ABSTRACT
This chapter presents the idea that the communicative turn has been supplemented with a strategic turn in connection with the development of strategic communication as an organizational discipline and practice, which has resulted not only in everything—or almost everything—being regarded as communication, but also in everything—or almost everything—being regarded as strategic communication. The scope of organizational communication has been broadened to include virtually everything an organization says and does, and everyone who is affected by the organization’s existence and activities. The historical background for this strategic turn is outlined in the form of a series of theoretical and philosophical points in the history of Western communications theory: the Athenian or Greek understanding of communication as revealed in Plato and Aristotle, the Roman understanding of communication as seen in Cicero and Quintilian, notions about communication associated with St Augustine in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the seventeenth century, the Age of Enlightenment, the nineteenth century, modern rhetoric, the communicative turn, and finally the strategic turn. These periods are analyzed on the basis of Stanley Deetz’s theory of the dual concern and dual goal of conceptions of communications. From one period to another, perceptions of communication have varied between whether communication is primarily seen as a question of how, through the communicative processes, people acquire an opportunity to contribute to opinion formation and decision-making, or whether communication is primarily perceived as a means to fulfill certain goals and achieve control. The development of the role and status of communication in relation to markets and marketing communication is reviewed briefly in order to show which concern or goal—effectiveness or participation—has dominated in various historical eras. Finally, the chapter discusses whether the difference between effectiveness and participation has been dissolved or challenged in connection with the strategic turn. The question is raised as to whether the broadening of the scope of strategy in communication has led to the colonization of communication or to an increased opportunity for participation in organizational communication, and perhaps even contains an emancipatory potential.
