I. INTRODUCTION
To
study culture as a system, to understand that there are a variety of these
systems, and to act within these systems without conceptualizing (1) that
people learn as individuals to be a part of a cultural system and (2) that
there are fundamental anatomical psychologies that precede what we learn while
dictating how we do so is archaic and chaotic. It is typical, in the field of
public relations, to take an emic approach during the construction of a
campaign. However, during a campaign it can be possible to bypass what target
audiences have learned to be a part of or adopted (culture) and appeal to their
fundamental anatomical mental state for the sake of persuasion. These
fundamental obstacles precede those established by culture and these
fundamentals can be used to appeal to large groups of people all with their own
culture in a universally appealing way. In the international public relations
field, practitioners often deal with ethical relativism, cultural relativism,
and social constructionism. They must adapt to various cultures and tailor
their practices to accomplish a goal. However, if focus for a PR approach is
placed on the aforementioned fundamentals, then practitioners could potentially
bypass culture itself. In short, an understanding of and integration of three
psychological and communicational models, Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, the Circuit of Culture, and Hofstede's Mental Operating System are crucial components to the development of effective domestic and international public relations campaigns. The integration of these three models, for the sake of bypassing human institutions, can be known as the Nexus Approach, or, the Nexus Theory.
IV. MASLOW’S HEIRARCHY OF NEEDS
Before
we begin any form of systematic analysis, we need to understand a few of the
concepts we will be applying. To operate in any cultural system there has to be
some form of communication present. Communication is a simple, yet, an amazingly
complex process which involves the deliberate or accidental transfer of
information. One individual or group will encode a meaning into symbolic
behavior which is systematically decoded by another individual or group to
create a dyadic relationship. The sender creates the information to be
interpreted based on their own social constructs and the receiver decodes that
information and encodes their own meaning into the message sent based on their
own social construct. Our relationships are built upon communication to satiate
psychological needs such as affection and inclusion. As Teri and Michael Gamble
(2014) so eloquently posit, we use communication to achieve our goals through a
methodical plan to get what we want (p. 17). Finally, we cannot undo what we
have communicated; once we have said or done something we cannot erase its
impact – the addition of new stimuli do not change the previous stimuli (Gamble
& Gamble, 2014, p. 19). Every interpersonal encounter is a point of arrival
from a previous encounter and a point of departure for a future encounter
(Gamble & Gamble, 2014, p. 19). In short, communication is the irreversible
act of relating to one another to meet our psychological goals such as inclusion
and affection.
Understanding
these communicational fundamentals establishes a framework for the Nexus Theory
and assists us in understanding how communication psychologically links to
humanity. From the aforementioned brief conceptualization of communication, any
individual can conclude that, fundamentally, communication is the act of
exerting power on another individual to meet a goal. In short, communication
can be considered as persuasion. We often communicate to achieve some plateau;
think of all of your communication efforts for the day - in some way, each time
you communicated with another individual or group you were endeavoring in some
form of influence. Whatever story you told another individual may have been
done so in some rudimentarily creative way where you expected to be believed or
expected a particular result; even, perhaps, you made a request and expected it
to be fulfilled. Whenever we communicate we are engaging in some form of
influence and, it could be said, we are exerting power onto another entity.
III. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM
Communication
is both a product of human interaction and a mechanism through which social
realities are constructed (Hansen-Horn & Neff, 2008, p. 104). Here, we move
on from communication fundamentals and into social constructionism, which
coexist to establish a framework for the Nexus Approach. Social constructionism
posits that there is a world which exists beyond what we have the ability to
perceive and that reality itself is relative to the individual perceiving it
based on experiences that had shaped that individual. Hansen-Horn & Neff
(2008) paint the image that knowledge itself
is a human product as well as an ongoing human production and that social
constructionism contends that reality is a social construction that is created,
maintained, altered, and destroyed through the process of human interaction.
Human interaction is communication which creates meaning. Culture itself is a
product of social construct through human interaction; culture does not exist
apart from human interaction. Now, social constructionism does contend that
there is a world which exists apart from human perception. “Features of the
world that exist independently of a perceiver, a mental state, or human
institution [are known as] brute facts” (Hansen-Horn & Neff, 2008, p. 105).
