Implications for civism as axiology for inclusivity in the marketing and branding of places
| Inclusivity (propositions from previous studies) | Civism (implications) | Traditional broadening approach |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic, cultural and socio-political dimension (Kavaratzis et al., 2017) | Republicanism to foster political liberty as practices (praxis) | Communitarian–liberalism to foster political liberty as norm (negative or positive) |
| Mix of critical and normative approaches (Jernsand, 2017) | Pragmatism and Empiricism as balancing act to project possibility and duties for any | Pragmatism as way to fully project human flourishing |
| Stakeholders with different degrees of power as integral activators (Rebelo et al., 2020) | Integral activation via community as the missing/lack created by different stakeholder powers in the process (i.e. biopolitics) | Integral activation via social contract among different stakeholders having different degrees of power in the process (i.e. polyarchy) |
| Rise of ambassadorship of the place (Rebelo et al., 2020) | Multiple levels of stakeholder fame and power come along with equivalent duty for the place (i.e. fame and power correspond to obligation in the affairs of the place) | Multiple stakeholder fame and power represent different degrees of power on the place (i.e. fame and power reflect the multiple stakes in the affairs of the place) |
| Open and transformational of place and stakeholder relationship (Jernsand, 2017) | Civic greatness and wealth as “confidence” to be and live in the place as an end to means, as well means to an end (i.e. branding efforts and activities framed for one’s own place/city) | Democratic universalism and participation as mean to an end (i.e. branding efforts and activities framed for more places/cities) |
| System that allows for coordination (i.e. as form of moderately controlled process) (Källström and Siljeklint, 2021) | Self-governing process enhancing representation, based on virtues like public spiritedness and private measured | Process regulated at the outset enhancing representation, based on determined actors’ expertise or public or private power |
| Shared ownership, but power diffused and weighted differently, based on specific regulations (Källström and Siljeklint, 2021) | Promotion and fostering “discord” via a coercive modular process of checks and balances build by legislation | Attempt to build agreement on bureaucratic process of checks and balances build by normalization |
| Long-term multiplicity of reciprocal engagements for based on empowerment and responsibility (Jernsand, 2017) | Seeking prudence in taking part in the public and private affairs of a place | Seeking predominance in taking part in the public and private affairs of a place |
| Inclusivity (propositions from previous studies) | Civism (implications) | Traditional broadening approach |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic, cultural and socio-political dimension ( | Republicanism to foster political liberty as practices (praxis) | Communitarian–liberalism to foster political liberty as norm (negative or positive) |
| Mix of critical and normative approaches | Pragmatism and Empiricism as balancing act to project possibility and duties for any | Pragmatism as way to fully project human flourishing |
| Stakeholders with different degrees of power as integral activators ( | Integral activation via community as the missing/lack created by different stakeholder powers in the process (i.e. biopolitics) | Integral activation via social contract among different stakeholders having different degrees of power in the process (i.e. polyarchy) |
| Rise of ambassadorship of the place ( | Multiple levels of stakeholder fame and power come along with equivalent duty for the place (i.e. fame and power correspond to obligation in the affairs of the place) | Multiple stakeholder fame and power represent different degrees of power on the place |
| Open and transformational of place and stakeholder relationship ( | Civic greatness and wealth as “confidence” to be and live in the place as an end to means, as well means to an end (i.e. branding efforts and activities framed for one’s own place/city) | Democratic universalism and participation as mean to an end (i.e. branding efforts and activities framed for more places/cities) |
| System that allows for coordination (i.e. as form of moderately controlled process) ( | Self-governing process enhancing representation, based on virtues like public spiritedness and private measured | Process regulated at the outset enhancing representation, based on determined actors’ expertise or public or private power |
| Shared ownership, but power diffused and weighted differently, based on specific regulations | Promotion and fostering “discord” via a coercive modular process of checks and balances build by legislation | Attempt to build agreement on bureaucratic process of checks and balances build by normalization |
| Long-term multiplicity of reciprocal engagements for based on empowerment and responsibility | Seeking prudence in taking part in the public and private affairs of a place | Seeking predominance in taking part in the public and private affairs of a place |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.