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.

SOFT POWER AND THE OPEN-SOURCE ETHICS OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 2.0
JAN 7, 2009 - 10:47AM PST
Posted by Craig Hayden
All posts by this author

Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy James Glassman gave a comprehensive overview of his vision for the next phase of United States public diplomacy during his talk in early December at the New America Foundation. The subject of the talk was "Public Diplomacy 2.0", while host Steve Clemons of the Washington Note suggested "Facebook/Twitter diplomacy" as a more appropriate title. Glassman provides some clear distinctions about how Public Diplomacy 2.0 is distinguished from previous efforts to provide a "strategy" of public diplomacy. Granted, some of his points have been made in prior engagements by Undersecretary Glassman, and in the rollout of such initiatives like "Briefing 2.0". Yet this speech articulates an obvious re-imagining of public diplomacy strategy – something akin to a policy compass that was hard to discern in the spate of whitepapers and reports on PD in the past seven years. The two developments appear to be: 1) New Goals for PD: the reduction of violent extremism by offering alternatives to terrorism for at-risk populations around the world; and, 2) New Priorities for PD Methods: the emphasis on providing public forums, and convening opportunities for citizens to connect and realize alternatives to extremism. Glassman described PD 2.0 as a form of "indirection". It’s not entirely surprising since the U.S. has suffered from a "toxic brand" for some time. If the "messenger" (the U.S. and its unpopular policies) speaks louder than the message (what the U.S. tries to elaborate in its advocacy), then U.S. PD is doomed to fall flat. In contrast, PD 2.0 provides a basis for programs that bring people together to talk, criticize, and debate. It proceeds from the tacit assumption that it is insufficient in this globally mediated environment, and more likely counter-productive for governments to directly speak to publics. Rather, PD 2.0 connects people to people. So how does PD 2.0 meet the needs of the United States, let alone any nation-state? Ali Fisher lays out the case for an "open source" public diplomacy in his recent article in the Hague Journal of Diplomacy . Fisher acknowledges that the global communication infrastructure – the available information & communication technology and how it is used in daily life – is increasingly defined by participation in social networks. The clunky monologues of corporations and states are obviously not a product of the communities we participate in online – where the transparent nature of our connectivity and communicative contributions lend credibility. Fisher draws heavily on Eric Steven Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar, a history of the rise of the open-source movement in the development of the Linux operating system, as an ideal model for public diplomacy approaches. Fisher's argument is compelling. First, he rightly argues that large, pluralistic nation-states, like the United States, cannot hope to manage a unitary message in an complex global media environment. Second, he identifies the potential of an invitational approach to organizing public diplomacy – where multiple groups with "overlapping" agendas might contribute to rather than "receive" the objectives of a…... FULL TEXT
 
Read Comments (1) | Add Your Own

Read Comments:

Max Stewart on March 9, 2009 @ 12:21 pm:
As a Gen Y'r and Director of a Public Diplomacy program in Central Florida, (ICCF-IVLP)www.iccfvip.com. I have become very familiar with the US Department of State's new initiatives into PD 2.0. I recently spoke at a conference with one of the web developers of the Exchanges.gov. We came to the conclusion that though PD 2.0 has it's shortcomings the long term effects are better in general than those of the past.

First, I think that this will to those who are interested be a welcoming way to share idea's on the basic level. If you ever have a chance to visit the site they have a simple login and no data storage of sensitive information; age, gender, etc. But we did see where the government sponsorship was enough to hinder some people from using or even viewing the site past the front page.

Second, I think anyone who is interested in visiting any country should be knowledgeable of that countries social networks and structure. I find it interesting to learn about small social quirks that happen through dialogue and conversation on social networking sites.

Craig, you are exactly right that even though this is not a prescribed function of government and PD, this is a new and progressive branch that needs to be understood with few restrictions and roadblocks and let the "open-source" create the templates for networking.

Add a Comment:

Your Name:
Your Email:
Comment:
Please enter the word you see in the image below:

NOTE: Comments are moderated by CPD and will typically be posted if they are relevant and respectful.