A Standing Call for Transformation
By Samantha Dols
June 7, 2018
At the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna, I experienced three edifying days with scholars and practitioners, exploring to what extent public diplomacy (PD) faces a moment of geopolitical transformation. In this venture, my task became to listen – to take notes, distill salient messages, negotiate the opinions of others with the biases of my own – and ultimately enhance my understanding of the field. In alignment with my personal research, I focused most on the influence of new media and the role of non-state actors in cross-cultural communication, a reality that reveals the exciting state of contemporary PD; one ripe with change and conducive to innovation.
While deliberation was encouraged, a trying spell of laryngitis forced me into a temporary quietude where it became uncomfortable to do anything but shut down my own voice and absorb the dynamism of others. And so, inspired by the formal panels and casual discussions, I offer three working reflections on the evolution of relationship composition in public diplomacy, seeds of ideas that will perhaps be pursued in time and with more rigor: on the nature of externalization, ritual communication, and the arduous art of deep listening.
Externalization
As is the case in many other fields, one of the lenses through which public diplomacy can be examined is the public sphere. First introduced by Jurgen Habermas in 1965, the public sphere is an inclusive and egalitarian arena, a designated spatial site wherein meaning can be articulated, shared, and negotiated. Although Habermas’ conception remains susceptible to criticism and modification, his idealistic views regarding institutional and interpersonal relationships still hold value. He believed it was only through the process of externalization – by entering social relationships – that the interiority of a person could be developed. This sentiment is especially interesting in the context of contemporary public diplomacy, where ideas around relational models and relationship-management strategies are increasingly foregrounded[1].
Without question, in PD (and beyond), the circumstances surrounding externalization have changed dramatically in recent decades. The convergence of traditional mainstream and social media, advancements in digital communication technologies, and the propagation of opportunities to participate in the creation and dissemination of information, are just some of the forces that shape the ecosystem of the modern “public”[2]. And according to several scholars, these forces necessitate a new understanding of the public sphere entirely: one that transcends national borders and harnesses the collective strength of a global civil society.
In The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governments, Manuel Castell’s argues that the dissonance between where issues arise (at the global level) and where issues are managed (at the level of the nation-state) creates four political crises: of efficiency, legitimacy, identity, and equity. These crises make more pressing the need for a global civil society, a type of public where nongovernmental actors around the world “become the advocates of the needs, interests, and values of people at large” – the Habermasian ideal at a massive scale.
In this society – an amorphous, ideally inclusive space with innumerable opportunities for communication – the role of the nontraditional actor becomes increasingly important in externalization between groups and nations. Why? Because “civil society, corporations, activists, social entrepreneurs, and even the self-appointed citizen diplomat are all potential members of the boundary-spanning league, equipped with a global vision of communication, diplomacy, and the pressing problems faced by many.”[3] The diplomat, akin to a brick-and-mortar cinema, will remain relevant and distinctive, but the surplus of new actors, entities, and channels for interaction inevitably cause a shakeup. Just as YouTube and Netflix disrupted the entertainment industry, so too is the expansion of PD efforts into non-state territory disrupting the traditional conception of diplomacy.
The opportunity for individual and communal externalization has grown exponentially and can be seen through often unexpected venues – film festivals, city-wide gaming[4], sport challenges, augmented and virtual reality[5] – characteristic not of unidirectional or hierarchical channels but of a tangled web with infinite pathways for connections. In such a time, PD must continue to build upon its historical formalities and practices but should concurrently look broadly at the individuals and organizations who are, often without cognizance, engaging in cross-cultural externalization (e.g. Soccer Without Borders; Shared Studio’s Portals; Karim Ben Khelifa’s The Enemy).
