Former discussion about the history of marketing thought revealed the third era as a period where marketing scholarship gained academic footing through a surge of academic infrastructure with a scientific, quantitative-led focus (the managerial perspective). Toward the latter part of the third era, marketing was subject to criticism from an economic perspective and a social perspective (Arnold & Fisher, 1996).
It was the social undercurrents that signalled a seismic shift in social attitudes and an occasion for social change (Arnold & Fisher, 1996). The response to these social issues emerged from a consumer perspective where the ‘counter-culture lifestyle’61 was promoted. Consumers, for promoting economic prosperity, reproved businesses and marketing academia were not excluded from that criticism. In fact, the critique was extended to the ‘relevance’ of education in responding to political and social turmoil (Arnold & Fisher, 1996).
Institutions of higher learning were viewed as contributors to social decline as they promoted careers in business and the desire for economic prosperity. Based on the historical developments of the third era in marketing, Arnold and Fisher (1996) put forth a conceptual representation of the social value orientation of academic marketing that delineated the operational and philosophical differences among marketing scholars. These authors used four criteria to assess whether the primary responsibility of marketing was economic or social.
Figure 2.1 is a representation of this model.
61 It was non- conformist in its intention and opposed society’s enthrallment with material prosperity. The values of a consumer society were considered spiritually bankrupt and as driving voracious and insatiable desire for money, status and other trappings of success.
41
Figure 2.1. The conceptual framework for academic marketing paradigms (Arnold &
Fisher, 1996, p.124)
The four assessment criteria located on the left side of Figure 1, include the ‘nature of marketing’, ‘the core concept of marketing’, ‘the scope of marketing’ and the “primary responsibility of marketing”. Arnold and Fisher’s (1996) assessment criteria used in their conceptual academic marketing framework can be summarised in the following way:
The nature of marketing: related to the conceptual domain of marketing being interpreted as a management technology or a social process. Additionally, this criterion described how the formal definition of marketing was perceived. Consequently, the meaning could be taken literally, reinterpreted to find new social meaning or may be reconstructed.
The core concept of marketing: this related to the subject matter of the discipline. The interpretation could be based on marketing as a purely transactional perspective or marketing considered as a broader exchange of values between two parties.
The scope of marketing: this defined the conceptual boundaries of marketing. This meant that phenomena and issues related to marketing were considered as part of the business context only, or operationally extended to society or philosophically extended to society.
42
The primary responsibility of marketing: this related to the perceived notion of the value of marketing as an economic or marketing as a social process.
Further examination of Figure 2.1, revealed three academic approaches to marketing’s value, namely: ‘The Apologists’, ‘The Social Marketers’ and ‘The Reconstructionists’. Each of these paradigms was a representation of marketing academia’s response to the changing dynamic of marketing scholarship in the third and subsequently, fourth eras. The three conceptual approaches to social value orientation of academic marketing are discussed in the next section, utilising the four assessment criteria relating to the nature of marketing, core concept of marketing, scope of marketing, and primary responsibility of marketing.
2.9.1 The Apologists: The Nature, Core Concept, Scope, and the Primary Responsibility of Marketing
‘The Apologists’ in Figure 2.1 represent marketing academicians that define marketing as valuable within the existing theoretical underpinnings of the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP).
Marketing should be neither operationally reinterpreted or used outside of its existing domain, the marketplace, nor philosophically reconstructed to reflect social responsibilities (Arnold &
Fisher, 1996). The emphasis is placed on a firm-centric approach to promote economic profit through transactional processes to pursue the marketing concept.
‘The Apologists’ view marketing within the context of it being a tool or technology that defines how marketing should happen. Hence, the value in pursing social objectives was muted in favour of economic objectives through encouraging consumption. The ‘Apologists’ favoured an inward focus on the firm and within the context of marketing as a management tool, performance as a measure of success was driven by and defined by organisational goals.
Consequently, social responsibility remained peripheral to the organisation’s mainstream marketing activities.
Although the transitional nature of the third era was evident, the ‘Apologists’ defended their existing economic value. The criticism of marketing’s economic and social roles were typically countered by reminding critics of the inherent economic value of marketing and the benefits accrued to society through marketing activities (Arnold & Fisher, 1996). Although social issues existed, the drive to pursue marketing objectives remained steadfast.
43
2.9.2 ‘The Social Marketers’ : The Nature, Core Concept, Scope, and the Primary Responsibility of Marketing
‘The Social Marketers’ considered social value orientation to be an integral part of marketing.
They maintained a transactional focus by viewing marketing in the context of being a management tool (technology). However, their differentiation was in the possibilities of the existing tools of marketing being applied to social and environmental contexts, outside of simply advocating for selling. They proposed a form of marketing engendered in social justice and ecological issues to challenge the preoccupation of promoting a consumption culture in favour of ‘social satisfaction’.
Although it did not necessarily question the core foundations of marketing, this paradigm emphasised how tools and techniques that were engineered to produce profits and produce materialistic aspirations, could also be used to better manage demand, effect social change and ameliorate societal ills (Arnold & Fisher, 1996). Essentially, the tools of marketing were extended to a social context as a means of producing positive social outcomes.
2.9.3 ‘The Reconstructionists’: The Nature, Core Concept, Scope, and the Primary Responsibility of Marketing
‘The Reconstructionists’, were characterised by the complete acceptance of marketing being a social process. Their perspectives were not to privilege the technology or tools of marketing but to critique the philosophical nucleus of the processes and outcomes of marketing activity.
Hence, the simple application of the tools of marketing to societal problems was inadequate and required reconstruction of the marketing concept and the role of marketing outside of pure economic gain.
The social undercurrents that challenged materialism and raised new concerns for social justice were factors in the development of this paradigm (Arnold & Fisher, 1996). Therefore, academics that embodied this paradigm disrupted the traditional tenets of the discipline through the questioning of traditional marketing concepts. This questioning made social justice a focal point in humanistic revisions to the marketing concept (Arnold & Fisher, 1996).
Additionally, the ‘Reconstructionists’ criticised the processes of marketing and highlighted that the application of tools and techniques to social problems was irrelevant if the technology itself was inherently flawed (Arnold & Fisher, 1996). Ironically, the same technology still maintains prominence in the marketing discipline and consequently, in the marketing curriculum.
44
This conceptual model of the social value orientation of marketing academic response carries with it an underlying reference to what would be considered important for marketing theory and the marketing curriculum. This is suggested based on the three characterisations of ‘the Apologists’, ‘Social Marketers’ and ‘the Reconstructionists’. This theoretical framework offers a mechanism through which the data for this research will be organised. Additionally, the dimensions of a social value orientation (nature of marketing, core concept of marketing, scope of marketing and primary responsibility of marketing) provide a link to literature discussed previously in this chapter. This framework motions a move toward understanding how this framework can be evolved to include sustainability marketing as part of a sustainability marketing curriculum framework.