Public relations, indigeneity and colonization: Indigenous resistance as dialogic anchor

Abstract

Cultural communication has been put forth in the context of globalization and the emergence of Indigenous movements as a framework for dialogue to be carried out by organizations (Love & Tilley, 2014). Concepts of Māori communication for instance have been foregrounded in the public relations literature to anchor strategies of effective engagement through dialogue, leading to the building of trust in Indigenous communities (Love & Tilley, 2014). Similarly, Indigenous engagement has been foregrounded as a key resource in achieving global sustainable development (Dutta, 2013, 2019). This turn to Indigenous cultural communication is broadly situated in the framing of indigeneity as a category to be developed within frameworks of dialogue and engagement, constituted within the structures of transnational capitalism (Dutta, 2019).Drawing from Dutta’s (2008) theorizing of the cultural sensitivity and culture-centered approaches to communication, we critically interrogate the hegemony of Indigenous dialogue as a strategy deployed by dominant organizations. Whereas cultural sensitivity incorporates cultural characteristics to serve organizational goals, cultural-centering serves as an anchor for collaborating with cultural communities at the margins in building “communicative infrastructures” for voice. Arguing that superficial markers of culture incorporated into engagement is a communicative inversion that serves the colonizing tools of transnational capital, we attend to culturally centered communication strategies of engagement that are grounded in resistance and emerge from within the voices of Indigenous movements that are increasingly threatened by ever-expanding colonial missions of globalization.Comparing across two case studies, one about the struggle of the Dongria Kondh in the Odisha state of Eastern India against mining capitalism, and the other a critical review of the use of Māori cultural knowledge in the public relations literature, we articulate indigeneity as a site of resistance within the meta-theoretical framework of the culture-centered approach (Dutta, 2008, 2011). In conceptualizing Indigenous resistance as an agonistic anchor to communication, we attend to the impossibilities of dialogue, and simultaneously to the role of communicative infrastructures in inverting neoliberal hegemony. Dialogue is radically transformed, not in generating consensus but rather in its capacity to disrupt the neoliberal status quo through the presence of Indigenous voices. Indigenous resistance “renders impure” the ontological category of dialogue, on one hand, attending to the limits of dialogue, and on the other hand, turns dialogic tools into the hands of Indigenous social movements. Dialogue as a communication infrastructure located materially within Indigenous resistance movements turns the power of communication into the hands of Indigenous communities.