Binaries,continuums,and intersections: Women public relations professionals’ understandings of gender

Gender

Gender is the ‘way we arrange things between people identified as “women” or as “men” … and allocate them to different social roles, attributes and patterns of behavior’ (Bradley, 2007: 182). It is ‘something we do and believe’ as a result of our interactions with others (Rakow, 1989: 289). Butler (2004) expanded upon the relational component of gender: ‘[O]ne does not “do” one’s gender alone. One is always “doing” with or for another, even if the other is only imaginary’ (p. 1). Moreover, all women and men are gendered, constrained by gender, and affected by gendered expectations or stereotypes (Aldoory, 2005: 674–675).

Gender is also a communicative process involving individuals’ embodiment, negotiation, resistance, and adoption of gendered meanings (Ashcraft and Mumby, 2004: 116–119). This process involves individuals simultaneously producing and reproducing their identities both as ‘decentered selves who are the product of multiple discourses and as agents who engage the social world in an active and meaningful way’ (p. 119). Organizations and industries, as well as individuals, thus become gendered. ‘Discourse, by privileging certain topics and excluding others, acts to reproduce organizations in a particular way, and imposes parameters on acceptable types of identity’ (Wilson, 2001: 3). Gender becomes a function of an organization’s cultural and social infrastructure, whereby individuals ‘do gender’ and ascribe gender connotations to actions and events (Wilson, 2001: 2, citing Gherardi, 1994).

Historically, discourse has narrowly and problematically categorized gender as binary sexual difference, instead of myriad gender or sexual representations (Butler, 1990, 2004). Treating gender as an exclusive ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ binary, however, fails to acknowledge other gender identities that do not fit normative definitions, which can contribute to hegemonic definitions of power and gender (Butler, 2004: 42–43). These binary discourses constructing the category of ‘woman’ as opposite to ‘man’ ignore cultural, political, and social plurality (Butler, 1990: 19, 31).

Challenging binaries and refusing to conflate ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ enable the terms masculine and feminine to be applied flexibly to male and female bodies (Butler, 1990: 9). Feminist theorists, such as Rich (1994) and Fausto-Sterling (2000), have utilized continuum and infinity sign metaphors to illustrate that multiple gender identities are possible. Fausto-Sterling (2000) explained, however, that even a linear continuum model of masculinity and femininity assumes that as one becomes more feminine, the person becomes less masculine – or vice versa. Instead of the continuum concept, Fausto-Sterling, citing Grosz (1994), proposed that we visualize gender as a ‘Möbius strip’. This symbol, resembling an infinity sign, illustrates that masculinity and femininity draw upon each other and form infinite combinations in the human body and mind (pp. 24–25).

Intersectionality theory

Not only is viewing gender as binary (or continuum) problematic, but so is seeing gender apart from other identity constructs. Intersectionality refuses to treat gender, race, class, or sexuality as mutually exclusive categories. It holds that multiple identities and forms of oppression occur simultaneously. They ‘mutually construct one another’ (Collins, 1998) and reinforce one another (Shields, 2008) throughout one’s existence (Collins, 1998, 2000; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; Dill and Zambrana, 2009; Essed, 1991; Shields, 2008). Intersectionality considers the many simultaneous experiences, oppressions, and discourses that shape one’s concept of gender. It conceptualizes gender as ‘not as a “real” social difference between men and women, but as a mode of discourse that relates to groups of subjects whose social roles are defined by their sexual/biological difference’ (Yuval-Davis, 2006: 201). Because identities mutually constitute one another, a single identity dimension, such as gender, gains meaning through its relation to other identities, such as race or class (McCall, 2005; Shields, 2008).

Intersectionality is useful for highlighting the differences and inequalities among women (Crenshaw, 1991; Ludvig, 2006; Shields, 2008; Zinn and Dill, 1996) given its assumption that no group of women is homogeneous. Ignoring differences among women within a group can contribute to tension among group members (Crenshaw, 1991) and distorts or omits the plural experiences of some individuals (Zinn and Dill, 1996). Recognizing plurality among women avoids the difference-based explanations of gender and thus avoids gender stereotypes (Shields, 2008).