The fact that the connection between these spaces and diplomacy is not yet explicit or bold is not problematic; in fact, it shows promise. There may be value in not labeling an entity or exchange as diplomatic; to symbolically break away from the more formal and stereotypically “diplomatic” approaches in the traditional spaces and pursuance of more informal approaches. A space that fails to explicitly present its diplomatic intention and instead position itself as a place for externalization through play, co-creation, and collective imagining, may in some cases, prove more successful.
Listening as Productive Abandonment
In Public Diplomacy in the Public Interest (2017), Kathy Fitzpatrick underscores the importance of listening in PD and the gap in research that ought to be filled. Noting the call from other scholars (Cull 2008; Trent 2016; McNamara, 2016), she foregrounds effective listening as an exercise that warrants real attention in PD scholarship, a concept with concrete principles and requirements. This onus to “hear something with thoughtful attention”[6] proves difficult in current times, ones marked by sensory overload, omnipresent news and a panicked state of hyperconnection; but even more difficult, perhaps, is to implement this in a formal space of PD.
The old propaganda approach toward public diplomacy involved nations attaining desired outcomes through strategic messaging and interactions with foreign publics. While listening, or the façade of such, played a role in this, more important was the mission to win, an idea that has sustained through much of contemporary scholarship. Arquilla and Ronfeldt predicted the rise of narrative battles in a coming revolution of diplomacy, especially essential to battles of information and netwars[7]. In the context of soft power, Joseph Nye stated that “success is not merely the result of whose army wins, but also whose story wins”[8]. Uniquely, in her paper Reassessing “Whose Story Wins”: The Trajectory of Identity Resilience in Narrative Contest, Zaharna elucidates the distinction between identity and image, to present a counter perspective to public diplomacy’s mantra of whose story wins[9].
All things considered, a stride for public diplomacy would be to dissolve the assertion that one party wins. Aptly stated by Nick Cull of USC’s Center on Public Diplomacy “winning and relationships do not go together. Seeking to win your relationships is an excellent definition of a sociopath…the point is not to advance the independence on one country…but to build an awareness of our mutual interdependence in an interconnected world, and to work for a common good”. Similarly, and from a realm decidedly outside of public diplomacy, author Ethan Nichtern describes the act of relating to another person as the act of relinquishing your own expertise. While an expert is just one person, a relationship requires two or more subjective ties meeting[10].
To an extent then, to listen means to abandon – not only the mission to win, but also your expertise and the stories and assumptions you keep on reserve. The abandonment of what may seem inherent or intuitive (e.g. to strike back when someone strikes first; to deliver a rehearsed response; to manage your reputation through strategic speech) could lead to productive advancements in relationship cultivation. Listening, the act with which public diplomacy should begin,[11] may help publics inhabit a space more conducive to opportunities for education and meaningful engagement. In this space, nations will preserve their identities but will no longer sit at the center of discourse; instead, it will be social movements and ideas. Echoing the ideals of Castells’ New Public Sphere, individuals will recognize the universality of humanity’s most dire social and economic obstacles and harness the collective strength of the global civil society to overcome them.
Ritual Communication
One contribution to help reach this state is through the deliberate absorption of ritual communication into the vernacular of public diplomacy. In Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society (1989), James Carey presents the concept of ritual communication: an “archaic” perspective with precepts anchored in “sharing, participation, association, and fellowship.”[12] As an alternative to the dominant transmission view of communication, in which the purpose is to “spread, transmit and disseminate knowledge, ideas, and information farther and faster with the goal of controlling space and people”, the ritual view is directed toward “the maintenance of society in time…and the representation of shared beliefs.” He likens the experience to attending mass, a situation in which a particular view of the world is portrayed and confirmed through the possession of a common faith in a sacred ceremony that draws persons together in fellowship and commonality.
