|
 |
Main Page | Month Archive | Email Updates | RSS Feed | Print Version
The Public Diplomacy Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars, researchers, practitioners and professionals from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.
PD’S MOST FORMIDABLE ADVERSARY: THE SAY-DO GAP
JUN 16, 2009 - 9:08AM PDT
Posted by Daryl Copeland
All posts by this author
Notwithstanding its many virtues, there are all kinds of possible pitfalls associated with public diplomacy. For starters, PD is done mainly, though not exclusively, by diplomats. Diplomats work for states. States have interests. So when your friendly emissary wants to enjoin you in conversation, it is more likely to be directed rather than free-form. It is almost certain that he or she will be looking for something — a pearl of insight, a gem of intelligence, support for a policy or politician ... something. And that is just one of the many paradoxes which separate the theory of public diplomacy, characterized by openness and meaningful two-way exchange, from its practice, which has a tendency to be predicated on the need to transmit rather more often than the need to receive. Among many possible hazards, however, a demonstrated loss of national credibility is perhaps the most deadly. With the record of the Bush administration fresh in mind, I have been watching the first six months of the Obama administration's PD performance with a mixture of admiration and trepidation. In Cairo, Ankara, Jakarta and elsewhere, the substantial signals have typically been less important than the carefully choreographed style. I am not particularly alarmed, as are some, that the term "public diplomacy" is so little used by the current administration, or that alternatives, such as "engagement" seem to be preferred. I don't think that it matters much what you call PD, as long as you are doing it. I am slightly more worried that it took so long to propose a new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy — Judith McHale, former president of Discovery Communications — to replace James Glassman, who had been out of office for months. McHale's confirmation came through on May 26. It does not appear to have been a high priority, and there may be something in that. I have greater reservations, however, about "Smart Power" and recently tried to set some of these concerns out. My concern here is that whenever PD is removed from the realm of political communications and placed or framed in the context of any kind of power — soft, hard, smart, whatever — it immediately becomes instrumental, a tool used to have your way with others. McHale's opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did not attract a lot of attention, but I think it deserves a closer look. She set out six core PD principles, which might be paraphrased as follows: 1. Integration into the policy process 2. Strategic planning and execution 3. Adequate resources 4. Risk tolerance 5. Emphasis on new media 6. Public-private partnerships This list is fine as far as it goes. But that, I believe, is not far enough. PD, I think, should be about more than the perfection of bureaucratic process. In McHale's remarks I was looking for a vision for the restoration of America's image and reputation in the world. That, in my view, is job No. 1. It was not there. But the articulation…... FULL TEXT
Read Comments (3) | Add Your Own
 Read Comments:
Donna Oglesby, PDC on June 18, 2009 @ 12:04 pm:
Bruce gave me a heads-up on your book months ago and I look forward to its publication. Apparently, that has been delayed if the message I just received from Amazon is correct. While I am waiting to read the book, I wonder if you could clarify the following. You say, "My concern here is that whenever PD is removed from the realm of political communications and placed or framed in the context of any kind of power — soft, hard, smart, whatever — it immediately becomes instrumental, a tool used to have your way with others." Political communication certainly reflects on power in an equation whether Entman's cascade theory or Bennett's index theory or a host of other theoretical explanations of how political communication works that come to mind. The political actor is communicating to "have his way with others" even if the communication process is iterative and a feedback loop operates to modify the original political communication or limit its effect. The communication is instrumental that is why it is political. The same would be true of human rights NGOs "Marketing Morality" as Clifford Bob would have it. The APSA definition of political communication as a field of study is "the creation, shaping, dissemination, processing and effects of information within the political system-both domestic and international - whether by governments, other institutions, groups or individuals." So, I don't get it. I am not a particular fan of "soft power" or "smart power" formulations but surely putting public diplomacy in those contexts does not "remove it from the realm of political communication." Political communication does not assume equality any more than it assumes social rather than purposive intent. Perhaps you mean something else and I will need to read the book which I am told to expect in July.
Daryl Copeland on June 18, 2009 @ 2:36 pm:
Thanks, Donna for the thoughtful comment.
I think that the issues which arise from the interplay of PD and power are tough, and have not received the attention they deserve. Moreover, like so much else in PD, I don't really have a pat response to your observations, except to say that I would welcome the opportunity to have a longer discussion, preferably in person.
Until that happens, though, I'd re-iterate my conviction that PD practitioners must be wary of the "say-do gap". Communications will never trump policy or practice. If credibility is to be demonstrated, then words and deeds must at some point align. And properly functioning PD can help achieve that crucial degree of coherence.
In that respect, PD works best, at least in my view, when the exchange is not pre-fabricated, and when the outcomes at either end are unscripted.
None of that means that genuine dialogue cannot take place within the bounds of political communication. It does, however, suggest that whenever the elements of national or interpersonal power, or of asymmetric relations more generically, come to inform or dominate the conversation, PD is unlikely to be able to deliver on its full promise.
Donna Oglesby, PDC on June 19, 2009 @ 7:40 am:
Daryl,
Thanks so much for your prompt response. I do look forward to meeting you and having that long discussion some day. Perhaps you will come to Boston to promote your book and I will be enticed to cross the Cape Cod Canal.
Of course, you are right that there should be no daylight between what a political actor says and what the actor does. There is no difference in our views there. I am still confused by your definition of political communication and whether PD is or is not and should or should not be situated in that realm.
I suspect that your views may be informed by German theories of communicative action and you incline toward a conception of PD that we might call an effort to generate a process of global "deliberative democracy." The dialogue PD generates would be understood to be a rational discussion among equals who listen, speak and decide [whatever] together behind a "veil of ignorance" as Rawls would have it.
I certainly think that is part of what PD is and should be today. State's efforts to keep Twitter up and running over the last few days of political upheaval in Iran is an example of supporting the technological means facilitating civic conversation without obviously aligning with an particular outcome as the Iranian people work through their political differences.
But, surely the Iranians are not "deliberating." They are engaged in hard politics that include power inequalities and efforts to organize and mobilize more people than the other side to get leverage in negotiation and bargaining. The sides do have passion, and agenda and differences that may not be reconcilable.
I suspect the Obama administration, and perhaps the Canadian government, also have outcome preferences in the Iranian upheaval but have calculated they would not be served by offering loud statements of support that could boom-a-rang and undercut whatever democratic advances are possible. One way of avoiding a "say-do-gap" is to know when to be quiet. Obama knows that an American President is a lousy messenger in this case given our history with Iran. Finding indirect ways to communicate support for democracy is still PD and it is still political communication and it is not indifferent to outcome. It is, however a recognition of limits and social complexity.
Thank you for launching the discussion. I agree we need to think harder about power and politics; and passion, for that matter. I look forward to reading Guerilla Diplomacy and being better informed by your views.
Add a Comment:
 |
|
|
SEND TO FRIENDS
