Soft vs. Social Power

While soft and social power are both getting at a similar idea of furthering an agenda through non-coercive means (which Peter van Ham defines as without the use or threat of military force) the terms themselves carry slightly different implications. It seems that social power is more useful as it can stand on its own, and not in opposition to “hard” power. As hard and soft are so directly related as antonyms, it suggests a dichotomy that is not the case in diplomatic practice. In fact, it is often important for hard and soft, or social, power to work together and complement each other to strengthen an actor’s overall mission. For example, a country’s use of soft power through a good reputation and credibility can provide legitimacy to their military intervention. In addition, the use of the word “soft” in this context is so broad that it loses all substantive meaning and exists only to differentiate an action from that which would be considered “hard” power.

Furthermore, I think that using the term “social” power draws on two particular connotations which are relevant to this discussion. The first that is worth mentioning here is that related to human welfare. Social power is more likely to utilize and find value in intangible resources such as social networks, respect, authenticity, and knowledge. This focus on community and legitimacy is not just applicable to foreign policy-makers, but agents of change in development, as well. However, the term “social power” is obviously not limited to this function. The second and more important connotation in “social” is the emphasis on interactions with others and communication. This aspect of the concept is also reflected in Nye’s “relational power” and Slaughter’s “collaborative power.” The reliance on the cooperation of many players is indicated more clearly in these terms. It can also refer to the control of interactions, communications, and the framing of situations that are such a large and integral part of this kind of power. Broad and yet precise, “social power” is a far more effective term than “soft power.”

Social Media in Public Diplomacy

How do you think social media can be used (or not) for the three types of PD identified by Cowan and Arsenault?

As Cowan and Arsenault describe, “each of the three ‘layers’ of public diplomacy—monologue, dialogue, and collaboration—is essential at certain times and under certain situations. Nothing can match the poetry, clarity, emotional power, and memorability of a beautifully crafted speech or proclamation. Nothing helps build mutual understanding as well as a thoughtful dialogue. And nothing creates a sense of trust and mutual respect as fully as a meaningful collaboration” (p.11).  What’s interesting to me when thinking about these layers is that social media tools can be utilized for all three levels to effectively complement each other, reaching a wider audience and spreading cross-cultural communication in ways that evolve by the moment.

Monologue is perhaps least compatible with the spirit of social media, but this one-way, self-contained communication outlet could still be achieved through, for instance, a blog post with the option for commenting disabled.  In contrast, dialogue (encouraging the participation in the exchange of ideas and information) can be easily facilitated by allowing for free-flowing commentary on that blog post (with opportunity for the author to clarify and respond to readers), as well as through tools like Twitter or open online discussion forums.  Collaboration (the “third layer”) refers to initiatives and outreach campaigns that feature an effort by citizens of different countries to complete a common project or achieve a common goal.  Collaboration serves public diplomacy by promoting the building of trust and social capital, which are key elements that build cross-cultural understanding. 

Though monologue and dialogue are not in opposition to each other, social media can play an incredible part in turning monologue into dialogue.  Though it’s impossible to control what Cowan and Arsenault refer to as incendiary dialogue, “by expanding the range of voices and opinions that flow across borders, governments may help to contain negative opinion of state governments while retaining positive perceptions of the nation as a whole” (15).  Voice of America multi-lingual programming successfully shifted from monologue to dialogue with the use of technology, starting back in 1994.   The “live” nature of social media could be seen during the events of the Arab spring and reports of the uprising spreading through Egypt through young people’s Twitter postings – truly a beautiful example of the power of the ease of intercultural communication through social media.

Each of these layers of public diplomacy described are heavily contingent on the needs of the moment, the characteristics of the communicator and the target audience, and the conditions of their interactions: to me, the beauty of social media as a tool of PD is the flexibility and ability to adapt to and represent the current moment and reach across international audiences. Cowan and Arsenault say that “communication formulated by a president has different implications than one issued by a media celebrity or social advocate, and people from different backgrounds, different governmental systems, and different religions receive it differently;” (p.12) the power of social media is that ostensibly, an average college student has the capability to have their voice and views reach a comparable audience to that of the President of the United States.  In the spirit of collaboration, including these new voices can be an incredibly powerful tool in spreading diplomacy.

Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: Where Does Social Media Fit In?

In Cowan and Arsenault's 2008 article, Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy, it is argued that all three methods of communication mentioned in the title are necessary in effectively reaching the people of other nations. With the rise of websites such as Facebook and Twitter, public diplomacy practitioners are increasingly moving their initiatives to the social media arena. But does it always work?

