By now, you have probably noticed that all but one of the ethical theorists we have discussed, from Aristotle to W. D. Ross, were men. And that simple fact deeply colored their approach to questions of right and wrong.
In some instances, their male bias was quite obvious. In Politics, Aristotle (350 BCE) flatly states, “The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind” (Aristotle, tr. Jowett, 1999, Book 1, Part 5). More than two millenia later, Kant reflected the same conviction, writing, “[Woman’s] philosophy is not to reason, but to sense.… Women will avoid the wicked not because it is un-right, but because it is ugly; and virtuous actions mean to them such as are morally beautiful. Nothing of duty, nothing of compulsion, nothing of obligation!” (Kant, 1763, tr. Frierson, 2011, p. 81).
The 18th-century feminist Mary Wollencraft (1759–1797) captured the tenor of the times perfectly in her complaint that, while boys were taught morals, little girls were taught manners. “All the writers who have written on the subject of female education and manners,” she wrote, “have contributed to render women more artificial, weaker characters, than they otherwise would have been; and consequently, more useless members of society” (1792, pp. 14–15). Not all philosophers were captive to this patriarchal conceit of course. John Mill, for example, was one of the earliest advocates for women’s rights, calling patriarchy a primitive form of society. In his 1869 essay, “The Subjection of Women,” Mill wrote that the ethical problem for women was how to claim equal rights. “The legal subjugation of one sex to another is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement,” he wrote, “It ought to be replaced by a system of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other” (1869, p. 2).
Women eventually won a measure of the political equality for which Mill argued. But the patriarchal foundations of ethical theory endured. Feminist thinkers point out, for example, that traditional ethical theories overemphasize culturally masculine traits such as “autonomy” and “will,” while ignoring culturally feminine traits such as “community” and “interdependence.” They also fail to adequately address issues of particular interest to women—such as equality of opportunity, reproductive technology, militarism, and the environment. And they trivialize some of women’s daily concerns, such as sharing housework and childcare. Furthermore, many long-accepted ethical tenets were built on assumptions at odds with women’s moral experience.
For example, social contract theory assumes individuals are autonomous, independent, and self-interested, while women are more likely to see people as part of interdependent relationships. Virginia Held, in her 1993 book, Feminist Morality, argues that standard social contract theory is constructed around the concept of “economic man,” a self-centered, competitive individual who is focused on maximizing his own interests (pp. 71–72). Given this conception of human nature, ethical theory naturally focused on people’s rights and obligations.
Indeed, Thomas Bivens, who holds an endowed chair in media ethics at the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communications, says this characterized “the major approach to moral philosophy over the past several hundred years” (2009, p. 160). But, as Held points out, it constitutes a particularly “impoverished view” of human relations (1993, p. 194). For example, by ignoring the existence of children and of the women who have historically provided their care, social contract theory fails to account for the totality of people’s moral obligations. “Contemporary moral philosophy often conceptualizes humans on a level of abstraction so high that many morally salient differences become invisible,” philosopher Alison Jaggar (2000) warns. “Women, perhaps the majority of women, prefer to discuss moral problems in terms of concrete situations,” adds ethicist Nel Noddings (1993, p. 23). “They approach moral problems not as intellectual problems to be solved by abstract reasoning but as concrete human problems to be lived and to be solved in living.”
That perspective reflected psychologist Carol Gilligan’s work in the 1970s and early 1980s purporting to demonstrate empirically that women’s moral development follows a different path and arrives at a different destination than men’s. For example, a paper she published in 1977 suggested that girls and women see moral dilemmas as conflicts of responsibilities rather than of rights, and try to resolve them by repairing the underlying relationships. Gilligan concluded that while men tend to apply principles of fairness and equality to ethical issues, women adhere to a morality of care, characterized by values of inclusion and protection from harm. The validity of Gilligan’s research was criticized by many, and she later softened her position on gender-driven ethical differences, conceding that some men value care as highly as women do, and some women are just as concerned as men with issues of fairness (Gilligan, 1982, p. 2).
Feminist Ethics
But if Gilligan failed to demonstrate that all men and women approach ethical questions from different perspectives, she nevertheless revealed moral concerns requiring greater attention. “Gilligan has discerned the symbolically female moral voice, and has disentangled it from the symbolically male moral voice,” wrote Marilyn Friedman (1995, p. 65). The point of “feminist ethics” is not that women think differently than men, but that the construction of ethical theory over the ages reflected the cultural norms of less than the whole population. It was the product of men who reflected primarily masculine cultural norms. Friedman hypothesized that traditional ethics was therefore based on an age-old division of “moral labor,” in which men assumed responsibility for managing “public institutions” (e.g., the social and economic order), while women tended to “private personal relationships” (e.g., the family and raising kids).