Unsurprisingly, in Vienna, it was through ritual that relationship formed. The panel discussions were enlightening and constructive, but the in-between, unplanned interactions proved fruitful in a more binding way. When conversations were not meant to be won but rather participated in (over dinner, during coffee breaks, on bus rides to and from events) vulnerability surfaced and connections started to form. Accordingly, when I reflect fondly on the experience – of a reputable seminar in a beautiful European city with a small group of impressive leaders from around the world – the most vibrant memory is not tied to a debate about combating fake news but to our closing dinner at a beautiful winery where we joyously shared food, wine, and stories.
And what would happen if nations treated ritual communication with as much attention as the act of transmitting information? If relations between nations were predicated on experiences of ritual before experiences of transmission?
Final Thoughts
Finally, does public diplomacy face a moment of transformation? At a macro level, the answer may be “no” – perhaps the sociopolitical trials we face are not necessarily new, we merely have the tendency to view them as such; to conceive of the current state as distant from history with problems more pressing and dire. But at the micro level, we may be at a precipice; a moment that requires transformation at the individual and local level. With changes in systems of communication, media networks, and global relationships, the field of public diplomacy may benefit from the recognition of a call for intrapersonal paradigm shifts that dismantle our beliefs around best practices and demarcation – between groups, between states, between nations.
Countless scholars are actively responding to this call. Faced with the recognition that non-state actors conduct and benefit from public diplomacy[13], the imminent realization of a new global public sphere, and questions about how to integrate new digital technologies into their efforts, researchers keenly engage with the obstructions that underlie the “new” public diplomacy. So while the work is underway, I continue to contemplate how we can integrate new strategies and ideas into this changing field. My reflections here – while certainly unbaked – are an attempt to contribute to this work, suggesting that the field of PD may benefit from: 1) considering the changing nature of the process of externalization, between individuals and nations; 2) prioritizing the act of listening and the abandonment of expertise, 3) prioritizing unique experiences of ritual communication over transmission.
Works Cited
[1] Rhonda Zaharna, “Synopsis,” in Globalizing Public Diplomacy: Three Communication Logics for a Digitally Connected & Culturally Diverse World (Forthcoming), 2017; Kathy Fitzpatrick, Jami Fullerton, and Alice Kendrick, “Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual and Practical Connections,” Public Relations Journal 7, no. 4 (2013).
[2] Henry Jenkins and Mark Deuze, “Editorial: Convergence Culture,” The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 14, no. 1 (2008): 5–12.
[3] Zaharna, “Synopsis.”
[4] Alex Gerdau, “Making a Game Larger Than Life,” New York Times, April 6, 2014, https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/making-a-game-larger-than-life/.
[5] John Powers, “Shared Studios’ Portal Project Aims to Bridge International Divides with Face-to-Face Interaction,” The Diamondback, November 9, 2016, http://www.dbknews.com/2016/11/09/shared-studios-portal-project-the-clarice/; Chris Milk, “How Virtual Reality Can Create the Ultimate Empathy Machine,” March 2015; Oz Sultan, “Pokemon Go Is Bringing Blacks, Whites, And Police Officers Together,” Independent Journal Review (blog), 2016.
[6] “Listen,” Merriam-Webster, 2018.
[7] Rhonda Zaharna, “Reassessing ‘Whose Story Wins’: The Trajectory of Identity Resilience in Narrative Contests,” International Journal of Communication 10 (2016): 1–31.
[8] Joseph S. Nye Jr., “The Information Revolution and Soft Power,” Current History 113, no. 759 (January 2014): 19–22.
[9] Zaharna, “Reassessing ‘Whose Story Wins’: The Trajectory of Identity Resilience in Narrative Contests.”
[10] Ethan Nichtern, The Dharma of the Princess Bride: What the Coolest Fairy Tale of Our Time Can Teach Us About Buddhism and Relationships (North Point Press, 2017).
[11] “Public Diplomacy Explained: What It Means and Why It Matters,” n.d.,
[12] James W. Carey, “A Cultural Approach to Communication,” in Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society, 1989.
[13] Fitzpatrick, Fullerton, and Kendrick, “Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual and Practical Connections.”