Gender and public relations

Gender socialization affects public relations practitioners’ work roles, advancement opportunities (Aldoory and Toth, 2002; Grunig et al., 2001; O’Neil, 2003), and women’s perceptions of their ability to integrate work life and home life (Aldoory et al., 2008; Jiang and Shen, 2013). It influences the cultural, political, and relational forces that ‘position men and women in relation to the occupation’, often working to ‘exclude the voices of those who do not fit the dominant and conventional disciplinary forms of thinking and practice’ (Daymon and Demetrious, 2014b: 4–5).

Public relations, as a discursive practice, plays a significant role in producing gendered meanings, influencing hierarchies of power, and generating consent among individuals in society (Demetrious, 2008; Weaver et al., 2006; as cited in Daymon and Demetrious, 2014b: 3). Using feminist theory to explore the social construction of gender in public relations, feminist public relations scholars have critiqued research, policy, and practice suggesting that women are inadequate according to the masculine norms of society. They have promoted women’s empowerment by ‘challenging the status quo, social norms that devalue women, and calling for actions that seek equality’ (Toth and Cline, 2007: 88). Such research has shown how role socialization accounts for men and women’s differential treatment and performance of gendered roles in the workplace: men are socialized to perform stereotypically ‘masculine’ traits, such as dominance, strength, and power (Hon, 1995), whereas women are socialized to display stereotypically ‘feminine’ traits, such as caring (Aldoory and Toth, 2002; Hon, 1995). Over time, devaluation of feminine socialized traits has contributed to women’s relegation to less-valued or ‘technician’ roles (Aldoory and Toth, 2002; Grunig et al., 2001; O’Neil, 2003) and discrimination.

Recently, feminist scholarship has argued that narrow, binary notions of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ have established a heteronormative standard in the public relations profession (Aldoory, 2005; Edwards and L’Etang, 2013; Tindall, 2013). According to Edwards and L’Etang (2013), a heteronormative standard is apparent in public relations scholarship that essentializes women or fails to acknowledge sexuality (pp. 47–50). Drawing upon Aldoory’s (2001) assertion that the ‘standard’ woman in public relations is assumed to be White, able-bodied, and heterosexual, Tindall (2013) explained that a heteronormative environment is maintained through the belief that certain forms of sexuality, such as homosexuality, are abnormal (p. 27).

Gender and race intersections in public relations

Both gender and race overlap to affect public relations practitioners’ career progress, perceptions of job performance, access to informal and formal professional networks, and organizational status and power (Kern-Foxworth, 1989, 1991; Munshi and Edwards, 2011; Pompper, 2007, 2014; Tindall, 2009; Vardeman-Winter, 2011). Latina practitioners endured sexism by Latino public relations professionals and reporters, discrimination by Anglo clients and bosses, and work–life balance stress (Pompper, 2007: 298–300). Meanwhile, gender and race were found to influence the level of committee work, mentoring and networking resources, and research and tenure opportunities of Black women public relations educators (Tindall, 2009). Earlier research by Kern-Foxworth (1991) argued that minority groups have been underrepresented and undervalued by marketers and that ethnic minority practitioners can bridge cultural and communication boundaries between a public relations agency and its ever-increasing diverse and global client base (p. 30).

Aldoory (2007) suggested the presence of White, male, and middle-class norms that serve to discriminate people of color and constrain women’s leadership abilities. Women of color may be perceived as less effective leaders if they enact roles inconsistent with race and gender norms (p. 251). Analyzing whiteness in public relations campaigns, Vardeman-Winter (2011) found evidence of the disembodiment of racial identities from campaign messaging. She confronted the ways in which she, as a White researcher, placed herself in a ‘nonraced’ category, taking for granted nonraced perceptions or assumptions throughout the research process. Her study echoes Frankenberg’s (1993) study of whiteness, which found that White women voiced, often unconsciously, their awareness of oppression and discrimination among Black citizens, whereas they interpreted whiteness as ‘neutral’ or privileged (p. 21).

