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.

THE CASE FOR CULTURE
JAN 19, 2009 - 10:18AM PST
Posted by John Worne
All posts by this author

As Hillary Clinton said last week, "America cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the world cannot solve them without America. "We must use what has been called 'smart power,' the full range of tools at our disposal," she said, embracing diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural strategies. In a poll commissioned by the British Council which we published last week, we found that nearly two-thirds of Americans were worried about the U.S.’s standing abroad, over 8 out of 10 thought it was important for the U.S. to build better relationships with other countries and 79% said that improving the country’s reputation and understanding abroad should be a major priority for the new government. Cultural and religious intolerance was voted the main cause of conflict and instability in the world. So it was great to hear Hillary Clinton acknowledging the valuable role of culture in the new Obama Administration’s approach to international relations. Can she and he take it a little further? I think they need to. My first concern is framing. As I have written before , the tool might be the same, but the way it is presented can really limit its effectiveness. The words culture and power – however smart – sit uneasily together. Why? Let’s start by unpacking the word ‘culture’. A quick look at dictionary.com indicates three elements, all of which are important for culture as an international relations intervention: 1. that which is excellent in the arts. 2. development of the mind by education or training. 3. the behaviours and beliefs characteristic of a particular group The notion of power sits uncomfortably with all three elements – at least in the eyes of the recipient. How ‘smart’ is overpowering my cultural icons and traditions, re-educating my mind, imposing beliefs and sanctioning my behaviours? Even if that is absolutely not the intent, given the current level of trust in the U.S.A in many parts of the world (only 34% approve of U.S. leadership worldwide in a recent Gallup poll) these will be spoken and unspoken fears. So I would urge some separation between the ‘power’ and the ‘culture’. I have blogged on the three postures of cultural relations – ‘helping’, ‘sharing’ and ‘boasting’. They sit within the international relations spectrum between the other main elements of ‘giving’ (aid) and ‘shouting’ and ‘fighting’ (messaging, economic and military coercion). Cultural diplomacy, framed to exert power, risks feeling like cultural imperialism – or aggressive boasting. During the cold war, proxies from the space race to Olympic gold medals were about demonstrating the virility of a system – and touring arts, education and culture exchange were often primarily competitive not cooperative endeavours. A lot has changed, but the new powers of India and China, as well as the older ones in Russia and Europe, want to be recognised as cultural equals. The answer lies in a posture of ‘sharing’ not simply boasting or ‘projecting’ culture. I would also urge that all three of the aspects…... FULL TEXT
 
Read Comments (0) | Add Your Own

Read Comments:

No comments for this entry.

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.