A
brute fact is a fact that needs no explanation and holds true regardless of a
variety of interpretations; for example, “hydrogen [having] one atom is a brute
fact, but the fact that a $5-dollar bill has value depends on human
institutions and is an institutional fact” (Hansen-Horn & Neff, 2008, p.
105). Everyday facts that can exist only within human institutions and through
human interpretations are labeled as institutional facts (Hansen-Horn &
Neff, 2008, p. 105). The concept that our neocortex is responsible for higher
level thinking or that our hypothalamus monitors our innate pleasurable
activities (eating, drinking, sex) is a brute fact – they exist outside of
human perception and results in a common truth for all mankind. The result of
our neocortex’s higher level thought, expressed as communication and influenced
by external social constructs, such as culture and religion, is a human
institution and an institutional fact. Culture itself was interpreted and
agreed upon as a result of human interaction and cannot exist independently of
human agreement. It is from the juxtaposition of what the brain is and what the brain creates we find a doorway to bypass
culture itself and communicate persuasively.
IV.
MASLOW’S HEIRARCHY OF NEEDS
 | |
|
“If
we examine carefully the average desires that we have in daily life, we find
that they have at least one important characteristic...that they are usually
means to an end rather than ends in themselves. We want money so that we may
have an automobile. In turn, we want an automobile because the neighbors have
one and we do not wish to feel inferior to them, so that we can retain our own
self-respect and so that we can be loved and respected by others. Usually when
a conscious desire is analyzed we find that we can go behind it, so to speak,
to other, more fundamental aims of the individual” (Maslow, 1970, p. 21).
 |
| Figure 2: Maslow's 5-stage model had been expanded to an 8-stage model to include cognitive, aesthetic, and transcendence needs. Instead of focusing on psychopathy and what goes wrong with people, coupled with the fact that Maslow was interested in full human potentialities, he created additional tiers. After our esteem needs are met, we search for knowledge and understanding, we learn to appreciate the beauty of the world as we know it, and, if we self-actualize, assist others in their path of self-actualization. (McLeod, 2007, para. 12-14) |
|
|
Therefore,
the human institutions mentioned earlier affect the brute facts found within
the hierarchy of needs. Additionally, Maslow (1970) posits that “it is too
often not realized that culture itself is an adaptive tool, one of whose main
functions is to make the physiological emergencies come less and less often”
(pgs. 23-24). Meaning, the role of religion and culture can encourage the
individual to endure through the pain of not meeting a motivational need. We
see exemplifications of this throughout various religions and cultures in
instances such as fasting, where one individual sacrifices a deficiency need to
fulfill a growth need on the tier.
“There
is now sufficient anthropological evidence to indicate that the fundamental or
ultimate desires of all human beings do not differ nearly as much as do their
conscious everyday desires. The main reason for this is that two different
cultures may provide two completely different ways of satisfying a particular
desire, let us say, for self-esteem” (Maslow, 1970, p. 23).
While the human institutions of each
individual may vary, humanity as a whole are intrinsically motivated by these
same fundamental needs. “Apparently ends in themselves are far more universal
than the roads taken to achieve those ends, for these roads are determined
locally in the specific culture. Human beings are more alike than one would
think at first” (Maslow, 1970, pgs. 23-24). Fundamental needs are innate;
culture is not; culture is learned; so the focus is in the basic needs of
individuals that precede the needs of a culture.
V. CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY &
HOFSTEDE’S MENTAL OPERATING SYSTEM
We cannot attempt to bypass culture for the sake of
persuading the triune mind without some idea of what culture is and what affect
it has on an individual’s state of being. We know that culture itself is a
human institution and each culture is based on human agreement. Curtain and
Gaither (2007) provide a broad definition of culture by declaring that culture
is the process by which meaning is produced, circulated, consumed, commoditized,
and endlessly reproduced and renegotiated in society (p. 35). Additionally,
“culture is all those means whose forms are not under direct genetic
control...which serve to adjust individuals and groups within their ecological
communities” (Binford, 1968, p. 323).We have mentioned how culture exists as a
human institution which means that we can think of culture as a learned
communicational process which allows one individual’s state of being to operate
safely and fluidly throughout their demographic. Apart from cultural influence,
corporeal items and systematic events do not make sense by themselves; we
socially construct meanings of artifacts and events by defining and presenting
these discoveries to others. Essentially, “culture forms the basis of a
society’s shared meaning system” (Curtain & Gaither, 2007, p. 36). Roger
Keesing (1974), who also quoted Ward Goodenough, also provided a sound
definition of what culture is:
“A
society's culture consists of whatever it is one has to know or believe in
order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members. Culture is not a
material phenomenon; it does not consist of things, people, behavior, or
emotions. It is rather an organization of these things. It is the form of
things that people have in mind, their models for perceiving, relating, and
otherwise interpreting them... Culture...consists
of standards for deciding what is...for deciding what can be...for deciding
what one feels about it...for deciding what to do about it, and...for deciding
how to go about doing it” (p. 77).
 |
| Figure 3: According to Hofstede, culture is the collective programming of the mind that separates one group of people from another.The Mental Programming Model illustrates an individual's mental relationship between human nature and culture with their personality. |
Culture then is an extrasomatic (being something which exists external to and distinct from the individual human being or the human body) behavior exhibited through mankind’s actions to meet their physiological, safety, and other hierarchal needs. “Culture is the collective programming of the mind that separates one group of people from another” (Hofstede, Hofstede,
The
idea that culture and human nature are separate psychological states can be
exemplified through Hofstede’s Levels of
Mental Programming. The human nature portion of Hofstede’s Levels of Mental Programming contains
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs; both of
which prove that there is a foundation to mankind’s mental state which can be
targeted by persuasive messages. Both models also exemplify how personality and
culture impact how fundamental needs are addressed and the role personality
plays in Maslow’s motivation conceptualization. Because personality is a
factor, the individual will choose how to address intrinsic motivation and
interpret external messages that offer satiation to the individual’s
fundamental needs. However, because fundamental needs are ever present and the
individual can be said to exist primarily to meet and fulfill those needs, any
organization can claim that their product exists to help the individual by
enhancing and working with the motivational factor. Meaning, an organization
such as a fitness gym can use the Nexus Approach and claim that they are there
to help the individual meet their esteem needs.
VI.
CIRCUIT OF CULTURE
The
Circuit of Culture was created as a tool of cultural analysis and consists of
five moments on a circuit that work together where meaning is created, shaped,
modified, and recreated. We have established that culture itself is the process
by which meaning is produced, circulated, consumed, commodified, and endlessly
reproduced and renegotiated in society (Curtain & Gaither, 2007, p. 35); We
have also established that communication is the relationship between senders
and receivers who distribute information in the hopes of achieving a desired
result, whereby persuasion exists in the individual’s ability to remove power
from the receiver. We have also positioned communication as the result and
creator of social construct itself. The Circuit
of Culture, then, represents the interaction of these occurrences at
specific intervals where power and culture create meaning (Curtain &
Gaither, 2007, p. 37). This is where we take our final step in understanding
the dyadic relationship between communication, culture, and our basic
psychological needs. The Circuit of Culture is the platform on which
organizations communicate how they or their products will fulfill a need on the
hierarchal tiers. We have explained the relationship between fundamental needs
and culture and the relationship between why we communicate and fundamental
needs; here we will explain how culture affects the communication process and the
point where we should imbue meaning into
persuasive tactics that appeal to the individual’s, and society’s, motivation
behind their human nature and their quest to fulfill their fundamental needs.
