Abstract
This study extends the historical record of faith/spirituality-inspired social activism, an under-explored area of advocacy, by examining such campaigning for environmental and animal rights and the worldview and model of public relations that guide such efforts. A combination of qualitative methods was used to obtain data on public relations as conceptualized and practiced including a textual analysis of historical material and institutional media. Throughout history faith/spirituality has inspired Indigenous peoples, governments, and individuals to advocate for environmental and animal rights, playing a central role in the formation and practice of a worldview, caritas, embracing an approach to relationship-building – covenantal stewardship – that guides behavior in a pro-social manner toward an inclusive set of “publics” – humans living, unborn, and ancestral, animals, and the natural world as well as alternative views of public relations. Moreover, individuals of faith/spirituality have created NGOs to institutionalize such activism. The influence of faith/spirituality upon environmental and animal rights activism points toward a re-thinking of the nature of public relations and its “publics” given emerging sensitivities to the principles of inclusion necessary for the harmonious functioning of society and requires a new definition, worldview, and model of practice.
Keywords
Introduction and Purpose
Contemporary society faces a perfect storm of pandemics – biological, social, political, economic, cultural, and spiritual – that have converged globally to challenge everyday life (Tilson, 2023). It has become clear that traditional ways of relating to others – whether as neighbors, employees, customers, or citizens – no longer serve the common good. Consequently, given various seismic changes in the environment prompted by global warming – rising sea levels, melting of polar ice, devastating storms – a new worldview that transforms human behavior from dominion of the natural world to stewardship makes not only practical but moral sense. Moreover, traditional definitions and worldviews of public relations advanced in Western society no longer represent emerging sensitivities to the principles of inclusion and diversity necessary for the harmonious functioning of society.
Research of various civilizations and NGOs throughout history suggests that a worldview, caritas, offers an alternative to traditional approaches of public relations practice that are no longer viable much less justifiable in contemporary society (Tilson, 2014a, 2014b, 2017, 2021, 2022). Caritas (charity, benevolence)– agape in the Greek, caritas in the Latin – with its dimensions of inclusiveness and qualities such as empathy, the fruits of which are mercy and compassion (Benedict, 2009), suggests a covenantal model of public relations as a theoretical ground that rests on a promise or pledge to represent an organization, corporation, client, or a people in a manner that fosters relationships that advance the common good (Baker, 2002). Such practice can be considered covenantal stewardship, with the practitioner holding in trust the client’s welfare and the public good much as social responsibility is defined as “stewardship” (Tilson, 2014a: 114; Tilson, 2017) with resources distributed wisely and a broader sense of “publics”. Moreover, caritas calls for inclusion of a wider circle of relationships – human, living, ancestral, or unborn, and the natural world – as it forms and guides behavior in a pro-social manner (Tilson, 2017). While caritas rejects asymmetrical models of public relations inasmuch as they are selfishly organizationally-centric (Francis, 2015), it also eschews models of reciprocity as caritas represents a commitment to the greater good with no obligation demanded from the recipient in return, contending that compassionate social behavior can be its own reward (Tilson, 2014b). Further, studies indicate that “creating a culture of inclusion is necessary as institutions engage a world of diversity (Sala, 2015: 5), which, some suggest, includes “relationships with species of life other than human” (Harlow, 1977: 58). It can be argued that if inclusiveness is indeed an essential element of a caritas worldview in which Creation is viewed holistically with each part considered of equal value in and of itself, then acting in an ethical manner toward all living things (sentient beings) is not merely a nicety but is life itself (Tilson, 2022).
As caritas is a concept rooted in faith traditions, this article explores the role that faith has played in advocacy for the environment and expanding an understanding of “publics” in public relations to include all of Creation in keeping with a worldview – caritas expressed as covenantal stewardship – that stands in direct contrast to that of dominion. The study also traces the emergence of NGOs that institutionalized the faith-based campaigning for environmental justice and animal rights that formed the foundation for future advocacy. Finally, the study documents the increasing scholarly interest in faith and public relations, reflecting a ‘critical’ turn away from a corporate paradigm that had dominated public relations theory, textbooks, scholarly publications, and funding for 40 years to other paradigms that recognize the value and appropriateness of diversity of thought and expression. Thus, using caritas as a grounding philosophy, this article seeks to build a case for the redefinition of public relations as covenantal stewardship of all living relationships and open the door for further expansion of redefining public relations, its purpose, and its publics.
Approach
This study uses a broader interpretation of public relations than traditional perspectives in examining and reformulating its definitions, theories, principles, concepts and worldviews. In order to examine the application of caritas in a public relations context and how it can redefine the practice, three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were examined: the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2022), also know as the ASPCA, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). These organizations were selected based on two criteria: (1) they were either founded (ASPCA, RSPCA) or substantially directed by an individual of faith (WWF), and/or (2) they were ranked by Charity Navigator, the world’s largest and most trusted nonprofit evaluator, as being among the best in their category on the basis of financial performance, accountability, and transparency so that “donors may give with confidence” (Charity Navigator, 2022). The ASPCA is listed in the animal rights and services category, and the WWF is listed in the conservation category. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) was not rated by Charity Navigator as it is not registered with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)3 organization, but it was examined due to its focus on animal rights and founding by a person of faith.
Following a historical method approach, a textual analysis was employed to examine historical material and institutional media from each of the three NGOs was gathered and examined holistically for each organization to determine how it conceptualized and practiced public relations. This analysis was then incorporated into the larger discussion within this article about the evolution of public relations and the role of caritas historically and moving forward.
