Battle Royale: Definitions vs. Typologies

Scholars and practitioners have wrestled long and hard to come up with a precise and unanimous definition of “public diplomacy.” At the heart of the debate is the question of how to define a concept that covers such a wide range of activities – listening, advocacy, cultural relations and exchanges, international broadcasting, etc. (the list can go on and on)? While some people are beating their heads against the wall to create an explicit definition, others are looking to replace PD with other terms, such as “strategic communication” for instance. However, I think that a vague term like “strategic communication” lacks the vital connection to diplomacy and the international dimensions of how countries try to influence relations with foreign publics.   

Rather than persisting in this definitional purgatory, Robin Brown accepts the idea that “public diplomacy” is innately an umbrella term, and she proposes the following four typologies by which to classify different public diplomacy strategies:

• Extension of Diplomacy – PD is integrated with the other diplomacy operations of foreign ministries, especially in the press or news offices that engage with the media.
• National Projection – PD sets out to “compete” in the international system by creating a favorable image of a country through nation branding.
• Cultural Relations – PD, as a long-term process, works to overcome cultural barriers and to cultivate mutual understanding and genuine mutuality.
• Political Warfare – PD is a tool to defeat an ideological opponent or to spread a particular set of political values.

Instead of focusing solely on the means of communication, these typologies are differentiated by the purposes of PD activities. So this framework accounts for exchange programs that may be organized for cultural relations, political warfare, or broadcasting purposes.

Brown’s typologies are valuable because they are conducive for cross-national comparisons. She gives us a language with which to analyze where national positions fall along the public diplomacy spectrum and how these positions manifest themselves in organizational structures or field operations. From reading public diplomacy reports and critiques, most arguments over how to do PD or how to fix it can fall under one of the four categories.

Another advantage for adopting a typology framework is that it takes into account how geopolitics, cultural heritage, and institutional configurations affect national PD perspectives. In most countries, there is more than one typology represented and any sort of national PD style emerges from the interplay between them. The key takeaway from Brown’s paradigms is that there is just not one model for public diplomacy and that PD implementation varies across countries and even across time.