 |
| Figure 4: The purpose of the Circuit of Culture is to establish the relationship between meaning and culture - these loci remain in constant tension and interplay within the model (Hansen-Horn & Neff, 2008, p. 288) |
Let
us begin with the Circuit of Culture and meanings. As du Gay, Hall, et. all
(1997) posit, meanings bridge the gap between the material world and the world
in which language, thinking and communication take place and is constructed
through cultural practices, not simply found in things (du Gay, Hall, et. all,
1997, p. 10, p. 14). The Circuit of Culture suggests that meanings are produced
at several different sites and circulated through several different situations
(Hall, 1997, p. 3). The Circuit of Culture, then, are the five moments in that
process – regulation, production, consumption,
representation, and identity,
that work in concert to provide a shared cultural space where meaning is
created and reproduced (Curtain & Gaither, 2007, pgs. 37-38). Because
meanings can be created, these loci can provide us with where we can make what
we communicate meaningful. At the end of the last section it was mentioned that
an organization can communicate with the individual or group to assist them and
enhance their motivation to meet and satiate their needs. The Circuit of Culture
is that communicational loci.
1. Loci of Regulation
The
loci of regulation dictates what is acceptable or not based on the culture’s
structure. Curtain and Gaither (2007) posit that it “comprises control on
cultural activities, ranging from formal and legal controls, such as
regulations laws, and institutionalized systems to the informal and local
controls of cultural norms and expectations that form culture in the more
commonly used sense of the term” (p. 38). Essentially, if you were to present
something to another culture the moment of regulation is where the group will
dictate whether what you presented is acceptable of not. Cultural norms and
governmental regulators will determine whether or not the message you sent is
appropriate for consumption. For example, if you send a message in China
regarding rebellion of any kind, in the moment of regulation both the culture
and the governing entity of Chinese culture will reject that message where in a
Western culture like America such a message would most likely be deemed
appropriate. This is an indication of the fact that “in any given situation,
anything that doesn’t fit in an individual’s system is rejected” (Hansen-Horn
& Neff, 2008, p. 291). As mentioned,
it is not only the government’s regulation a sender needs to be aware of, but
every involved cultural system that has an established set of perceptive norms
and expectations. For example, if you post a message on social media regarding
your opinions about the LGBT community and their rights in America, the government
will be blind to your opinion but the cultures within the country will most
likely be the ones rejecting or accepting your positioning. This is the moment
of regulation where the environments in which the message sent determine its
effectiveness, acceptance or rejection. In
regard to the Nexus Approach, the sender must not only be sensitive to what it
is in their message that appeals to fundamental needs, but also if the content
of the message itself will make it through the loci of regulation.
2. Loci of Production
The
loci of production is the moment on the circuit where the sender imbues meaning
and intention into the message they send. Think of it as the moment where you think about what you are going to say, what you want what you are communicating
to say, and how you are going to say
it. Imagine you are about to undergo a job interview – you are going to want to
embed a meaning into your message that will be interpreted favorably by the
receivers of the message. In public relations, we think of this moment as the
process of planning and executing a campaign; we determine what we want our
message to mean to everyone else.
Because the loci revolve around the concept of meaning, the moment of
production, then, includes the process through which an individual or public
relations practitioner will create an identity and messages from that identity
to be consumed by a target audience.
The
Circuit of Culture suggests that meanings are produced at several different
sites and circulated through several different processes or practices on the
cultural circuit; meaning, that every loci interacts and affects the other
loci. For example, if the loci of production is the moment when the sender of
the message encodes their own meaning into the message, then it must pass
through the regulatory environment which will dictate whether or not that
message will be accepted or not. This is where concepts such as the etic and
emic approach to culture, the polycentric model, the ethnocentric model, or the
hybrid approach play a role in considering how a message that is intended to
cross cultural boundaries will be constructed. We will get to define those
concepts later, however, our focus currently exists with the Circuit of Culture.
3. Loci of Consumption
Have
you ever told something to someone who you thought would enjoy your message and
it went horribly awry? Usually this is because the receiver of the message interpreted
the message sent, encoded their own semantical meaning into it based on their
existing construct, and changed the meaning of your message. “Meanings encoded
during production aren’t fully realized until the moment of consumption, when
consumers renegotiate the meanings generated by the moment of production”
(Curtain & Gaither, 2007, p. 137). Messages communicated are seldom linear
as they are subject to interpretation and renegotiation. As we mentioned in the
social construct portion of this article, meaning is created, maintained,
altered, and destroyed through the process of human interaction. The moment of
consumption represents the point on the circuit where a majority of this happens.