Historical contexts of activism and faith
Social activism in its many forms has a long and storied history as old as civilization itself. From the appeal of Pericles to strengthen democracy in Athens (Durant, 1957) to Imperial Rome and the tribunes Tiberius and Gaius Gracehurs who championed changes in the use of public farming and grazing lands (Hadas, 1965), activism with advocacy in its toolbox has advanced economic, political and social reform as documented by Lamme and Russell in their landmark study of public relations history (2010). A review of pre-20th century public relations history (Miller, 2000) has identified four distinct sections employing advocacy “to promote a person, issue, organization or nation” – education, nonprofit and reform; politics and government, and business (Lamme and Russell, 2010: 340).
While some campaigns have been documented, Lamme and Russell contend that “no area of public relations history has been adequately researched,” particularly pre-1900. It would seem that certain voices and their historiographies were crowded out by business and politics to tell a “Manifest Destiny” narrative that focuses on corporate public relations as it developed in the U.S. A natural progression, of course, as researchers contended that “the earliest development of the profession… emerged in the U.S. where privately owned businesses and industry embraced public relations in the 1800s” (Guth and Marsh, 2012: 56). Following its “destiny” the march toward modern public relations began in earnest in the U.S. after the Civil War (ibid.). And scholars report that the turn of the century was “the dawn of corporate social responsibility” (Tilson, 2017: 59). And, if the victorious write the histories it was no surprise that post- World War II the U.S. with its booming economy “firmly established” public relations as an “indispensable part” of its development (Wilcox and Cameron, 2012: 51). Given that narrative, scholarly attention and research funding were directed to the corporate sector leaving the body of knowledge absent public relations histories of women, minorities, and other countries not to mention studies of post-war social activism, consumerism, environmentalism, the anti-war movement, gay rights, nuclear power, and multinationalism (Guth and Marsh, 2012:73). In fact, the first international conference on the history of public relations, shepherded by Tom Watson (Bournemouth University, England) wasn’t held until 2010 - to the delight of researchers who presented studies of public relations in countries around the world. Such conferences effectively debunked the notion that the U.S. invented and corporate board rooms incubated public relations and gifted it to the world. As Lamme and Russell (2010) conclude “the international practice of public relations is at least 2000 years old” (p. 354).
Advocacy, faith, and public relations
While the historical record documents activism taking up many banners from suffrage to civil, legal, and economic rights with various players driving the advocacy – corporations, NGOs, government – scholarship also “appears to show that public relations is largely grounded in religion in the early Catholic Church and evangelism” (Lamme and Russell, 2010: 291). Advocating the propagation and defense of the faith and national identity “legitimacy for the Church and by association for the state” (Lamme and Russell, 2010: 291), such initiatives, characterized as “devotional-promotional communication,” are intended “to inspire allegiance to an individual, political entity, or religion” (Tilson, 2006). Faith also has rallied support for political and social justice (Hon, 1997; Kern-Foxworth, 1992; Lamme and Russell, 2010; Waymer and Van Slette, 2021). The civil rights movement in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s was led largely by individuals of faith who believed that racial discrimination was morally wrong – the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., Reverend Ralph Abernathy, and Reverend Jesse Jackson, among others (Kern-Foxworth, 1992). By adding democratic values to their religious beliefs, they gave momentum to the cause for social justice continuing the struggle of 19th century abolitionists also led by individuals of faith – Henry Ward Beecher, who preached against slavery from his pulpit at Plymouth Church in Brooklyn, New York, and escaped slave Harriet Tubman, “a deeply religious woman who never doubted her actions were guided by God” (Galli, 1992: 14). Quakers in particular fought against slavery. Historically, the Black church “served as the nucleus for all the great movements in which blacks have found themselves engaged” and remains “the catalyst for many social and moral causes within the black community” (Kern-Foxworth, 1992: 287, 294). Indeed, across religions there is a mandate to social responsibility for believers to profess their faith with calls for social justice and acts of charity (Tilson, 2014a, 2014b, 2017). Struggles by individuals of faith echo from battlegrounds in many nations throughout history from the prophets-royal counselors Amos and Isaiah during the Monarchy in Israel, Mohandas Gandhi in India, Father Oscar Romero in El Salvador to William Wilberforce in England.
The nexus of faith and public relations has a growing body of knowledge across a wide spectrum of inquiry in addition to that of civil rights advocacy – saints and devotional-promotional communication (Tilson, 2023; Tilson and Chao, 2002; Watson, 2008); pilgrimage and tourism (Tilson, 2001, 2005); crisis (Spaulding, 2018; Morehouse and Austin, 2022); media (Stout, 2012; Cannon, 2009; Smith et al., 2021); and society (Waymer et al., 2012; Waymer and Van Slette, 2021). Moreover, while having been overshadowed by corporate research, faith and public relations also are taking their place for funding and publication
Advocacy, faith and creation
Interest and research in a particular area of faith and advocacy – environmental justice and animal rights – is emerging in the wake of COVID-19 and its effects upon the global psyche (Tilson, 2023) and an ever-increasing series of severe weather, wildfires, flooding, and other natural disasters. As a result, scholarship on the environment generally has been increasing, particularly on the issues and lessons to be learned from a rich history of eco-justice that stretches back as early as post-Constantine India (Tilson, 2014a, 2014b, 2017, 2022).
