The main purpose of this blog is to invite people to contribute to this idea, put forward by Tamir Sheafer and Shaul Shenhav in “Mediated Public Diplomacy in a New Era of Warfare”, who argue that public diplomacy instead of creating a positive image of a state, public diplomacy results in delineation of states as a consequence of cultural proximity.
The main emphasis is upon the centrality of cultural resonance in mediated public diplomacy. It is argued that the success of public diplomacy depends on the cultural resonance, simply because: “the greater the cultural resonance is between two countries, the more a government will successfully “push” its frames into the second country’s media, and the better that country’s image is among the second country’s public”(2009: p276). Similar to the basic communication patterns between people of the same background or cultural beliefs, who find it easier and more comfortable while interacting, whereas people with different cultural beliefs find it a lot more difficult to find a common ground with each other.
Thereby, the main argument is that:
While the main assumption behind the theoretical writings on public diplomacy is that states search for positive resonance with other states, we wish to suggest that in real-life public diplomacy, exactly the opposite goal is sometimes undertaken, and states seem to “move away” from other states rather than bringing them closer. In these cases governments apply public diplomacy to draw lines and borders by positive and negative discourse, to ratify and redefine collective communities in the international arena. P-279.
The implication is that these are some of the side effects of public diplomacy, since instead of bringing the states together into cooperation; it rather alienates them from each other.
This is suggested to be a major consideration upon the current struggle with the “war on terror”, as they argue that little research or “there are very few studies that actually evaluate its effects…”, which is indeed “surprising” given the “identity-oriented political violence” (2009:p276).
Consequently, it could be implied, that there is a major difference between public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy, which suggests that these two should be approached differently and yet coherently, as they go alongside each other.
Sheafer, T. and Shenhav S. (2009) “Mediated Public Diplomacy in a New Era of Warfare” The Communication Review, 12:272-283.
Leyla,
ReplyDeleteI think that the problem with the ‘war on terror’ and Public diplomacy for instance in the case of the United States is that American foreign policy does not go with their ‘soft power’ proliferation around the world. The U. S. is fighting terrorists with the ‘hard’ power and on the other hand creating American dream by its Cultural diplomacy. Moreover the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and current events in the Middle East create more hostilities towards America. Therefore Public and Cultural Diplomacy, which complies with foreign and domestic policies, should be at the center of the American government’s policy.
Public and Cultural Diplomacy tend to work in the long run rather than short term. Two go hand in hand and to be successful it requires listening to the audiences a country wants to influence.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is first of all necessary to start up by listening to the audiences that one is attempting to influence, as it is only through understanding the opposite side can one then route their actions according to their own interests. However, it is interesting how the cultural dimension is very little researched or taken into consideration, even though it is acknowledged that the cultural proximity may play a very important role in addressing the issue of global terrorism for example.
Thank you for the comment.