Additionally,
just as consumers actively decode sent messages in reference to their own
contexts, consumers will also tack on additional defining meanings to a product
or issue as they continue to interact with the substance. “Meaning resides not
in an object, but how that object is used by consumers” (Curtain & Gaither,
2007, p. 138). For example, cigarettes in the 1920s were classified as relaxing
substance, and, after the Reach for a
Lucky Instead campaign, a dietary alternative to sweets. Edward Bernays
changed the meaning of cigarettes in the eyes of consumers in his 1929 Torches of Freedom campaign. In this
campaign, consumers embedded their own meaning into the product by using it as
a vessel for the women’s liberation movement. “Meaning is constructed – given,
produced – through cultural practices; it is not simply ‘found’ in things” (du
Gay, Hall, et. all, 1997, p. 14). “The moment of consumption encompasses how publics
make use of a cultural artifact, such as a campaign issue or product, in their
everyday lives and form new meanings around it as a consequence of its use”
(Curtain & Gaither, 2007, p. 138).
4. Loci of Representation
“Representation
is the text – the language, images, signs, or, in public relations terms, the
content and format of public relations campaigns and efforts” (Hansen-Horn
& Neff, 2008, p. 289). If the loci of regulation are the underlying
cultural values, the loci of production are the messages sent, and the loci of
consumption are how publics make sense of the message received or used, then
the loci of representation is the very imagery, symbols, text, language, and
other semantical efforts used to make the aforementioned possible. Representation
is both the very imagery/communication used to convey a message and the site
where meaning is contested. Representation, is, simply put, what it means to
both the sender and receiver based on either sides social constructs and exists
as the content itself. The loci of representation shows where multiple truths
can exist simultaneously. Ideally, you will consider thinking of the loci of
representation as the identity of the message, product, or cultural artifact
and the symbols and signs arranged to generate the message content.
5. Loci of Identity
Much
like the loci of representation, the loci of identity is another socially
constructed unit of interpretable meaning – except this one ties to the entity,
or sender, of the message. “Identity is...who we are and where we are placed in
time and space. Identities create meanings as they are produced, consumed, and
regulated within culture” (Hansen-Horn & Neff, 2008, p. 290). “Identities
are meanings that accrue to all social networks, from nations to organizations,
to publics” (Curtain & Gaither, 2007, p. 41). Identities are a result of
both social construct and biological determinants; a culture can affect an
individual’s identity and can be affected hyper-realistic cultural determinants
(e.g. gender) just as much as an individual’s biology can affect identity.
Organizations have an identity based on a multitude of situational factors
(e.g. country of origin); countries also have their own identity based on
cultures therein. “A common role of a public relations practitioner within an
organization is to establish and maintain an organizational identity” (Curtain
& Gaither, 2007, p. 41). Identities can be established and enhanced through
slogans and phrases or destroyed by opposing opinions. “Consumers also create
their own identities...and in turn, different consumer groups create and assign
their own identities to organizations” (Curtain & Gaither, 2007, p. 41).
As
discussed earlier, we had mentioned that even something as simple as inaction
is a form of communication? The loci of representation and identity exemplify
how even something as abstract as identity can be a form of communication. As
we know communication of any kind is subject to interpretation and
renegotiation.
The
Circuit of Culture is the process itself where meaning is created, shaped
modified, and recreated. It is the communications process of human institutions
which shape perceptual reality. Within these institutions, we experience
fundamental needs which drive our motivation to give artifacts and abstract
thought meaning. Organizations, institutions, or even the simple public
individual can appeal to these fundamental needs through an understanding of
the Circuit of Culture. By giving products meaning that would be interpreted as
a necessity by consumers, an individual bypasses cultural stigmas and appeals
to the triune mind.