For millennia, the faithful have been called to mirror the Creator in being good stewards of the natural world. For example, as various sacred scriptures (Champion and Short, 1952/2003) instruct: “All ye under the heaven! Regard heaven as your father, earth as your mother, and all things as your brothers and sisters.” Oracle of the Deity Atsuta, Shintoism (p. 44) “Hast thou not seen how all in the Heavens and in the Earth utterth the praise of God?... Every creature knoweth its prayer and its praise! and God knoweth what they do.” Qur’an 2441, Islam (p. 262) “How countless are your works, Yahweh… The earth is full of your creatures. The sea…with countless creatures… both great and small… They all depend on you, to feed them… your open hand gives them their fill.” Psalm 104, Judaism (Wansbrough, 1999--The New Jerusalem Bible) “Look at the birds in the sky. They do not sow or reap or gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them.” Matthew, 6 26, Christianity (Wansbrough, 1999--The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985: p. 1619)
Across history and cultures many of the same individuals who campaigned for social and political justice also advocated for the defense and care of all Creation from environmental justice to animal rights. For example, the prophets in Israel called for social justice and care of the environment, exhortations that became additions to Jewish scripture (Tilson, 2017), and Archbishop Desmond Tutu in South Africa, the moral conscience of the anti-apartheid movement, vigorously campaigned for renewable energy (Rosenberg, 2021). And, in some instances, activists, desiring to grow long-lasting support for a particular cause, often institutionalized efforts by forming NGOs. Guided by caritas, with qualities such as empathy and dimensions of inclusiveness, as stewards of Creation they acted for the benefit of all, human and nonhuman alike. In so doing, they advanced a greater understanding of justice leaving an imprint that bends society and public relations toward a more humane ethic.
From reverence to governance
A review of Indigenous peoples, various civilizations throughout history, and NGOs confirms that relationships are central to a culture that values stewardship for the common good. Further, evidence suggests that a worldview, caritas, does indeed offer an alternative to traditional approaches of public relations practice. For example, Indigenous peoples share the same regard for others and Creation as an essential element of belief. A “naturalistic” worldview and a “relational” culture call Indigenous people to consider others – human, the unborn, ancestors, and nonhuman equally – as an integral part of an extended family that must be included when decisions are to be made. Moreover, such a view extends especially to the natural world as Indigenous peoples consider themselves part of their environment and in some sort of balance with it (Haviland, 1978). Such a respect for nature and others exhibits many of the same dimensions as caritas and contrasts sharply with an “exploitative” worldview that violates both people and nonhumans alike and lends itself to an anthropomorphic, organizationally-centric mindset devoid of respect for all.
Native Americans, for example, particularly mound-building peoples in mid- and southern America, expressed their oneness with the animal kingdom by constructing earthen structures to resemble various creatures – eagles, bears, wolves, turtles, and foxes – using such temple-sites for burial, sacrifice, and observation (Tilson, 2023) while signifying the toten often denoted as the eponymous ancestor of the tribe. Tribal peoples respected creatures and often considered them to be superior “in those faculties… most coveted and admired,” which prompted early groups to place themselves under the protection of the animal or bird that symbolized the particular human attribute desired, that is the fox for craft (ibid.: 81). Early and modern-day U.S. and Canadian Northwest Coast peoples are particularly renowned for totem pole and other monumental carvings as well as masks that depict family crests embodying the spirits of various creatures from birds and fish to land and sea mammals emblematic of the group’s ancestry.
Throughout Latin America Indigenous peoples similarly revere the kindred beings of the natural world. The Inca, for example, a fifteenth-to-sixteenth century empire of six million people that encompassed 2500 miles along the western, coastal and highland areas, considered various forces of nature gods – the wind, thunder, and mountains – and invoked their blessing as they did of their ancestors (Leonard, 1967). Moreover, they believed that mountains were “spiritual landmarks fraught with magical significance” and worshipped them for their power to control the weather “which provides water, which induces fertility” (Reinhard, 1992: 91, 93). Today, even as then, high-altitude sites, such as Machu Picchu, are ideal places from which to “make offerings … [and] gifts of prayers to the gods of the mountains” (Bordewich, 2003: 114). Indeed, Peru’s official Web site page for Machu Picchu has carried the banner headline, “Where Gods Become Mountains” (Historical Places: Archeological Tourism, 2009). Machu Picchu (Quechua for “Old Mountain”) looks over the valley of the Urubamba River and is itself overshadowed by “the eternal guardian of the Sanctuary, Wayna Picchu (meaning “Young Mountain”) (ibid.). Today, those of Incan descent still pilgrimage with offerings to sacred sites in nature to revere or petition these and to visit the graves of their ancestors or of ancient Incan kings (ibid.).
In Africa, cultural and traditional values of Indigenous peoples – both early and contemporary – also reflect a worldview that embraces a caritas approach to all Creation in that it is deeply rooted in an extended sense of community that includes ancestors and the environment. For example, admonitions of the guardian spirits of the Shona people of Zimbabwe to “good behavior, respect for elders, and conformity to the life led by one’s fathers” have been more the rule than the exception (Davidson, 1971, cited in Tilson, 2010: 442). Many cultures such as the Bantu have “a strong feeling about the sacredness of … [the] land” and believe that natural phenomena are “expressions of some special power in the universe” (Gunther, 1955: 291). Others like the Nri in Nigeria – who founded a kingdom in the eleventh century still ruled by sacred kingship – have a “cult of the sacred Earth” (Isichei, 1997: 85, cited in Tilson, 2014b: 65) “rooted in the belief that it is an abomination to pollute the sacred Earth” (ibid.: 246).
In Namibia a naturalistic worldview that extends community to include ancestors and the environment as a sacred whole has shaped the social fabric for millennia (Tilson, 2014b). The Damara for example, “descendants of an extremely early migration,” the Herero (sixteenth century immigrants) and the Himba – both Bantu peoples – also have a culture rooted in nature (Sullivan, 2003: 71). Livestock herding defines the Damara as a people, and in the northwest they cultivate gardens and springs “considered a lanu or sacred place … a place of God” (Haacke and Eiseb, 1999, cited in ibid.: 75). The Herrero, who relate a creation myth in which their ancestors and cattle emerged from a particular kind of tree that still exists prize their heritage as cattle breeders; the Himba, a sub-group of the Herrero, also still uphold their semi-nomadic lifestyle, a culture based entirely on cattle (Gaisford, 1978: 164). For the Topnaar the ocean is a “God-given reservoir…to use wisely,” and ancestor spirits inhabit the seas and take “care of the fish so that the community would always have food [which] gave rise to an obligation…to take care of the environment” (Mapaure, 2008: 162). Tribal leaders “entrusted with powers…hold the core values of the community …and pronounce …on what is good for the community’s welfare currently and in the future”; discussions “strive to come to a consensus…inclusive of everyone, including future generations …in the context of the whole ecosystem” (ibid.: 151, 163). A chief “has to serve as well as lead his people, if he wants to hold his job…because the elders will not permit it” (Gunther, 1955: 290).