Intersectionality research has found that gender, race, sexuality, class, ethnicity, and age overlap to affect practitioners’ interactions with colleagues, public relations work culture and job satisfaction (Tindall, 2007), practitioners’ work–life balance and hiring or promotion opportunities (Janus, 2008), and connection to campaign messages (Vardeman-Winter and Tindall, 2010a). As a result, these social identities often reinforce structures of privilege and disadvantage that may hinder women’s advancement in public relations (Pompper, 2014: 76–77). Specifically, Tindall (2007) found that gender tended to ‘trump’ race or sexuality, thus enabling male practitioners to escalate in power and rank over their female public relations practitioner colleagues (p. 181). Janus (2008) found, however, that practitioners’ social location, including class and race, ‘trumped’ gender to affect leadership style, work–life balance, and hiring or promotion opportunities. In their study of a women’s heart health campaign, Vardeman-Winter and Tindall (2010a) found that race and ethnicity more prominently affect how women connect with campaign messages and media portrayals.

Ultimately, feminist public relations research suggests a complex system of gendered practices and discourses. Scholars argue that gender and feminist research must acknowledge that both men and women are targets of gender socialization at systemic and organizational levels (Aldoory, 2005) and examine how both men and women contribute to the ‘reification of patriarchy, capitalism, Western racism and colonialism’ (Rakow and Nastasia, 2009: 267). Given feminists’ requirement that gender be understood in more holistic and intersectional ways (Eaton, 2001; Pompper, 2014; Toth and Cline, 2007), I asked, How do women public relations practitioners define gender? This research question responds to Wackwitz and Rakow’s (2007) call, among others, for feminist researchers ‘to ask how gender systems operate and differ from each other in different times and places, why one particular gender system is in place rather than another, where meanings come from and what those meanings are’ (p. 263). Further exploring the construction of gender may help public relations professionals to more clearly understand how organizations are gendered, more ethically and sensitively communicate to publics, and combat workplace discrimination.

Sample

Sampling included snowball, purposive, and maximum variation methods. The resulting sample consisted of 36 Caucasian-American, 4 African-American, 4 Asian-American, and 1 Hispanic-American public relations practitioners between the ages of 28 and 65 years. They served as consultants, managers, or executives. They worked independently or for agency, government, not-for-profit, and corporate environments in the South, East Coast, and West Coast regions of the United States.

Procedure

Interviews were conducted face-to-face. A few interviews were conducted by telephone, when members were outside of the researcher’s geographic range of travel. Interviews were audiotaped and varied in length from 45 to 120 minutes. Member checks and follow-up e-mails were used to reflect upon and review interview data or request clarification regarding a particular response.

Interviews were guided by a protocol that utilized a combination of broad, open-ended, and specific questions. Questions were asked in a pre-determined order based on specificity. Early questions, such as ‘Tell me about your role as a public relations practitioner in your organization’ acquainted participants to the interview process. Later questions such as ‘How do you define gender?’ and ‘What are some gender-related work issues that practitioners face?’ prompted participants to describe specific experiences related to practitioner meaning-making of gender. Follow-up questions and probes such as ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’ were used to elicit further elaboration and description regarding some questions.

Data analysis

Each interview was fully transcribed, coded, and analyzed line-by-line for relevant themes using a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The grounded theory approach incorporated pattern matching and systematic, constant comparison of data by which open codes, axial codes, and systematic codes were applied to phenomena. I enriched the data analysis process and addressed the validity of the data by using memos, observer comments (OCs), and feedback from scholars. Additionally, I reflexively and critically examined how my own notions of gender, race, age, sexuality, and class influenced the data collection and interpretation.

Data were also analyzed with intersectionality in mind. Analysis attempted to ‘make explicit the often implicit experiences of intersectionality, even when participants do not express the connections’ (Bowleg, 2008: 325). Data were analyzed first using a categorical approach (i.e. Cole, 2008; Ludvig, 2006; McCall, 2005) and then using a constitutive approach (i.e. Prins, 2006; Yuval-Davis, 2006) in order to study dimensions of identity in relation to one another, while being mindful of the historical and contextual features of individual identity categories (Shields, 2008: 307).

