ABSTRACT
A campaign is generally built around a purposeful bringing together of three elements-the protagonist or its interests; the perceptions, wants and needs of the target; and the perceptions, wants and needs of any intermediaries whose participation is required to channel the campaign from the protagonist to the target. The fi rst of these will drive the campaign, rather like an engine; the second will steer the campaign to its objective; the third will fuel the campaign at essential points along the way. The protagonist will engage in campaign activity by positioning, or repositioning, itself either as aligned with the interests of the target or of suffi cient import to justify some moderation of those interests by the target. That is to say, the protagonist will use campaign communication to demonstrate either its direct affi nity with and support for the target, or its ability to impose some sort of costs or disadvantages on the target. The campaign for cessation of smoking will position the protagonist as an ally of the smoker determined to preserve his/her health. The campaign to impose environmental reforms on a polluting industry will position the protagonist as able to impose political or regulatory costs on the industry that would far exceed the price of voluntary compliance. In general, portrayal of the protagonist in a campaign will comprise two sets of elements, which we can think of as substance and style. Substantive elements would include such items as the protagonist’s personal or organizational traits-such things as trustworthiness, candor, representativeness, continuity, reach, power and infl uence-any relevant expertise or experience, issue or policy preferences, objectives, and an indication of the constituencies the protagonist purports to serve. It often incorporates some reference to the protagonist’s allies, or those other actors who can be expected to rally to its side, as well as its enemies, who can be expected to rise in opposition. This could be done through the expedient of appropriate naming, for example, of the group or coalition of groups that is waging the campaign-think of the many entities that position themselves on the abortion controversy with reference to the words “life” and “choice”—or more subtly, as through the listing of one’s allies or coalition members on a website or in a brochure or news release. And of course, where strategy dictates, such pro-con alliances can also be masked in ambiguity. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the portrayal of the protagonist must incorporate some indication of the status or degree of its legitimacy and the sources from which that legitimacy derives. Legitimacy is the acceptance on the part of a given audience that a particular actor-in our context this could be a protagonist, an intermediary, or a target-is generally seen to be acting properly toward pro-social objectives
within an established set of values, norms, and expectations. Writing for an audience of business scholars, sociologist Mark Suchman (1995) suggested that legitimacy might be pragmatic in origin, arising from the self-interest of key stakeholders; moral, refl ecting a normative acceptance of the actor and its behaviors; or cognitive, or, in effect, simply taken for granted. Within this framework, he proposed a variety of strategic mechanisms for gaining and maintaining legitimacy, and for restoring it when lost or damaged. With respect to gaining legitimacy, for example, he noted, “Legitimacy-building strategies fall into three clusters: (a) efforts to conform to the dictates of preexisting audiences within the organization’s current environment, (b) efforts to select among multiple environments in pursuit of an audience that will support current practices, and (c) efforts to manipulate environmental structure by creating new audiences and new legitimating beliefs” (587). Stylistic elements of the portrayal of the protagonist in the campaign include such things as its appearance and mannerisms, its real or apparent accessibility or transparency, the issues and other actors with which it is associated (including linkages to other situations or campaigns where it has been visible to the target or to third parties that are expected to play roles in a given campaign), and even its communication skills. Most important here is the lexicon employed by the protagonist-the verbal language and nonverbal imagery by which it chooses to communicate. This has an effect on the perceptions that come to be associated with the protagonist, but it also has the far more fundamental potential literally to defi ne just what is at stake in the campaign. Though it is tempting to assume that substance trumps style, that is not necessarily the case, and it may actually be the exception. Take, for example, the selection of language. What one calls a thing matters greatly. Is an act of violence in the Middle East one of terror, or one of liberation? Is a legislative initiative that pumps money into the fi nancial services industry a bailout of Wall Street banks, or a rescue of Main Street businesses? Is a popular, freely elected leader who maintains power by changing his nation’s constitution to extend his term indefi nitely a populist democrat, or an antidemocratic autocrat? The fate of nations turns on such matters of defi - nition. But those defi nitions are seldom naturally occurring phenomena. They are grounded in existing cultural and social perspectives that may themselves be differentially distributed, but they are energized and rendered signifi cant through systematic efforts to mobilize, shape, direct, and generally control the projection of those existing perspectives into contemporary disputes. Common understandings of many actors, events, and circumstances-the building blocks of defi nitions-exist in potentiality; it is campaigns that may cause them to resonate in reality. And they affect the full array of intermediaries and targets, from public opinion and the media to political leaders and governments. In the context of campaigns, the interplay of substance and style is perhaps at its zenith when the lexicon that defi nes the issues and actors in
the campaign-that literally shapes the common understanding of what the campaign is about-simultaneously defi nes, acknowledges or reifi es the legitimacy of the campaign protagonist. Think of the campaign as a complicated and protracted morality play in which one side represents good, the other evil. Many campaigns play out in just this way. Now, consider the value of being the protagonist who gets to determine from the outset just what it is that constitutes good, and what constitutes evil. Chances are, those defi nitions would establish the moral superiority of the protagonist and, quite possibly, the moral inferiority of the target. Healthcare professionals good; smoking bad. Public interest good; corporations bad. Freedom fi ghters good; terrorists bad. Freedom fi ghters good; extant regime bad. Preferred position constitutional; opposing position unconstitutional. Add to that some other stylistic elements, such as associations between the key players and other social actors of high or low esteem-religious institutions, fi rst responders, or the middle class versus greedy executives, corrupt politicians, or child pornographers-and one begins to see how substance and style interact in establishing the strength of the protagonist’s positioning.