VII. INTRODUCTON TO THE NEXUS APPROACH:
There is a concept in marketing and advertising known as Visual Esperanto. Visual Esperanto is
known as the universal language that makes global advertising possible by using
visual images that convey similar emotional experiences in multiple settings
(Clow & Baack, 2016, pgs. 125-126). A couple holding hands and walking on a
sunset-lit beach or an image of a crowd of angry people holding signs are
visual images that hold the same meaning across cultures; love and protest. It
doesn’t matter what the signs the protesters hold says because people generate
the same feelings about the image, they draw a similar conclusions, and due to
the agreed upon human institutions, people create a universal visual definition
of what love and protest are. In another mention of universality, Paul Ekman
discovered that there are universal emotions that transcend culture and there
are universal affect displays of those emotions. Just as these particular
visual images and emotional indicators can transcend cultural differences, the Nexus
Approach contains the idea that it is possible to transcend cultural
differences and human institutions by appealing to everyone’s motivation to
satiate one need or another on their hierarchal tier. In essence, it should not
be unfathomable to conceptualize the idea that as a species we are all
motivated by similar needs. Because we all could be motivated by the same
fundamental needs, then it should stand to follow that an approach can be taken
to persuade others by meeting or claiming to have a way to satiate those needs
when they arise.
Ideally, every campaign should include a means-ends state
that guides a target audience to participate in what the organization has to
offer. The means-end chain is a conceptual model that states that a message
(the means) should lead the consumer to their desired end state (Clow &
Baack, 2016, p. 124). The Nexus Approach assists us in producing the optimal
means that consumers require to meet their fundamental needs. In the moment of
production, if the sender encodes that their product will help them achieve one
of the receiver’s fundamental needs then the consumer’s motivation to meet that
need will take precedence over their human institution and, subsequently, they
will encode their own motivation into the product. It could become “I need this to do that” as a shared
organizational/consumer meaning. In short, the Nexus Approach could be a
theoretical concept where Maslow’s Hierarchy
of Needs, the Circuit of Culture,
and Hofstede’s Mental Programming Model
meet at a point, or nexus. This allows us the ability to understand the
psychology behind the individual’s motivation to satiate their innate needs and
integrate the knowledge thereof into tailored campaigns. These tailored
campaigns could be centered on what motivation consumers have and how they use
that motivation with what they are exposed to, to achieve their fundamental
needs. Organizations can tailor their positioning, especially when expanding to
an international platform, to the innate needs of the individual and apply them
on a larger scale. Ideally, the product attributes will claim to meet a need
that is deficient in an individual.
|
 |
| Figure 6: This figure exemplifies how an organizations message can cut between a consumer and their social constructs when their fundamental needs begin to afflict them. The consumer, after receiving the message, will make a decision based on what the regulatory environments dictate is acceptable. |
For
example, consider a college’s market segmentation; a college or university will
typically use target marketing and develop a limited number of target market
segments. Prospective students are typically selected particular demographics
and psychographics are applied to enhance their results. What is important for
colleges in universities, in terms of psychographics, is that those they are
targeting have high growth and self-fulfillment needs. A college or university
will not typically design its message with those with advanced degrees in mind
– no, they want to appeal to those who are deficient in a fundamental growth
need. Those individuals who are motivated to satisfy some form of esteem or
self-actualization need are more likely to take a central route when receiving
a message from a college and could be less likely to care how their culture
fits into their growth needs. In short, colleges and universities could be
thought of as those organizations who already utilize a form of the Nexus Approach
in their communicational endeavors.
Essentially, it all breaks down into the
following: An individual will become deficient in some universal, biological, and
fundamental need, be it a growth or a deficiency need, and will become
motivated to satisfy those needs. Concurrently, an organization will already be
sending encoded messages out for reception. If the organization decided to
employ the Nexus Theory in their approach, then the message will contain dual
elements regarding their product or service, claiming that what they offer can
satiate multiple fundamental needs simultaneously (i/e: a power bar company,
say Nutri-Grain, could claim that their product curbs hunger while helping you
lose weight; this helps meet two fundamental needs, deficient and growth/hunger
and esteem needs). The receiver will decode that message before applying what
human institutions they associate with and the personality will determine if
the message is relevant or not. If the message is, then the message could take
a central route of persuasion and, because the individual wants to be skinny or
full more than anything else, the consumer would be more likely to absorb the
message. Personality will dictate which flavor they will choose; personality
will also be the driving factor behind brand parity. Personality controls what
external environments will become internalized, but, overall, because the needs
have arisen they will be open to receive messages from those who claim they can
satiate. Just in this statement alone, you can see the usefulness of the Nexus
Approach at work; an occurrence of which can be seen in underlying tones
throughout multiple case studies.