Gender as binary

Participants who defined gender in binary terms perceived gender as a function of biological sex. Sue, a White project manager from the East Coast, explained, ‘My father was a physician, so I tend toward the clinical. I define [gender] as male/female’. Interestingly, some practitioners used the terminology of ‘Black and White’ to describe gender as stark binary difference between the sexes. For example, Mary, a White public affairs professional from the East Coast, stated, ‘I guess [gender is] masculine/feminine, male/female. That’s the pretty standard black and white’. Lana, a White agency professional from the East Coast, also asserted, ‘How do I define gender? Well, I could see it very much as a black and white issue. It’s male or female’.

Other participants still utilized binary terms, but related gender to contrasting notions of masculinity and femininity. For example, Rena, a White corporate professional from East Coast, explained gender saying, ‘That’s a tough one. You can say men like to fight more and women tend to hold grudges. It’s the whole ‘Women are from Venus, men are from Mars’ kind of thing’. Similarly, Sonia, an Asian-American professional from the East Coast applied stereotypical and binary notions of masculine versus feminine traits specifically to ‘males’ or ‘females’:

It’s the yin and yang concept. Certain characteristics that lend themselves to success in PR that are more female. Being diplomatic. Being a good host or hostess. Being a bit of a nanny sometimes. Juggling a lot of things. All those are things that women do very well, historically.

Some participants further drew upon the masculinity versus femininity binary by engaging gendered stereotypes and assumptions. For example, when defining gender, Susanna, a White independent professional from the East Coast, stated,

I think we are natural communicators as women; we are used to voicing or articulating issues. We need to find productive ways, appreciate those skills, and find ways to getting the men in the room to talk to us or talk about what we need them to talk about. Similarly, we need to recognize that sometimes being a woman, especially being young or short or both, sometimes you are going to be – people at first are going to ignore you, or they are going to ask you to go get coffee for them.

Susanna’s quotation offers evidence of socialized expectations regarding gender that Susanna herself has internalized. She attempts to use stereotypes to critique gendered perceptions of the public relations workplace, but she instead reiterates a discourse of inequality and subordination. Rebecca, an agency vice president from the East Coast, shared a similar anecdote associating stereotypically feminine traits with negative workplace experiences:

If you are at a playground and you see guys and they have an argument, they settle it, and the game continues. With women, if someone pisses somebody off, the game stops and that’s it. And it may or may not ever be resolved. I think that couldn’t be a better example of what the dynamic can be in an agency that is run mostly by women …

Here, Rebecca described gender by essentializing women in the industry. She assumed that all women practitioners hold similar traits and lack conflict resolution skills, whereas these dynamics may simply be a function of a particular organizational culture.

Some participants who voiced binary definitions of gender using stereotypes of masculinity or femininity questioned the rigid application of feminine or masculine traits. Carol, an African-American independent professional from the East Coast, expressed her personal conflict:

I have a lot of masculine tendencies. But then what does that mean, to have masculine tendencies? I’m a go-getter, to be ambitious, to be type-A, to be the boss, to be in charge, to make money, to be able to control situations. And that’s just a personality type or a way of being. It’s not necessarily tied to being male or female … And then to be sensitive as a man, people say you’re feminine. I think my husband is very sensitive and very nurturing and very maternal, but that’s sexist to say. Why can’t he just be paternal? He is good at parenting.

Gender as socially constructed

Other participants, however, viewed gender as a socially constructed phenomenon. Their definitions of gender commonly involved the terms ‘perceive’, ‘construct’, and ‘cultural concept’. For example, Elizabeth, an agency professional from the East Coast, explained gender as ‘the way each person in society perceives his or her role’. She added, ‘It’s the way we interpret one’s sexual role. It’s a construct’. Other individuals elaborated on this concept. For example, Samantha, an African-American independent practitioner from the East Coast, expanded upon how gender is defined by societal norms and values:

I just think that gender is constructed socially as male and female … there are still traits that are highly masculine, highly feminine according to society’s norms and values, and if I were to pick out a pink book bag, someone within this society would automatically think that I had a girl. That’s what gender represents. It’s the social construction of gender. It’s defined by what society has constructed it to be.