Following independence in 1990, Namibia confirmed traditional governance in matters of the environment becoming the “first African nation to incorporate environmental protection in its constitution” according to Roberts (cited in Tilson, 2017: 212) and empowering communities to manage wildlife resources in a sustainable manner and to benefit from that. With civil and government partners and NGOs like World Wildlife Fund (and public education campaigns) local peoples “created a national community-based resource management program…forming conservation areas” (Weaver, 2013, para. 3). Once local communities meet legal criteria, they become “a legitimate natural resource management organization registered and recognized by all branches of government as a communal conservancy” (ibid.). With 86 conservancies protecting more than 38 million acres, local peoples have restored native wildlife, and generated US$10 million a year in cash and in-kind benefits for local people which is funneled back into communities to support anti-poaching operations, wildlife management, and education and health initiatives. Today, Namibia has a growing number of lions, the most cheetahs in the world, and a rhino population that has increased more than 11% between 2012 and 2017.
Apostles of caritas
Throughout history and cultures there have been various “apostles” of caritas who have preached its message to others in word and deed. In so doing, they have left an ever-lasting legacy. For example, on the Indian subcontinent, the Mauryan (322-183 B.C.) was among the most notable Indigenous dynasties following Alexander the Great’s invasion and subsequent withdrawal from the region and “came to represent the beginning of a golden age” (Lensen, 1960: 78). In 274 B.C. Asoka (Ashoka), “the Constantine of Buddhism” (ibid.: 17), ruled with “loving kindness and compassion for the earth and its people” (Hill, 2013: 131) – an inclusive view of Creation – and a commitment to covenantal stewardship – a sacred responsibility to administer the realm for the common good. Guided by the Buddhist “call to see life holistically and to live in harmony with nature” (Hill, 2013: 130), which envisions “a sense of kinship of all men and a respect for all living creatures,” he appointed “Officers of Righteousness” to oversee local officials and ensure that such royal care extended not only to his subjects but to all living beings (Schulberg, 1968: 79-80) providing for their well-being and protecting them from harm. Accordingly, his officers dug wells at regular intervals along roads, “set up watering places for men and animals on the highways, had shade-giving Banyan trees and mango groves planted…established hospitals for men and animals, and had medicinal herbs and plants brought and cultivated for the welfare and health of all beings” (Gokhale, 1966: 91). The construction of hospitals, in particular, was “a unique activity and marks Asoka as perhaps the world’s first philanthropic ruler” (ibid.).
His edicts are a public declaration of his compassion and covenantal stewardship, disseminated by scribes and carved on rocks and pillars throughout the empire as far north as the Hindu Kush and east as the Bay of Bengal, entreating “abstention from cruelty to living beings” (Schulberg, 1968: 31) and “courtesy to slaves… servants… elders, and gentleness to animals” (Gokhale, 1966: 118). Some have characterized the edicts as an attempt by Asoka to communicate with his subjects (Wilcox and Cameron, 2012), “to inform the people about [his] policies…to persuade [them] to carry about certain tasks” and “to create goodwill amongst them” (Kaul, 1988: 1). In their entirety, the edicts indeed reflect “a political philosopher who expressed himself in proclamations and laws, bounding his country with Rock Edicts to publish his ideals and aims to his neighbors and to his subjects along the frontiers, erecting Pillar Edicts in the important places of his empire to express his moral and social objectives” (Nikam and McKeon, 1966: ix). But, more important, the edicts “make it clear that he conceived his mission to consist in defining, publishing, and propagating Dharma…the insights and precepts of religion and piety…the principles and prescriptions of ethics and morality” that Asoka had personally embraced and were intended “to provide inspiration and guidance to his descendants and to the people” for their spiritual development (ibid.: ix, 1).
Less than a generation after Asoka’s death, the empire collapsed as descendants fought for control, governors reasserted their independence, and “Buddhist ideals no longer inspired government policy” (Schulberg, 1968: 80).
A legacy of caritas
Asoka further promoted Buddhism in sending representatives to evangelize the kings of Egypt, Macedonia, the Near East (Schulberg, 1968), and the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, which is governed in keeping with a covenantal stewardship philosophy toward the environment. An absolute-rule-turned-constitutional-monarchy in 2008 with the election of the country’s first parliament and prime minister – all under the watchful eye of a 30 year-old king who ascended the throne upon his father’s voluntary abdication in 2006 – Bhutan has welcomed development and tourism while carefully guarding its Tantric Buddhist culture. In a country that considers its founder who unified the nation in the seventeenth century a saint and the Himalayas deities (Lubow, 2008), Buddhism “is central to Bhutan’s identity” (ibid.: 75), which, with its spectacular vistas, make it a natural tourist attraction and therein lies the challenge.
To maintain a balance between the spiritual and the material, dubbed “Gross National Happiness” (GNH) by former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, Bhutan, like Namibia, has ensured that its constitution protects the environment as a core value of its national identity; Wangchuck, who promoted the policy, worked diligently to preserve the culutre and keep the environment intact. The constitution mandates that Bhutan conserve 60% of the land as forest for all-time. Today 72% is forest and more than 51% protected, the most in Asia (Marcus, 2022). Working with World Wildlife Fund, the government has embarked on conservation and sustainable development projects to address economic and environmental needs while building the technical capacity to effectively manage natural resources.