Feminist ethics stems from a two-fold insight. First, considerations of care and of justice are nearly always intertwined in the moral judgments of both men and women. Secondly, and to the contrary, traditional ethical theory focuses almost exclusively on justice. But as moral philosopher Annette Baier (1995, p, 51) wrote, “Justice is not enough … Respect for rights are quite compatible with very great misery, and misery whose causes are not just individual misfortunes and psychic sickness, but social and moral impoverishment.”
Feminist ethics seeks to rebalance the scale. First, by eliminating male biases that tend to rationalize women’s continuing subordination. And then, by reflecting women’s moral experience in ethical theory. Feminist ethics is not “ethics for women,” but an approach that offers something of value to all human beings. Indeed, because the lives of men and women are so intertwined today, there are fewer “men’s issues” and “women’s issues.” Childcare, for example, is a family issue. It is only considered a woman’s issue in households where the male partner has a distorted view of his spouse’s status. Similarly, war is usually directed by men, but its impact falls primarily on women and the children in their care, who almost always constitute the majority of its victims.1
But if feminist ethics is united in a common destination, it has taken two distinct paths to get there. One focuses on care as a moral value; the other, on women’s equality as a matter of justice and a prerequisite to consideration of such values as care. Neither path has been free of potholes, blind alleys, and sniping from all sides. At times, they even seemed to run in opposite directions. But for public relations practitioners, both paths offer lessons of immediate application.
Justice
In feminist history, the fight for equality started as an effort to win some of the rights reserved for men, such as voting. But as small battles were won, it soon became obvious the real problem was not inequality of legal rights, but the de facto subordination of women to men in every aspect of life. Male dominance was encoded in the culture, as well as in the psychologies of both genders. Obviously, changing that state of affairs would be a multigenerational effort. Many feminists believe we are still in the early years of that correction.
So even in 2014, retailers like Old Navy could charge $12–$15 more for plus sized women’s jeans, but not for men’s. The extra cost, according to an Old Navy spokesperson, was due to “curve-enhancing and curve-flattering elements such as four-way stretch materials and contoured waistbands, which most men’s garments do not include.”2 But Time magazine pointed out that women’s and men’s clothes in smaller sizes are roughly the same price.3
Meanwhile, a Dillard’s department store in West Palm Beach, Florida, put a sign in the girls’ clothing section that read, “Dear Santa, This year, please give me a big fat bank account and a slim body. Please don’t mix those two up like you did last year.” According to a company spokesperson, the sign was supposed to be sold in the home merchandise area with other “whimsical” items. When a local TV station called attention to the sign, headquarters banished it from all 298 of the chain’s stores.4
Equal rights is more than a political battle; it goes to the very heart of public relations’ purpose, which one scholar defined as “active participation in the social construction of meaning” (Gordon, 1997, p. 64). Treating people equally regardless of their gender, race, ability, or other incidental characteristics, such as size, means using language free of stereotypes and distortions. For example, calling attention to gender irrelevancies as in “male nurse” or “female lawyer,” or using gender-specific language (“chairman”) when it could refer to a man or a woman, can reinforce biases and stereotypes. A University of Warsaw study showed that men perceive women with feminine job titles like “chairwoman” to be less warm and competent (Budziszewska et al., 2014). And irrelevant references to people’s weight can only lead to body shaming and even contribute to eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia.
So when Facebook removed “feeling fat” from its list of status updates in 2015, banishing its emoticon’s chubby cheeks and double chin to digital purgatory, it struck a small blow against negative body images. On a larger scale, Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign challenged the Photoshopped artificiality of most advertising models and celebrated the natural beauty of real women. Procter and Gamble’s “Always” campaign for feminine hygiene products turned the age-old taunt “you (throw, hit, run, etc.) like a girl” on its head. By asking, “When did doing something ‘like a girl’ become an insult?” it effected positive change in gender identity and attitudes.5 Both campaigns started as advertising concepts but gained momentum through the power of public relations to turn an idea into a movement. That is what “the social construction of meaning” means.
None of this is an exercise in political correctness. It is simply a matter of according women the same respect as men. And by the same principle, public relations practitioners need to pay greater attention to the governance of their own industry. In 2005, researchers estimated that 69 percent of public relations practitioners were female, the natural result of studies estimating that 70 to 80 percent of students in U.S. college public relations classes are women (Andsagera and Hustb, 2005, p. 85). Yet, by 2011, PRWeek could observe, “Women still make up less than half of the executive committee roles at most large PR firms and only four women lead agencies with more than $100 million in global revenue.”6
Judging from the membership of the Arthur W. Page Society, women seem to be rising to leadership positions in corporate public relations at a faster rate. Whereas only 6 percent of the Society’s members were women in 1991, by 2015 44 percent were. Nevertheless, according to a 2015 salary survey, women in public relations make a third less than men, especially at higher levels.7 And the president of an association of women in public relations ruefully told another trade publication: “One male director used to say to me quite openly that it was great for the agency image (and I suspect his) to walk into the client’s office with a beautiful, young girl at his side. Having at least one attractive girl on the pitch team was also felt to be really important.”8
On one level, such attitudes are antediluvian, but in an image-obsessed society, they are probably to be expected. However, public relations people have an obligation not to perpetuate demeaning portrayals of others. Objectifying women, whether in the campaigns we mount or on the “qualifications” we expect of them, does precisely that—it robs them of meaning, reducing them to an object that exists only to please men. It violates the most basic principles of justice and demonstrates a lack of empathy or care.