Another professional, Layla, explained that she learned in school to interpret gender as a social construct. Yet, the Hispanic-American agency professional from the West Coast herself defined gender as ‘energies’ or series of traits that men and women both share. Layla explained,

I did women’s studies as a student. Academically, it’s a social construct. I don’t think about gender in that sense. I think about it more energetically. People have a masculine energy, but they may be a woman. They are more direct and to-the-point. That is a male approach, a traditionally male attribute. There are some women who have that energy.

Interestingly, although Layla understood that gender was a social construct, she ultimately fell back on binary, stereotypical notions of gender as ‘male versus female’ to explain it. A White agency owner from the East Coast further expanded how gender is socially constructed with a multiplicity of possible representations, by utilizing the term ‘continuum’. Allison explained,

Gender is a cultural concept. It really has nothing to do with biology … And I think gender is definitely a continuum. And as we have more transgender folks in the workplace, I think twenty years from now, we are going to have a very different conversation about what gender is.

Women public relations professionals defined gender in multiple, conflicting ways. Some professionals perceived gender as biological difference, while others perceived it as a socialized, cultural system of meanings. A third way to define gender was as something inherent to one’s identities and lived experiences, as illustrated in the passages below.

Gender, race, ethnicity, and age intersections

A third group of participants defined gender as constructed in relation to age, race, and ethnicity. They referred to these factors as ways in which they experienced difference – and, in turn, they understood gender as situated within a complex system of roles, expectations, and discrimination.

Age appeared to be an especially critical factor regarding how women ‘experienced’ gender in the public relations workplace. Younger participants saw gender as contributing to women’s sense of gender discrimination. For example, Catherine, an independent professional in the East Coast, said gender and age intersected to affect how women and men benefited in the industry. ‘There was an interesting dynamic being a younger woman working with older men’, she said. ‘Young women versus young men, it’s not the same. I never behaved as if it was different, but as I’ve grown older I noticed that men get the benefit more than women do’. Another White non-profit professional from the South similarly said,

At first, people think I’m the intern. I look so young, but I haven’t said anything yet. But I try to speak in a ‘grown-up voice’ and add examples like ‘When I worked in the Governor’s Office’. It’s based on life experience. You need to tell that you’ve ‘been around the block’.

Practitioners offered insight into why they perceived gender and age to affect perceptions of women in the workplace. Alecia, a White corporate professional from the East Coast, explained,

It’s not that I’m female and young. It’s [men] are used to getting their own way and not being challenged. If I’m a male, they’d attack in a different way. Men have a hard time seeing women in a professional role. Men have a hard time separating the person or the woman from the role.

Here, Alicia constructs gender as tied to notions of ‘male’ or ‘female’ as well as stereotypically masculine-based role assumptions.

Age also intersected with race, ethnicity, and gender to inform women’s definitions of gender in public relations. Participants’ stories demonstrated how the social construction of race shaped the notion of difference in the public relations profession. Racial minority practitioners often cited race as a form of discrimination or oppression: judgments on women’s abilities and levels of expertise were made by not what appears on one’s resume but by one’s age and race. Samantha, the African-American independent professional, explained,

When I got the job at the [organization], I was the youngest director, the only African American, and I was a woman. And that was painful beyond compare. Just getting discriminated against by the white man, getting discriminated against by the older white woman saying, ‘oh, you remind me of my daughter’. I’m not your daughter, I’m your boss! So that age thing, when I went to get jobs, I knew that people were looking at me thinking, ‘If we are going to pay you six figures, you need to have at least twenty years of experience’.

Likewise, Sonia, the Asian-American practitioner, said that race and ethnicity played prominently in her role as a public relations professional:

It’s been more issues of being from a different culture. Most of the time, I don’t let that get to me. Over the years, the fact that I look different and speak different – I’m from India – but people think I sound British. I don’t let it get to me. From a cultural point of view, once I start working, that changes completely.