Stewardship and compassion
William Wilberforce is celebrated largely for rallying support to abolish the slave trade in nineteenth-century England regularly introducing anti-slavery resolutions in Parliament for 18 years, a “campaign …supported by…other abolitionists who raised public awareness of their cause with pamphlets, books, rallies and petitions” (BBC History, 2015, para. 2). As Trevelyan noted, “the anti-slave trade movement was the first successful propagandist agitation of the modern type, and its methods were afterwards imitated by the myriad societies and leagues – political, religious, philanthropic and cultural – which characterized Nineteenth Century England” (1953: 130). The abolitionist movement was opposed just as fiercely with a torrent of campaigning from those with a vested commercial interest in maintaining slavery. As a publicist for the West Indies trade wrote, “the impossibility of doing without slaves in the West Indies will always prevent this traffic being dropped” (Wilberforce, 2008, para. 2).
Wilberforce initially was not an advocate for abolition or any other social reforms. Elected to Parliament in 1780 to represent his native city of Hull and then later Yorkshire, “his dissolute lifestyle changed completely when he became an evangelical Christian” (BBC History, 2015, para. 1). In 1785, “at age 26 and at the height of his political career, something profound and dramatic happened to him…almost against his will, God opened his eyes and showed him another world” (Metaxas, 2007: xvi). Having reflected deeply on his life, “his unnatural gloom lifted on Easter 1786…he experienced a spiritual rebirth,” writing of his epiphany in his diary that “amidst the general chorus with which all nature seems on such a morning to be swelling the song of praise and thanksgiving” (Wilberforce, 2008, para. 6). He had seen “God’s reality…[not] human reality…the idea that all men and women are created equal by God in his image, and are therefore sacred…[and] that we are all our brothers’ keepers…and had a responsibility to help those less fortunate…a ‘social conscience’” and to be “good and faithful stewards” of God’s gifts (Metaxas, 2007: xvi).
As his letters and diaries confirm, his “compassion for…slaves and the poor was…real, heartfelt” (Metaxas, 2007: 220), and his dedication to social justice coincided with both “the practical religious zeal of…the Protestant laity of that period…[and] the non-religious humanitarianism of the new age” (Trevelyan, 1953: 130). The abolitionist movement united Quakers – the Society of Friends originally advanced the cause – and Evangelicals “inspired by the practical religious zeal of so many of the Protestant laity of that period” (ibid.) with philanthropists including Thomas Clarkson and Granville Sharp and growing public sentiment that would finally end slavery in the British Empire in 1833. Zachary Macaulay, in particular, “whose eminently Scottish qualities put a stiffening into the fibre of English Evangelicalism” was a valued ally (ibid.).
But Wilberforce did not contain his campaigning to the outrages of the slave trade. As the “conscience of Parliament” (Who’s Who, 2006: 4) and dubbed “the prime minister of a cabinet of philanthropists…[the] Clapham Sect, a group of devout Christians of influence in government and business,” he championed a total of 69 causes from child labor, orphans, widows, prisoners, and the sick and “gave away one-quarter of his annual income to the poor” (Wilberforce, 2008, para. 3, 4, 5). Such compassion was remarkable for the age inasmuch as “in the eighteenth century, before Wilberforce and Clapham, the poor and suffering were almost entirely without champions in the public or private sphere”; for Wilberforce, it simply was the “heart of the Christian Gospel” (Metaxas, 2007: xvi-xvii).
If the “widespread and institutionalized and unthinkable cruel mistreatment of human beings” merited rallying people of goodwill in opposition, the abuse of animals also called for redress in the name of mercy, for, to Wilberforce, stewardship included all of God’s Creation – “nor did his concern for the well-being of others end with his own species”; not surprisingly, his home “was a menagerie of animals that included rabbits, turtles, and even a fox” (Metaxas, 2007: xv, 266.). In June 1824, he attended the founding meeting of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – a cause that “had always mattered” to him – “the first animal welfare society in the world” (Tomkins, 2007: 207). MP Richard Martin was among those at that gathering, and the initial purpose of the effort was to “enforce Martin’s pioneering 1822 law to protect farm animals…[which] gained its initial R from Queen Victoria in 1840” (ibid.).
Such initiatives were the fruit of a gradual awakening of public sentiment toward animals first developed in the writings of philosophers in the eighteenth and nineteenth century – René Descartes, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Jeremy Bentham among others – who suggested that “animals do suffer and are entitled to some consideration” (Singer, 1975: 220), and that people are “‘bound by the laws of humanity to give gentle usage to these creatures’” (cited in Singer, 1975: 221). With the idealization of nature and “the tendency…for greater refinement and civility, more benevolence and less brutality,” humankind’s dominion over Creation was considered tyranny rather than the rightful order of being, and “man regained a sense of kinship with ‘the beasts’” (ibid.: 221-222). Soon, it was a short jump in thought to compare the abuse of animals with that of African slaves as Bentham did in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation in 1780, and to which Wilberforce and the RSPCA founders responded.
Today Society staff and volunteers continue to work and campaign “to prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering for all animals,” including pet, farm, and wild animals as well as those used in research (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2022c, para. 1) as it is the organization’s vision “to work for a world in which all humans respect and live in harmony with all other members of the animal kingdom” (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2022b, para. 2). With a network of 150 branches, 42 animal centers, and 406 front line rescuers, the Society found new homes for almost 23,000 animals and released some 1700 wildlife last year (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2022a).
A legacy broadens
The efforts by Wilberforce and others in England to protect and care for animals inspired a similar movement in the U.S. In New York City, Henry Bergh, son of a “pious and industrious ship-builder” (Noted for, 1886: 4), championed a growing anti-animal cruelty movement led by individuals of faith that produced in 1886 the first effective legislation protecting animals.