Finally,
it is no secret that public relations practitioners and marketers often use
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in their campaign development. Both fields
understand where their target audiences are on the pyramid and pitch their
appeal accordingly. Separately, when designing international campaigns, even
domestic campaigns, practitioners will utilize the Circuit of Culture. Clever
practitioners will perhaps even utilize Hofstede’s Mental Operating System.
There may be exemplifications where all three methodologies are utilized in
campaign construction, however, these instances, it can be said, are separate
in nature even though they are working towards the same goal. Meaning, the
analysis is conducted one at a time instead of thrice at once. Additionally,
practitioners will undertake an emic approach during the construction of their
campaign in order to make sense of the culture they are trying appeal to; then
they will add models, methodologies, and theoretical concepts goaled for
persuasion.
However,
the Nexus Approach explains that it is possible to do the reverse; use the
Nexus Approach, integrate the three models, find out what you want appeal you
are trying meet and how you will communicate your message, and then tack on the
emic approach to see how culture may affect the way the individual meets their
needs. Using the models outside the Nexus Approach is an attempt to work with
culture, however, with the approach it is possible to bypass culture
altogether. The addition of the emic and etic approaches later on can only
enhance the campaign.
It
could be said that many organizations, public relations practitioners, marketers,
and public relations firms have already created successful campaigns where the
Nexus Approach could be observed regardless of their original structure. The
following pages will take a look at some observable and potential underlying
occurrences of the Nexus Approach which could establish a call for further
research into the theory.
VIII. OBSERVANCE OF THE NEXUS APPROACH:
Every
organizational campaign, from Coca-Cola’s international Share-A-Coke campaign to the international Smallpox Eradication
Campaign, can be said to have taken or required the Nexus Approach. Coca-Cola’s Share
a Coke campaign succeeded because it was able to permeate various
cultures, within the Circuit of Culture’s loci, by appealing to brute
deficiency needs (belongingness, love, affiliation, and inclusion).
Personalities and culture did not affect the purchases of the Coke bottles and
cans with names inscribed on the side because the inclusion needs, the
fundamental psychological needs, were stronger than the human institutions
established above. It can be said that personality typically affects the
individual’s purchase decisions, yet there are documentations of those who,
even though they dislike carbonated soft drinks, made a share-a-coke purchase
to present it to a loved one. Culture was not so much a consideration in this
campaign as it was an afterthought.
Within the Smallpox Eradication Campaign we see traces of
how, though fundamental needs are present, culture dictates how innate needs
are met; through this, one can observe how taking a Nexus Approach would have
provided far more fruitful results. “For many consumers of the
campaign...smallpox was not a scientific fact but a spiritual being.
Vaccination wasn’t a preventative, but an abomination; it defied the deity’s
will” (Curtain & Gaither, 2007, p. 187). Here you see that how the fundamental
of need safety motivates a culture’s actions and, in turn, their human
institution dictate how that need should be and will be met. Essentially, the primitive
cultures believed that the smallpox disease was a spiritual being who existed
to satiate their deficiency and growth needs. In some cases, those cultures
resisted vaccination despite the attempted education about the disease because
a shared identity regarding the disease wasn’t established between producers
and consumers (Curtain & Gaither, 2007, p. 187, para. 3). Eventually, the
use of force was used to achieve the eradication of smallpox in some areas,
which included forced restraint and vaccination regardless of age, nutritional
status, or medical condition (Curtain & Gaither, 2007, p. 189, para. 5).