Monologue 

By definition, social media is not meant for monologue. The ability to comment and to voice one’s opinion on a subject is what makes websites likes Twitter and Facebook so popular and interesting to millions of users. In this way, it is more difficult to control how a message will be received and understood by an audience that can be as diverse and spread out as anyone with internet access. This lack of control can unnerve those who might be more accustomed to “older” forms of public diplomacy, but I don’t think it needs to, if we approach it with the right expectations. Public diplomacy initiatives must have a space in social media, because that is where populations in 2012 are effectively congregating, but the way that these populations are addressed needs to change to fit the method of communication. 

Dialogue 

Social media is used much more comfortably when managed as a dialogue with the anticipation of a response. For example, because social media allows others to respond instantly, it can hold public diplomacy practitioners to higher levels of accountability. Transparency becomes even more important when there is less control over the message. However, as is true of any dialogue, it’s not always positive or productive, but if communicators believe in the entity they represent, it gives them the greatest ability to connect confidently and honestly with the public. It’s also important to recognize that in many cases, for every negative remark, there will also be a supporter waiting to defend and champion your cause.

Collaboration 

Perhaps most interestingly, public diplomacy initiatives have found ways to incorporate social media into collaborative efforts between nations. In Fall 2007, an initiative funded by the State Department brought American University students in the School of International Service in Washington, D.C. into contact with students studying at the Modern College of Business and Science in Oman and the University of Bahrain. In this online course co-taught by Prof. Alexandra Parrs and Prof. Bram Groen, the students were required to work together across cultures and time zones. The students used facebook, email, and skype to complete the assigned projects and communicate about their research. While they certainly encountered challenges related to cross-cultural communication, as well as a few struggles with the technological aspects of the course, it seemed to be a good experience that will prepare them well for their future professional endeavors. The professors agree that this type of partnership is growing and the students seem to have benefitted from building academic relationships with those in a vastly different culture. It is their hope that associations such as this one continue to expand and receive state and institutional support. (For more on this particular project:  http://www.american.edu/sis/imi/imq/upload/GroenParrsIMQFall2010.pdf)

Diplomats will evolve...but will survive!

“No government could survive without champagne. Champagne in the throats of our diplomatic people is like oil in the wheels of an engine.” (Joseph Dargent, 1953)

I must start with a caveat. I am myself a diplomat. And I do not consider myself as a dillettante. In commenting Kelley's excellent article on the challenges of diplomacy today, I must say that most people still has in mind the stereotype of the diplomat as a classy man with refined manners, a  bon vivant who speaks French perfectly in nice ballrooms where champagne and caviar is equally enjoyed by Ambassadors and beautiful mysterious women - most of them spies. I certainly had the dream of being at least once in one of such reunions. But that diplomacy has - fortunately? - almost disappeared. What a pity!

Those nice old times...

Diplomacy certainly has evolved in the last years and I am sure that will continue doing so. And it is not only the existence of new actors and new ICTS and social media. As Kelley suggests, the State itself has evolved and today many issues that were considered as clear attribution of its power has diluted into a new world where TNCs and NGOs have a say in those issues. This has created a radical change in the way to make diplomacy and probably this is what Kelley does not explain in depth. Within the State there are many new agencies, ministries, and institutions that did not exist many years ago in charge of problems that did not exist many years ago. States have sometimes lost its overall power on every single issue but at the same time have evolved into a complex machinery with many inter-related actions to operate. This has challenged diplomacy since most of these new issues have also become global. This is what I perceive as a first challenge in the evolution for Diplomacy. "New" issues relate to trade, environment, health, labour, etc. Diplomats now share responsibility for negotiating a whole set of new issues with experts of other agencies. This is a first crisis. 


Only as a second step comes what Kelley identifies as new actors and new media. And I concur that the state is ceding ground to non-state actors - although I have some doubts about the real value of celebrities' diplomacy and popularizing the term "Ambassador"- and I certainly believe that the five features that he identifies for the future of diplomacy are already on the minds of every "new" diplomat, being part of the diplomatic service or part of another interest. But as Kelley also states, "transition are a fixture of modern diplomacy." Diplomats are already aware that in a world where almost everyone has access to the same information at the same time and can also express ideas at the same time, their "expertise" must be sufficiently real for them to be heard. 


I believe new generations of diplomats are already thinking in the new role of Diplomacy in the XXI century. As Kelley explores, this is specially true for Public Diplomacy, that has regained importance. New diplomats are using already new technologies to communicate. I believe, as a "Peruvian" diplomat, that our challenge is to find ways in which these technologies can also serve "our" national interests - such as connecting our diaspora, expressing our ideas or promoting our country. But for us the challenge is also to understand that these technologies are value-neutral (Alec Ross commented this in a recent remark) and that if Diplomats will survive is because they are still relevant. 