Care
One could argue considerations of care permeated all of W. D. Ross’s prima facie duties introduced in Chapter 9. Non-malfeasance (to do no harm) and beneficence (doing what we reasonably can to improve the situation of others) obviously addressed it directly. But the duty of self-improvement can also be seen as self-directed care. And the duties of gratitude, fidelity, reparation, and justice likewise have elements of care since their implementation improves someone’s lot in life either by reciprocating for prior favors (gratitude), keeping promises (fidelity), repairing harms done in the past (reparation), or respecting their rights to equal treatment (justice). However, if all Ross’s prima facie duties touched on care, it was at best fleeting contact, easily trumped by non-malfeasance. But simply avoiding harm does not constitute an ethic of care. A true ethic of care is affirmative—it focuses not simply on avoiding harm, but on doing good. Less on others’ rights than on our own responsibility toward them.
That need not be hopelessly Pollyannish. Calling a product to a customer’s attention can be a real service if it fills a legitimate need. Helping change damaging attitudes, as in the “Like A Girl” campaign, can make a lasting contribution to society. Even promulgating a client’s point of view on a controversial issue contributes to public understanding, if the advocacy is honest and respects the audience’s right to reason.
Furthermore, the practice of public relations gains dignity as it moves more into the realm of creating mutual understanding between an organization and diverse publics, inside and outside its walls. And, as scholars have demonstrated, in that context, feminist values of “cooperation, respect, caring, nurturance, interconnection, justice, equity, honesty, sensitivity, perceptiveness, intuition, altruism, fairness, morality, and commitment” gather even greater importance, not only as normative standards but also as productive qualities (Grunig, L.A. et al., 2000).
Unfortunately, according to at least one study female students of public relations appear to be gravitating toward subspecialties they perceive to be more “feminine,” such as fashion and beauty, rather than “areas of expertise that have traditionally been within the male purview—technology, finance, sports, and industry” (Andsagera and Hustb, 2005, p. 89). Even though they acknowledged the more masculine specialties paid more, women preferred the more female-oriented specialties because they considered them “more ethical and more caring about people.” “Caring about people” may be a tent pole of feminist ethics, but it is not a gender-specific principle. As public relations ethicist Thomas Bivens (2009, p. 165) notes, “In the final analysis, media communicators cannot afford to ignore such characteristics as empathy and caring.” In the ethical practice of public relations, empathy and caring rank right up there with integrity, fairness, and respect for others. In fact, all three are an expression of caring. But what does “caring about people” really mean?
People People
There was a time when some thought all you needed to succeed in public relations was to be “a people person.” That was such a shallow notion it became a timeworn joke. But feminist theory may be restoring some of the hidden truth in the cliché. “The goal would be to respect the other’s dignity and integrity,” feminist Linda Steiner suggests (1989). “To make the [communication] process more collaborative and egalitarian, less authoritarian and coercive.” That would seem to be a minimal goal, an expression of the ethical principles of truth and respect.
Gaining genuine understanding of publics and more narrowly, audiences, is a necessary step in revealing their needs, aspirations, and values so we can respond to them appropriately. That, in fact, was the foundation on which Always built its “Like A Girl” campaigns. In this sense, feminist ethics raises “beneficence” from something we do when we have the time and inclination, to the essence of ethical public relations. Even so, “doing good” is not a get out of jail card, allowing us to trample on the rights of some to care for others. Justice and care are tightly intertwined principles. And as W.D. Ross maintained, the relative weight we give each will depend on the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Those “circumstances” have developed in ways Ross probably could not have imagined. For example, homosexuality was not decriminalized in his home country of England until the very last years of Ross’s life; today, gay marriage is legal there, as it is as of 2015 for the entire American population. And the next battlefield for gay rights will be winning greater respect for transgender people, who have long been a hidden minority. Vice President Joe Biden has called this, “the civil rights issue of our time.”9 Respecting people’s right to be different without being marginalized will require the exercise of both justice and care. For example, while some transgender people take steps to correct a mismatch between their bodies and their gender identities, others accept themselves as they are, calling for a third option to traditional categories of “male” and “female.” So-called genderqueer people consider themselves a distinct third gender. So Facebook now offers more than 50 options for gender identity, including “pangender,” “agender,” and “trans person.” Many universities give students the option of declaring a Preferred Gender Pronoun at registration so professors will know whether to refer to them by “he/him,” “she/her,” “they/them” or some other term (e.g., “ze,” suggested by the German sie, is used in some transgender communities).