As you can see, one entity’s goals conflicted with how a
culture dictated their fundamental needs should be met; this could be owed to
the lack of adherence to the Nexus Approach. The conflict between establishing
a common identity between message producers and consumers could be owed to the
lack of adherence to the Circuit of Culture. Personality and human institutions
conflicted with the brute fact regarding the deadliness of the disease. Poor
communication contributed to what would eventually become a lack of mutual
understanding and forced vaccinations. The primitive culture sought to not
anger the deity’s will in an attempt to maintain their safety and
self-actualization needs and this conflicted with the transcendency needs found
within the WHO organization. The fundamental needs of both parties was ever
present, however, it could be said that the lack of the integrative model, the
Nexus Approach, led to difficulties in creating a shared benevolence,
establishing a common identity, and bypassing culture itself to meet a goal. Each
component of the Nexus Approach could found, albeit neglected, within the
Smallpox Eradication Campaign.
IX. CONCLUSION:
The
Nexus Approach, then, is the psychological integration and interdependency of
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Hofstede’s Mental Operating System, and the
Circuit of Culture which creates an interrelatedness that could contribute to a
powerful persuasion method which could bypass culture and deliver a more
targeted and meaningful message. Such a methodology could be useful in the
fields where persuasion is necessary to generate a desired outcome; fields such
as marketing and public relations. Further research into this approach, an
approach that has relevance in both traditional and digital worlds, can
contribute to a better understanding of consumer behaviors and assist in
fostering a deeper relationship between organizations and their publics.
There
are fundamental anatomical psychologies that precede what we learn and they can
be targeted by and have the potential to be more open to persuasion. More often
than not, the persuasive discourses take an emic approach during the
construction of a campaign. The Nexus Approach posits that while this is
ultimately necessary, doing so after applying the integrative model could yield
better results. While the ability to
do achieve new levels on the hierarchy coincides with Hofstede’s human nature
tier, the how of what they do with
these motivations are the modification of culture and personality, which can be
directly persuaded by carefully crafted messages. Focus on this approach and
you could forge a powerful campaign.
References
Binford,
L. R. (1968). Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archaeology,
ed. L. R. Binford, S. R. Binford, 313-42. Chicago: Aldine. 373 pp.
Clow, K. E., & Baack, D. (2016). Integrated
advertising, promotion, and marketing communications. New York, NY,:
Pearson.
Curtin, P. A., & Gaither, T. K. (2007). International
public relations: negotiating culture, identity, and power. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.
Du Gay, P. D., Hall, S., Janes, L., Madsen, A. K.,
MacKay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing cultural studies: The story
of the Sony Walkman. London: SAGE Publications.
Gamble, T. K., & Gamble, M. W. (2014). Interpersonal
Communications - Building Connections Together. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Hansen-Horn, T. L., & Neff, B. D. (2008). Public
relations: from theory to practice. Boston: Pearson.
Hall, S. (1997). Representation - Cultural Representations
and Signifying Practices. London: SAGE Publ. Retrieved from: https://faculty.washington.edu/pembina/all_articles/Hall1997.pdf
Hofstede G, Hofstede G, Minkov M, (2010) Cultures
and organizations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, New York
Keesing, R. (1974). Theories of Culture. Retrieved
from
http://kodu.ut.ee/~cect/teoreetilised%20seminarid_2009%20s%C3%BCgis/1_seminar_KULTUUR_29.09.2009/text_1.pdf
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and
Personality. Harper and Row Inc. doi:http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Motivation_and_Personality-Maslow.pdf
McLeod, S. (2007, September 16). Maslow's Hierarchy
of Needs. Retrieved July 29, 2017, from
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Spencer-Oatey. (2012). What is Culture? A
Compilation of Quotations. Retrieved from
https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/globalpad/openhouse/interculturalskills/global_pad_-_what_is_culture.pdf
Taormina, R., & Gao, J. (2013, Summer). Maslow
and the Motivation Hierarchy: Measuring Satisfaction of the Needs. Retrieved
from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e07/0f0f7075814513324e6a4ee8801257f90dce.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment