No description available.

The thesis presents a first account of the development of British public relations in the twentieth century. The focus is on the whether British public relations has managed to 'professionalise'. To a large degree, the story is one of failure, despite the exponential growth of the field. The history of this puzzling contradiction is explored in detail, drawing on previously untapped archives and extensive oral history interviews. The thesis argues that this apparent paradox is explained by the inability of the would-be professional body to establish control over public relations practice. Thus, one of the key features of the thesis is its presentation of a counter-history of the Institute of Public Relations to that body's own selfunderstanding. Turning to the overall development and growth of the occupation, the thesis argues that one of the most significant features of British developments, especially in the first half of the twentieth century, was the large role played by local and central governments and the relatively small contribution of the private sector. Key aspects of British government propaganda in both wartime and peacetime are highlighted and also include activities focused on policies of de-colonisation and economic intervention. The contribution of the British Film Documentary Movement and the collaboration between its leader, John Grierson, and the Secretary of the Empire Marketing Board (EMB), Sir Stephen Tallents, is presented as being of considerable significance, particularly in terms of the development of public relations ideology. The discourse and actions of key figures within the public relations industry are also foregrounded in the overall analysis. Themes include relationships between the public relations industry, the media and politics, ethics, and the ultimately vain attempts of the industry to establish the widespread legitimacy necessary for professional status.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Playwright, Sarah Kane emerged as a new voice in British writing in the early 1990s. Her work, recognized most notably for its shocking content, was the source of media hype, and rendered her work, with that of her peers, as In-Yer-Face Theatre. This dissertation analyses the use of shock in Kane‟s work, with particular reference to her first and last plays: Blasted and 4.48 Psychosis. I discuss the shock elements employed by Kane in these texts and consider the reasons behind their use, particularly Kane‟s break with realism and subversion of form. My research draws upon social constructionist thought as a strand of the larger discourses of postmodernism, in particular those which inform the existence of war, violence and trauma. Focusing too, on the work of theatre practitioners such as Antonin Artaud, whose „Theatre of Cruelty‟ is reminiscent of Kane‟s own theatre. I discuss the origin of In-Yer-Face Theatre as well as its forerunners by examining Post-War British Theatre from the 1940‟s, especially those plays that have resonated on a provocative level. My research also explores the social and political factors influencing theatre over the decades and in relation to Kane, particularly the Thatcher government of the 1980s. I argue that the social and political climate of the 1980s and 1990s played a direct role in the formation of Kane‟s theatre and examine Kane‟s work and its reception in relation to other playwrights of the time. I have deliberately chosen to locate my research in terms of British theatre. / Thesis (M.A. (Drama and Performance Studies)) - University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2008.

No description available.

British press opinion concerning the Soviet Union in the 1930s contributes to an understanding of the failed cooperation, prior to 1941, between the British and Soviet Governments. During the trial of six British engineers in Moscow in 1933, the conservative press jingoistically responded by demanding stringent economic action against the Soviet Union and possibly severing diplomatic cooperation. The liberal and labour press expected relations to improve to prevent similar trials of Britons in the future. Despite the strain in relations and ideological differences, between 1934 and 1935, Britain and the USSR worked for collective security. The quality conservative press was willing to support a closer relationship, though popular conservative newspapers remained anti-Soviet. The liberal and labour press, though hoping for more, expressed relief that Britain was improving relations with the Soviet Union. The Spanish Civil War led the conservative press to resume its non-collective beliefs and to become ideologically critical of the Soviet Union. The provincial conservative newspapers were the exceptions. Liberal and labour papers were annoyed with the British refusal to cooperate with the USSR over Spain and became disappointed by the Government's decision to support appeasement rather than collective action. While the British Government reviewed the benefits of collective security, the Moscow show trials damaged Britain's belief in the stability of the USSR. All papers realised there was something seriously wrong in the Soviet Union. The conservative press advocated avoiding cooperation with a country weakened by purging. The liberal and labour press, though concerned about the image of the USSR, realised that Britain required an East European ally and called for an improvement of existing relations. In 1939 nearly every newspaper demanded the British Government form an alliance with the USSR against Hitler's aggression and criticised both governments for wasting time. Condemnation of the Soviet Union's signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact and role in the partition of Poland was relatively limited as hope remained that Britain and the USSR would collaborate to defeat Hitler. However, the Winter War strained these hopes and led to intense press condemnation of the Soviet attack on Finland. Nevertheless, in July 1940 newspapers became interested in the emerging conflict of interests between Germany and the USSR. Despite criticism of Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe, the press accepted that Britain's security depended on the Soviet Union. All newspapers welcomed the alliance in 1941 and ignored ideological issues.

No description available.