Feminist ethics calls for more than a change in language and symbolic behavior, as important as that is. It requires more than curing inequities in women’s salaries and career advancement, as overdue as that is. And it demands respect not only for women, but also for all historically marginalized groups, including people of color, the elderly, the disabled, the immigrant, and those who are not exclusively heterosexual. But more fundamentally, feminist ethics would move public relations’ center of gravity from “messaging” to “relationship building,” which can only emerge from embracing diverse perspectives.
But despite a long series of high-profile “diversity programs,” public relations staffs on both agency and client sides still don’t mirror the diverse marketplace they purport to serve. “Most diversity programs focus on entry level positions,” says veteran public relations counselor Mike Paul. “And [it’s] like a revolving door, with young people of color only staying 2 to 3 years because they don’t see anyone like themselves in senior positions.” Paul says what’s needed is a real effort to recruit senior executives of color into P&L positions, but “it’s like [agency and client] leaders don’t think they exist.”10 Yet, he points to senior public relations executives of color in politics and the military and he challenged major agencies and corporations to set recruitment goals within that universe of candidates. That could be the tipping point in addressing both an ethical issue and a fast-growing $2 trillion market.11
Summary
“Communication will always be more than the shuttling of mind-stuff,” scholar John Durham Peters wrote. “It is the founding of a world” (Peters, 1999, p. 112). In more prosaic terms, it is bringing diverse stakeholders together into a single community, based on considerations of justice and care. As Stocker and Tusinski Berg put it, “The public relations practitioner recognizes the individuality of a particular public and then reconciles, not eliminates, those differences in building a relationship” (2006, p. 13). A patriarchal model seeks to minimize differences through quid pro quo negotiations driven by each party’s concept of fairness. A feminist model seeks to reconcile differences by building an enduring relationship based on considerations of care and justice that reveal a common ground of agreement. As Stocker and Tusinski-Berg explain, this may sound like abstract theory, but it is as bare-knuckled practical as “when the local bank sponsors an evening budgeting class for newlyweds, a bike manufacturer trains a local Boy Scout troop to assemble and service their own bikes, and a newspaper sponsors the community spelling bee” (p. 13).
In the next chapter, we will explore some of the practical challenges of ethical decision making, from behavioral and situational obstacles to the challenges of working across cultures.
________________
1 See Women, Peace, and Security. (2002). New York: United Nations. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/public/eWPS.pdf. Accessed July 22, 2015.
2 Stuart, H. (2014, November 20). Old Navy under fire for charging plus-size women more than plus-size men. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/11/old-navy-plus-size-_n_6140478.html. Accessed July 22, 2015.
3 Stampler, L. (2014, November 12). Old Navy explains why it charges more for women’s plus sizes. Time. http://time.com/3580891/old-navy-women-plus-size-price/. Accessed July 22, 2015.
4 Lee, J. (2014, November 11). Dillard’s drops “Dear Santa” sign asking for slim body. USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/11/dillards-santa-sign-slim-body/18857955/. Accessed July 22, 2015.
5 Neff, J. (2014, June 26). P&G’s always aims to change what it means to be “Like a Girl.” Ad Age. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/p-g-s-change-meaning-a-girl/293895/. Accessed July 22, 2015.
6 Lee, J. (2011, March 4). Diversity of agency leadership still up for debate. PRWeek. http://www.prweek.com/article/1264912/diversity-agency-leadership-remains-debate. Accessed July 22, 2015.
7 Fidelzeid, G. (2015, March 2). How to close the gender pay gap in PR. PR Week. http://www.prweek.com/article/1335944/close-gender-pay-gap-pr. Accessed July 22, 2015.
8 Parker, D. (2014, October 23). Is there sexism in PR? PR Moment. http://www.prmoment.com/2793/is-there-sexism-in-public-relations.aspx. Accessed July 22, 2015.
9 Bendery, J. (2012, October 31). Joe Biden: Transgender discrimination is the civil rights issue of our time. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/joe-biden-transgender-rights_n_2047275.html. Accessed July 22, 2015.
10 Source: conversation with Mike Paul, May 3, 2014.
11 The University of Georgia’s Selig Institute estimated that in 2013 people of color (African-American, non-white Hispanic, Asian, and others) purchased more than $2 trillion in goods and services and their purchases are growing faster than the white population’s and would total more than $3 trillion by 2018. Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013. See: http://www.latinocollaborative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Multicultural-Economy-2013-SELIG-Center.pdf