While on a diplomatic mission to Russia for President Abraham Lincoln, Bergh was repulsed by the commonplace abuse of horses which “heightened his sensitivity and compassion” (Ferguson, 2007: para. 3), and decided “it was his mission to work on behalf of these ‘mute servants of mankind’” (Kiter, 2021: para. 2). While in England on his way home Bergh consulted a friend, the Earl of Harrowby, president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who encouraged him “to dedicate the rest of his life to the cause of ending animal cruelty” (Henry Bergh, 1893: 106). In mid-eighteenth century America, “animals were routinely abused and neglected…work horses beaten and starved, domestic animals often not given food or shelter…dogfights, cockfights…were common forms of entertainment” (Ferguson, 2007: para. 4).
While Bergh and an associate, George Angell, are considered the founders of the American humane movement (Little, 2015), after the Civil War popular support “began to move toward critical action to produce social change for animals” (Finsen and Finsen, 1994, cited in Little, 2015: 11) and throughout the century a number of societies to prevent cruelty to animals were founded in the U.S. and Canada (ibid.). In proposing the ASPCA, Bergh issued a Declaration of the Rights of Animals, a veritable “Animal Declaration of Independence” (ASPCA Unveils, 2010: para. 7) which captured the spirit of the day. A vigorous campaigner, Bergh rallied the support of “powerful New York businessmen, politicians, and religious leaders in the founding of the ASPCA” (Ferguson, 2007: para. 5).
Soon, Bergh had successfully lobbied the federal government to ban cruelty to animals used for interstate transportation (Ferguson, 2007), went on a national lecture tour inspiring the founding of local anti-cruelty societies (Ferguson, op. cit.), and most important, addressed the Evangelical Alliance and the Episcopal convention, which gave its clergy permission to preach sermons against cruelty (Henry Bergh, 1893: 106). Meanwhile, the pioneering work of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2022) continued apace, educating the public about cruelty and kindness in relation to working animals and pets, building veterinary hospitals, providing ambulance services and shelters for abandoned and lost animals, and agitating for humane treatment for work animals and in the transportation and slaughter of cattle (cited in Little, 2015). Just as Wilberforce lobbied against slavery as well as the abuse of animals, Bergh joined Methodist mission worker Etta Agnell Wheeler and others in founding the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in 1875 inspiring other states to follow suit.
When asked about the founding of the ASPCA, he reflected that “this is a matter purely of conscience, it has no perplexing side issues. It is a moral question in all its aspects” (Kiter, 2021: para. 5). And, indeed, as he always reminded audiences, “mercy to animals means mercy to mankind” (ibid.: para. 4). Creation is not only interconnected but indivisible.
A royal pioneer
Other leading environmental-animal rights NGOs have been founded or guided by individuals of faith who were pioneers for these causes in society. The late HRN Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, while not a founder per se of World Wildlife Fund was nevertheless instrumental in charting its course from the beginning and in advancing the protection of wildlife and their habitats as first president of WWF-UK (1961-1982) and WWF International (1981-1996). “A passionate advocate for conservation, wildlife and the environment” (Jenkins, 2021: para. 1), he “promoted conservation issues at the highest government and corporate levels, dedicating his voice, position and influence to raise awareness and funds for environmental causes,” participating in over 50 trips to visit countries and projects of WWF (Steele and Lambertini, 2021).
While Prince Philip advocated for the protection of the environment, for some he was seen as representing colonialism and environmental degradation. He often made off-the-cuff remarks to those whom he met that many found offensive for their racist and colonial overtone. For example, “on an official visit to China, he told a group of British exchange students: ‘If you stay here much longer you’ll all be slitty-eyed’” (Smith-Spark and McGee, 2021: para. 6). While some brushed off his remarks as “gaffes” “as a way of making people feel at ease in the presence of royalty” (ibid.: para. 10), others did not and felt by “not calling them out as racism does a disservice to modern Britain” (ibid.: para. 11). His comments did not damage his conservation efforts, but they did little to endear him to those he wished to enlist as patrons.
Notwithstanding his very public and offensive remarks, his longstanding environmentalism “was connected to his faith” (Lawless, 2021: para. 6), and he “regarded the conservation of nature to be ‘a moral imperative’ (Conservation, 2021: para. 7). Born and baptized into the Greek Orthodox faith, his mother who established an order of nuns and sheltered Jews in Nazi-occupied Greece during WWII, valued all life and considered it imperative to assist others in distress (Lawless, ibid.). Similarly, knowing that many suffer the effects of the abuses of the environment, Philip cautioned that “if nature doesn’t survive, neither will man” (Steele and Lambertini, 2021).
It was not surprising then that he persuaded the Orthodox Church to become “the first major faith tradition to make the environment a key issue in the early 1990s” (Tribute to, 2021: para. 22). And recognizing that the religions of the world “could be natural partners for the conservation movement” (ibid.), as stewardship of the environment is a shared value across faith traditions, as International President of WWF he invited the senior leaders of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism to meet at Assisi, Italy, for the 25th anniversary of the organization. All agreed that the natural environment is “a ‘sacred’ entity” and that they had a responsibility to protect it (Conservation, 2021: para. 8). All now have programs of action on the environment and consider conservation a faith issue (Tribute, op. cit.).
His legacy lies with his eldest son King Charles, having passed his “interests in religion and ecology” to the heir to the throne “a strong environmentalist” (Lawless, 2021: para. 13) and with WWF, one of the world’s leading NGOs for conservation, wildlife, and the environment with five million supporters worldwide funding projects in 100 countries like Bhutan.
