. (Eds.), Political public relations: Principles and applications (pp. 1-32). New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
StrömbäckJ.MitrookM. A.KiousisS. (2010). Bridging two schools of thought: Applications of public relations theory to political marketing. Journal of Political Marketing, 9, 73-92.
ThompsonJ. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass communication. Malden, MA: Polity Press
50.
TrammellK. D. (2006). Blog offensive: An exploratory analysis of attacks published on campaign blog posts from a political public relations perspective. Public Relations Review, 32, 402-406.
WaymerD. (2009). Liberty and justice for all? The paradox of governmental rhetoric. Communication Quarterly, 57, 334-351.
53.
WaymerD. (2013a). Democracy and government public relations: Expanding the scope of “relationship” in public relations research. Public Relations Review, 39, 320-331.
54.
WaymerD. (2013b). Paradox of the positive/negative. In HeathR. L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (2nd ed., pp. 567-570). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
WaymerD.HeathR. L. (2016). Critical race and public relations: The case of environmental racism and risk bearer agency. In McKieD.SnowN.XifraJ.L’EtangJ. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical public relations (pp. 289-302). London, England: Routledge.
56.
WaymerD.StreetJ. (2015). HBCUs as relics or reminders race remains relevant in a “post-racial” society? Exploring and expanding the role of memory in public relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 4, 145-162.
57.
WiggershausR. (1995). The Frankfurt School: Its history, theories, and political significance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
58.
WilderC. S. (2013). Ebony & ivy: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America’s universities. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
XifraJ. (2010). Linkages between public relations models and communication managers’ roles in Spanish political parties. Journal of Political Marketing, 9, 167-185.