Race, for White practitioners, did not intersect to create a sense of gender-based discrimination, but served as a socially constructed category by which they could understand ‘difference’ or what they were not. Interestingly, only one White interviewee mentioned race during the interviews. However, she noticed race because she, as a White woman, was a ‘minority’ in her particular agency. Amanda, an East Coast agency professional, explained, ‘My first job was at a female-owned Hispanic agency. I was a minority because I’m not Hispanic. It was mind-opening and a lot of fun’.

Race and gender simultaneously affected women public relations practitioners’ sense of professionalism and visibility. Carol, for example, perceived that her overlapping identity as a Black woman resulted in her ‘invisibility’ compared to White, male counterparts. Rather than fight or change gender- and race-based discrimination in public relations practice, her coping mechanism was to ignore it and work hard in order to rise above differential treatment:

I notice that when a lot of blogs are featured, such as the major PR blogs like PR News or whatever … it’s usually like white men blogs. I’m determined to break that. My fodder is here. I’m here too. I just ignore it and keep going. What is there to dwell on? I feel like if women want to be visible and be seen, we have to be there, we have to show up …. I don’t think of gender. I don’t even think of race. I don’t think of those things … If you’re doing what you’re doing right, people will see you.

Gender, age, and race serve as ways in which individuals in public relations are categorized and perceived through difference. Regardless of their organization type or level of expertise, socialized expectations and meanings surrounding gender, age, and race pervaded the participants’ senses of self and work.

Contributions to practice and education

Gender represents a complex process of social and cultural interactions shaped by one’s race, ethnicity, sexuality, and age. Professionals’ awareness that gender is not a binary or biological matter, but encompasses how individuals communicate and interact socially with others, may begin to address long perpetuated gender-based expectations and discrimination. How public relations professionals conceive of sex, gender, race, and ethnicity has a significant effect on how they identify, segment, and communicate with publics and shape organizational and industry policy and norms. Communication professionals should assume that no ‘common oppression’ (Hooks, 2000: 43) or universal experiences and definitions of ‘woman’ or ‘man’ exist (Nash, 2008). Terminology such as ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ carry tremendous scientific, social, and cultural meanings. Educators can help future communication professionals avoid essentializing audiences by confronting hegemonic discourses in the classroom (Curtin and Gaither, 2005). Likewise, we are all raced. Educators must teach that race is a salient, socially constructed, and critical means through which publics identify themselves and consume organizational messages (Vardeman-Winter and Tindall, 2010a).

Application of intersectionality theory to communication practice is especially beneficial because it illustrates how gender never serves as a singular identity construct and avoids categorizing individuals of a particular sex or race as a homogeneous group. Instead, it emphasizes the political and cultural intersections inherent to social identities, teaching that viewing one social identity as separate from another oversimplifies the depth of individuals’ lived experiences (Pompper, 2014: 82). It most appropriately explains the complexity of race, gender, and sexuality and advocates ethically for the best interest of publics (Vardeman-Winter and Tindall, 2010b, 226). Inclusion of intersectionality theory into public relations curricula, structural change within organizations, and advancement of policy to fight sexism at academic, industry, and societal levels are necessary. Opposing discrimination and promoting empowerment of individuals in the public relations workplace require organizational mentoring and support (Tam et al., 1995), integration, and modeling of feminist values (Grunig, 2006; Grunig et al., 2000), as well as active challenging of masculine, White, heterosexist norms and discourses.

Limitations and directions for future research

Limitations of the study included a mainly agency-based and White sample and inclusion of some phone-based interviews. Although the majority of participants were White, this lack of racial diversity represents the current makeup of the public relations field. Future research must better integrate intersectionality theory to understand the roles of identities not adequately addressed here, such as class or sexuality. Additionally, future scholarship must examine discourses of heteronormativity, masculinity, and men’s meaning-making of gender for a more full perspective on gender socialization – as well as privilege and power – in public relations. Increased critical feminist scholarship that reflects on the assumptions that guide research, problematizes concepts, such as gender, power, and injustice, and examines the political consequences of public relations is necessary (Rakow and Nastasia, 2009; as cited by Daymon and Demetrious, 2014b; 6).