Current approaches and redefinitions of public relations
If society is to subscribe to a worldview guided by caritas and covenantal stewardship then a new approach and definition of public relations is needed that better suits that offered up presently. Moreover, a broader understanding of “public/publics” is essential in order to be more inclusive/representative of a newer approach to practice.
Public relations has long been considered a “management of communication” (Grunig and Hunt, 1984: 4, cited in Sha, 2018: 130) as defined by the field’s standard textbooks. Moreover, public relations societies themselves have similarly described the nature of the profession. Not surprisingly, these reflect a mechanistic or functional view – one-dimensional and flat – a corporate management bias, and are organizationally-centric. A few examples illustrate that public relations is considered “the management through communication of perceptions and strategic relationships between an organization and its internal and external stakeholders.” (Public Relations Institute of Southern Africa, 2022) “a decision-making management practice tasked with building relationships and interests between organizations and their publics based on the delivery of information trusted and ethical communication methods.” (International Public Relations Association, 2022)
Not surprisingly, asymmetrical, “exploitative” (Haviland, 1978) worldviews find expression in such definitions of public relations, the “most common definitional components” including “management” (Hutton, 1999: 201), “strategic management relationships,” and “relationship management” (Tilson, 2022). Characterizing public relations as such, however, values it no differently than property management, supply chain, or any other corporate department that services the organization. Hence, its value to and impact upon society is no less of a concern than organizational needs, which take precedent over all other considerations.
Even more recent definitions that suggest that public relations should foster “mutually beneficial relationships” qualify such behavior with only those publics “on whom its [the organization] success or failure depends” (Sha, 2018: 130), a rather self-serving view of relationships.
Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) Excellence Theory – based on a survey of CEOs sponsored by the International Association of Business Communicators to determine the necessary elements for ‘excellent’ public relations – has been the major public relations theory advocating the corporate-organizational approach. The study coincided neatly with a narrative that portrayed the history of public relations as a corporate tool (or weapon) and the rise of boardrooms of Industrial titans in turn-of-the-century America. Mention of public relations practice in other U.S. contexts or in other civilizations was largely absent.
New schools of thought soon challenged the Excellence Theory as being too narrow in focus. Scholars questioned the ‘Grunigian paradigm’ (see Botan and Hazelton, 1989; Toth and Heath, 1992), and Botan (1993) referred to the battle as “the paradigm struggle”. Other perspectives emerged over the years, particularly “relationship management,” (Heath, 2001), its extension, “dialogic” (Kent and Taylor, 1998, 2002), and -devotional-promotional (Tilson and Chao, 2002), broadening the landscape so that it was no longer dominated by a single worldview. L’Etang presented some of the earliest collections of “critical turn” scholarship (1996, 2006), and Hung-Baescke et al. (2021) compiled all the major criticism. In particular, Holtzhausen and Voto (2002), and Kent and Taylor (1998) indicated Excellence Theory emphasizes management decisions over other factors in public relations. Still other researchers (Edwards and Hodges, 2011; Heath, 1992; L’Etang, 1996) noted that the Theory is normative and not practical in many situations given its management orientation and rigid view of the roles of the organization and its publics. Such an emphasis negates the variety of considerations public relations practitioners must negotiate in different regions, cultures, and amongst the varying situational orientations of their publics, “long neglected fields and topics like gender, race, culture, colonialism, inequality, or ecology,” and “the role public relations plays as a discursive force in society” (Dühring, 2015: 7, 12). Further, in viewing public relations solely as a corporate function, the full range of public relations practice, particularly NGOs, government, and houses of worship is excluded. The history of these areas as advocates for social, political, economic, environmental justice, and animal rights underscores their importance as change agents in society and warrants the full and equal attention to their public relations practices.
Clearly, as Sha (2022) notes, “the concept of publics lies at the very core of public relations (p. 377) and these have been viewed distinctly as “concepts,” “collectives,” and “constituents,” each in relation to a focal organization (ibid.). As with various definitions of public relations, however, the classification of publics as “constituted of people” (Sha, 2022), does not fully describe the efforts of environmental organizations on behalf of the natural world of flora, fauna, and the inanimate (rock formations, bodies of water, etc.) that represent a core “public” of these organizations.
The Public Relations Society of America, most recently, has focused on defining “publics,” widening the concept of “diversity” to include (Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit, 2021): “race, ethnicity, religion, age, ability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, country of origin, culture and diversity of thought… class, socioeconomic status, life experiences, learning and working styles, personality types and intellectual traditions and perspectives, in addition to cultural, political, religious and other beliefs.” (p. 6)
Such refining of “diversity” still excludes several major categories that a relational viewpoint requires – humans living, unborn, and ancestral, animal, and the natural world. Certainly, recent trends to legally recognize the civil rights of the natural world like the revision of the constitutions of Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, Bangladesh, and the charter of Orange County, Florida, to recognize the legal rights of nature (Renner, 2021) would argue for the profession to further update its definition of “publics.”
Of note, certain of the definitions include elements that reflect an organic or relational perspective that approaches from a decidedly different mentality and expresses the nature of public relations rather than its function. Specifically, these suggest that public relations is more essence than function with relationships a central concern. If Indigenous culture values and teaches a relational worldview that is inclusive and embraces caritas as a guiding principle, it would seem that such an approach to the practice of public relations would best serve the common good. In this regard, perhaps the definition advanced by the Public Relations Society of Japan (2022) comes closest to the mark: “furthering mutual understanding, building consensus, and fostering relationships of trust between stakeholders.”
As Sha argues (2022), “If we take the focus off organizations and their successes or failures, then we can lift our eyes to the more-important horizon: That of society, where organization–public relationships become important not merely for what they can do for ‘organizations’ (or for ‘publics’), but for what they can do for the collective social good of the world in which we all live” (pp. 384-385).