I believe that unless a dramatic transformation on the nation-state occurs, diplomats will still be relevant, certainly sharing a space with other "new" diplomats. Nevertheless, I think at this moment all diplomats - being those officials or "new" diplomats - are still struggling with realizing the real role anyone can play in the international arena and what their behavior should be. And in this world of doubts, at least "official" diplomats have the certainty of what interests we are pursuing. So, to end with relief, I can just quote Gloria Gaynor: I will (hopefully) survive.   

Propaganda or Public Diplomacy?

How does Black's extensive exploration of propaganda help us understand its distinction - if any - from public diplomacy?

Looking at the six key characteristics of propaganda techniques that Black outlines, the very first one listed (“heavy or undue reliance on authority figures and spokespersons, rather than empirical validation, to establish its truths, conclusions, or impressions”) is in some ways quite similar to Public Diplomacy in a practical sense.  In many applications, we tend to be very reliant on a singular representation to mass influence opinion.  For instance, through a program like IVLP (the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program), often one person or one group of people will help to inform their host community’s views about their visitor’s nation.  Similarly, images in the media, such as the fame of a certain pop music star, can also influence the international arena’s view of that personality’s nation, unfairly or not, and whether or not the star’s countrymen like or agree with this representation of themselves.  

However, further down the list of propaganda techniques, true differences between propaganda and public diplomacy are apparent.  Engagement with a foreign public through Public Diplomacy can easily avoid propaganda’s characteristic “reduction of situations into simplistic and readily identifiable cause and effect relations, ignoring multiple causality of events,” and most certainly is in opposition to placing “a greater emphasis on conflict than on cooperation among people, institutions, and situations.”  One of the core goals of PD could be seen as the cooperation among institutions through international communication, and with that, an increase in cross-cultural understanding.

Black also discusses the semantics of propaganda and concepts for what he calls “sophisticated (sane) language behavior.” Included in this is an awareness that people will view the world differently, as well as the awareness that not every idea must be true or false nor every behavior right or wrong.   These behaviors are keys to Public Diplomacy as well, which aims to promote foreign policy through engagement of foreign publics.

Jay Black makes several interesting points in his discussion about the history of the concept of propaganda that point to another key difference between it and public diplomacy on a semantic level. Spearheaded in the 1600’s Roman Catholic Church, the aim of propaganda was to “spread ideas that would not occur naturally, but only via a cultivated or artificial generation.”  By the 1800’s, the term shifted and became value-laden, and ethically immoral.  This semantic value is distinct from the value associated with the concept of Public Diplomacy, which, overall, lacks a strong negative public connotation.   From my perspective, even the term “diplomacy” itself brings to mind an image of calm, fair negotiation-but perhaps as we continue with our readings and course materials I will change this opinion!

One last interesting idea Black presents (from Ellul, 1965) that is especially thought provoking is the view that people need media to provide “predigested views because they can’t experience all of life firsthand.”  Do people need to be propagandized?  

Is there a "New" Public Diplomacy?

I believe that Public Diplomacy has evolved in recent years basically in terms of tools, through new ICTs. As Gilboa, Melissen and Cull try to explain, there has been a change in Public Diplomacy, but I think that change can be found also in the change that Diplomacy has suffered in the last fifty or sixty years. Traditional or Old Diplomacy has been evolving because the international arena has turned into a "polyteral" world, with a multiplicity of actors and voices different than State actors. This has been more evident in recent years with States dealing and even negotiating with NGOs and transnational corporations, media, etc. but has accelerated because of the fast speed of technological change, especially the Internet, social media and new platforms and tools - what many call Digital Diplomacy or Diplomacy 2.0-. Public Diplomacy - the ability to reach broader audiences around the world different that the classic State actor and its official representatives -, has become more relevant but if a recent progress must be identified I would tend to associate it with the technological progress rather that with new diplomatic objectives or goals.

In this regard, Diplomacy itself is suffering an identity crisis in which diplomats - that had to inform about other countries gaining a perspective that only could be obtained "on the field" - have many competitors in an ultra-connected globalized world where almost everyone can dispatch information from everywhere in real time. This has not changed the traditional way of making diplomacy but I believe has brought many difficulties and new challenges to this old métier. Thus, citizens are also reporting and informing in a better and more efficient manner than diplomats, thanks to the better utilization of new tools. I personally found Cull's comparison between Old and New Public Diplomacy (figure 1) extremely useful, although more under a theoretical than a practical approach since diplomats are still doing basically what they have been always doing, as some stereotypes of the Diplomat as a bon vivant spy still survives.

What Diplomacy is about

Coda: Although it is related to another question, I have doubts about a real difference between Propaganda and PD. Propaganda earned a bad name as Black explains, but I believe only through examples we will be able to understand why is so. Nowadays, there is an extraordinary exhibition at the Holocaust Memorial Museum on Nazi Propaganda. I was able to go and I would recommend everyone to visit it in order to understand better what Propaganda - maybe an old banned name for PD - is.

Nazi Propaganda