Dominique Lopes
SIS-628-02 Applied
Public Diplomacy
Craig Hayden
Craig Hayden
11/15/2012
"What are the
main challenges and opportunities for practitioners of public diplomacy?"
Throughout this semester we have
tried to define what public diplomacy is and what its practitioners are
expected to accomplish. The definitions vary slightly from one another. Public diplomacy can be simply the “communication
with foreign publics for the purpose of achieving a foreign policy objective”
as Wallin defines it, or it can be “national self-advertising” as per Philip
Taylor. However you define public diplomacy does not necessarily matter, what
does are the tools implemented in the process. Today’s practitioners of PD are
faced with changing technologies, intense globalization, and the need to remember
that though the world is changing there is still no substitute for the face to
face conversation.
New social networking platforms
have allowed public diplomacy practitioners to directly contact their public.
By using Facebook, Twitter, and Tumbler PD has come out of the brick and mortar
of yesterday and left the closeted confines of aristocracy. These tools, if
used well, allow PD practitioners to talk to the everyday person, connecting
with them on their level. Social networking platforms, however, can propose a difficulty
among public diplomats who feel that these tools are simply an add-on to speak
at the public. These tools must be used as a way to speak WITH the public.
There are too many twitter feeds and Facebook pages clambering for attention to
risk poor usage of these platforms. We live in a twenty-four hour news feed
with thousands of pieces of information being pushed at us every hour that
practitioners of public diplomacy must learn how to direct their conversation
properly and then go to social media as an outlet, not the other way around.
Intense globalization has occurred in
part because of these social media networks. We can now connect with anyone
around the world in seconds. This also means that everything is up for public
scrutiny. Any miss step by a government or public diplomat can cause a foreign
public to lose confidence in a country. Legitimacy, trust, and integrity are
the most important things in turning a foreign population towards a country’s
foreign policy objectives.
Finally, there is no substitute for
the “last three feet”. Engaging a foreign public directly, looking them in the eyes
as you talk with them not at them has the ability to make all the difference.
Listening and conversing are key. There is a tendency to equate this aspect of
PD with hostessing, or being soft. Well, when boiled down soft diplomacy is a
type of hostessing; making your guest comfortable, listening to them, and
understanding their individual points of view will allow for more effective
policy initiatives.
Dominique, you bring up some great points about the responsibilities of PD practitioners and how they have changed with the advent of new technologies and globalized networks. However, I think that you may be too dismissive of the importance of unified definition of public diplomacy. A big part of a PD practitioner’s job is to explain what exactly the field is to those who may not understand it. They have to “make the case” for public diplomacy – what it does, why it is important, and how it should be implemented.
ReplyDeleteHow we define public diplomacy informs the way in which it is practiced. If we work under Wallin’s definition that public diplomacy is supposed to achieve foreign policy objectives, then practitioners may be more inclined to use PD tools to target and communicate with opinion leaders and foreign elites who hold more social clout and political sway. On the other hand, if we define public diplomacy as Taylor’s “national self-advertising,” then practitioners would likely use PD tools to get the message out to the general public. By developing a clear, all-encompassing definition (perhaps one that blends both of these conceptualizations), practitioners would have a better idea of where they should focus their efforts, which tools they should use, and what their end goal should be.
Hi Dominique – Your point is well taken regarding the definition of public diplomacy. I agree with you that how we define it does not effect the tools available to the PD Officer, or how the programs will be viewed by the intended audience, and I would go one step further to argue that it is conceivable that the intended audience of PD might not even be able to tell the difference between Public Diplomacy and Diplomacy (Foreign Policy).
ReplyDeleteI also thought you brought up an really interesting point about the over-use of social media with regards to too many pages and feeds leading to poor usage. Out of curiosity – would you support something as radical as a “one page one country” type approach or should it be something in between that and what we have now. But I agree with you– the hundreds of pages representing the US government out there seem to create additional unnecessary confusion and create challenges in terms of evaluating exactly to what extent the State Dept.’s use of social media has on public perception of the U.S. I agree that a barrage of social media cannot replace the last three feet, particularly if the social media site is just one of hundreds that PD Officers must monitor and maintain.
You all did an excellent job tying in the varied opinions in the literature. These definitions all have validity in different contexts. After all, “national self-advertising” is itself a way to meet foreign policy objectives. Clarifying PD within Wallin’s definition is my own choice. It sets parameters for what should and should not be PD, but one has to be careful not to allow it to be too shortsighted. There needs to be a long-term view of PD activities when considering the impacts. Otherwise, activities can become too constrained to being overly focused on elites, as Amanda mentions, or being confined to the magical PD dust to be sprinkled on unsavory policies.
ReplyDelete