Certainly, if a caritas worldview embraces inclusiveness as a public relations dimension that subscribes to an expanded notion of “publics” beyond “people,” then a new set of publics with whom relations should be concerned is needed. As such, “publics” should include “human, living, unborn, and ancestor, animal and the natural world.” Moreover, if the principle publics of an organization must by necessity be included among those of importance (i.e. investors, clients, etc.) then those of animal rights or environmental NGOs (i.e. animals, the natural world) should be included as well. Indeed, the mission statements of such NGOs illustrate the principal non-human publics of concern for each, their centrality to the organization as well as the relational nature of their work:. “to ensure animals have a good life by rescuing and caring for those in need, by advocating on behalf of all animals and by inspiring everyone to treat them with compassion and respect.” (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2022c) “The Earth is the only home we have…our own well-being and survival literally depend taking better care of it… You (donors) are a critical part in our work…[and] are with our global team in all that we do…” (World Wildlife Fund; MacLean, 2022: 1, 4)
It can be argued that the natural world should be considered a “public” just as humans are customers, employees, investors, and voters. Stretching the definition of “publics” is not unprecedented. Corporations are considered “public figures” by courts and referred to as “individuals” in public relations literature (Wilcox, Ault, Agee and Cameron, 2012: 266; Heath, 2001: 6), and in 2013, New Zealand’s Whanganui River, sacred to the Maori people, was granted personhood with full legal rights (Argyrou and Hummels, 2019).
More important, however, living creatures are sentient beings who express a range of behaviors in response to stimuli. As those with animal companions can confirm, their “side-kicks” can communicate and relate to others both human and animal, have personalities, emotions, a memory, and the ability to reason. Plants from small flowers to gigantic sequoias also are sentient beings, and research shows they can solve complex problems, communicate with other plants and animals, and act altruistically toward their relatives (Marinelli, 2015). According species of the natural world the same dignity and respect as any client or public is right and proper as “the basic moral principle of equal consideration of interests…whatever those interests may be must, according to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings…human or nonhuman” (Singer, 1975: ix, 6, 8). An ethos of compassion calls for their inclusion in a caritas worldview that maintains all life “should be treated, with respect and not as passive resources” (Marinelli, 2015: 36, 40). Even inanimate entities in the natural world follow similar laws of physics. Natural features may appear to be dormant or inactive but are “alive.” Glaciers are very much in motion however imperceptible advancing or retreating. Tectonic plates are in tension, volcanos, however silent, promise eruption with activity beneath the surface, rivers are forever in motion eroding their landscape and mountains are weather-makers capturing clouds that promise rain. This gives rise to the concept that all in Creation is alive.
Should humanity continue to disrespect Nature through strip mining, deforestation, toxic air and water pollution – much less ignore the plight of Creation – scientists warn of cataclysmic, flooding, crop and animal die-offs, and infectious disease more virulent than COVID-19. Similarly, institutions that are not mindful of their publics – active or inactive – do so at their own peril, suffering through self-made crises (Guth and Marsh, 2012).
Accordingly, a shift to a relational approach in practice with a necessary widening of the nature of “public/publics” should be reflected in a new definition of public relations that embraces an ethic of caritas as a worldview, a philosophy or manner in which relations are conducted rather than one which seeks to explain what relations “is” or “does”: “Public relations fosters relationships grounded in responsible stewardship that benefit all – both human and nonhuman.”
Applying the redefinition
As the aperture of research opens to welcome a diverse field of worldviews there are several avenues of faith/spirituality-inspired activism for environmental-animal justice worth exploring. Can worldviews such as caritas crossover from one spirituality to another, and if so, what are the dynamics that facilitate the transfer and with what effect? For example, did the spirit of fourth-to-seventh-century Celtic peoples of faith who preached the sanctity and oneness of Creation inspire Francis of Assisi, the thirteenth-century founder of the Franciscans and patron saint of ecology and modern-day “green” Christianity, during his stay at a Celtic monastery in northern Italy? Moreover, as with Francis, those who embrace caritas often institutionalize their worldview in NGOs that continue their vision. Who else can be added to that list? Perhaps John Muir, a deeply spiritual prime mover of the establishment of the U.S. national park system and the Sierra Club. And Rachael Carson who energized the environmental movement in the U.S. with her book, Silent Spring, that rallied public opinion to ban the use of pesticides. These were instrumental in actualizing their faith/spirituality for environmental advocacy and yet were religiously unaffiliated unlike most others who did so. Their story may illustrate other shades of caritas. And, as with those who passionately embrace their cause, what role has devotional-promotional communication played in rallying people of faith/spirituality to pursue environmental/animal justice much as it did Wilberforce and Bergh?
As the global village faces a host of unprecedented challenges, lessons learned from Indigenous peoples, ancient civilizations, and contemporary society must lead humanity in a new direction of relating to others and especially to the natural world. Accordingly, the history of faith/spirituality and environmental/animal justice merits greater attention. If, as history suggests, “religions are the most ancient formulators of culture and values in the world” (Kaplan, 2010: 266), then the importance of faith/spirituality in forming a worldview of caritas with its dimensions/qualities of inclusiveness and empathy cannot be underestimated in its power to transform the way in which humanity relates to all of Creation. Further, the effort to institutionalize activism with the formation of NGOs that carry on the banner of the particular movement should be further explored inasmuch as traditional views of public relations do not sufficiently or adequately describe/define their activities. A broader, more inclusive understanding of “publics” is required in order to properly describe the primary constituency.
As publics are re-defined to include human and nonhuman alike and public relations re-interpreted to value relationships that embrace an ethic of caring and responsible stewardship, a new spirit of compassion will guide the profession and society toward the common good for all of Creation both great and small. Only then will public relations recognize its true mission and value to society.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Professors Bey-Ling Sha and Cylor Spaulding and to Melissa Chantres for their helpful comments and personal support in developing this manuscript.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
