The advent of many developments in digital communication technology plac-es within border, foreign publics in a unique position to engage in active communication behaviors either for or against their host countries. New con-ceptualizations of public diplomacy have reflected these changes. Terms such
as participation, exchange, and dialogue have entered the conversation about what diplomacy is and what it looks like as “people expect a more interactive and participatory role” (Zaharna, 2005, p. 2; Vickers, 2004). Active commu-nication behavior by the internal, yet foreign, public now travels larger dis-tances faster than ever before and may spread exponentially through “shares,”
“retweets,” and “likes” on a variety of social networks.
Wellman (2002) framed the implications of this digital age by developing the concept of networked individualism. Within the framework of networked individualism, “each person separately operates his networks to obtain infor-mation, collaboration, order, support, sociability, and a sense of belonging”
(Wellman, 2002, p. 16). As such, the individual becomes the portal and is essentially always connected to and has access to create messages of influence and information via cell phones, smartphones, computers, etc. This provides the within border, foreign public with an instant medium and audience for their positive or negative communicative action about their host country, a behavior that can be called megaphoning (Kim & Rhee, 2011). In addition, the people in their networks are essentially wired into receiving the mega-phoning messages when they are sent, provided they have access to some form of digital communication. These received messages can then be shared again through their own networks, creating a chain effect of megaphoning.
Kim and Rhee (2011) introduced the concept of megaphoning as an ap-plication of information forwarding and information sharing, both of which were developed in the communicative action part of the problem solving model (CAPS) (Kim, Grunig, & Ni, 2010) and the situational theory of problem solving (STOPS) (Kim & Grunig, 2011). Originally, megaphoning was conceptualized as a form of employee communication behavior where employees spread positive or negative information about the organization to members of the external publics (Kim & Rhee, 2011). However, it is also possible to extend this role and action to within border foreign publics, if we juxtapose organizations with a government or hosting society and employees with internationals within borders (Kim, 2012). These within border foreign publics have insider experience with the country, its people, and the govern-ment, which makes them more credible to their audiences. In addition, they have external publics (e.g., friends and family in their home country) who are listening to them and perhaps even waiting to hear from them. These combined factors strategically position within border foreigners to be able to execute/create potential activism.
According to the situational theory of problem solving (STOPS), in-dividuals who identify a problem will organize to resolve it provided that they feel involved with the issue, motivated to act, and feel they can do
something about it (Kim & Grunig, 2011; Kim & Krishna, 2014). When these things are true, the public, and the individuals who make up the pub-lic, are likely to engage in communicative action or activism to attempt to solve the problem or correct the issue. These active behaviors could include information forwarding, information seeking, and information forefending (Kim, Grunig, & Ni, 2010). Information forwarding is the active sharing or passing on of information related to the problem or issue. Information seeking is the active searching for information or resources to help with the issue, and information forefending is the active selective attending to and rejecting of different information based on how it fits a set of criteria (e.g.
validity, consistency with beliefs or goals).
It is important here to acknowledge that the availability of digital com-munication technologies has in some ways altered the constraint recogni-tion—perceived obstacles in addressing problematic states—that individuals and publics feel. Kim and Ni (2010) have noted that active publics exploit online communication space because these media allow them to feel more powerful, as well as more empowered to share their thoughts. Also it is criti-cal to highlight that neither communicative action in problem solving (Kim, Grunig, & Ni, 2010) nor the situational theory of problem solving (Kim &
Grunig, 2011) dictates that the issue must be negative (e.g., some publics may arise around a positive issue to secure beneficial consequences from a management decision or policy). Furthermore, the concepts of positive and negative megaphoning are both situational and cross-situational communica-tive actions. This means that they may be situational—increasing for a short time related to a hot issue such as a hostile immigration law—or may be dor-mant or chronic—continuing and reappearing even after the situational moti-vation has declined, such as when a person asks them about their experiences with the country. In the latter case, the way publics view previous experiences with the host country is mediated through their perceived relationship quality (e.g., trust, control mutuality) and type of relationship (i.e., communal vs. ex-change relationship) with the country. These perceived relationships in turn influence the direction (i.e., positive or negative) and the amount of commu-nicative actions the publics take (Kim, 2012). Thus it is possible that activism and megaphoning behavior can take on either a positive or negative tone, as well as potentially becoming a continuous or recurrent behavior that would be strong enough to trigger information flows in communicators’ social net-works. This positions internal, foreign publics as potential advocates or adver-saries for their host country and essentially micro-diplomats or spokespersons to their social networks and members of their home country. Recent work by Yun and Vibber (2012) did find some support for the idea that students
abroad would at least attempt to act as advocates or adversaries on behalf of their host country when communicating with people in their home country.
Impetus for Communicative Activism
The relationship between a foreign public and its host country serves as the impetus for any communicative action they may take for or against the host country. This relationship is twofold and extends beyond the individual or diaspora within the host country to those in their social networks. When reconceptualizing the communicative action of publics, Kim, Grunig, and Ni, (2010) outlined the potential of communicative action to spread from the focal communicant, the one directly involved and high in communicative action, to the peripheral communicants, members of the focal communicant’s network who received the message or megaphoning. In turn, these peripheral communicants with medium levels of communicative action may share these messages with their own networks reaching a still more peripheral communi-cant (Kim, Grunig, & Ni, 2010).
Figure 8.1. Illustration of intercommunication using the communicative action model variables. (reprinted from Kim, Grunig, & Ni, 2010)
Within the context of sociological diplomacy, the first part of this rela-tionship is the direct relarela-tionship between the individual (focal communicant) and the host country. This perceived relationship is based on the direct in-teraction or sociological public diplomacy between the foreigner and people of the host country. It is a behavioral relationship in that it is contextual, sociological, and based on actual interactions (Grunig & Kim, 2011; Kim et al., 2014). The second part of the relationship involves members of the social network (peripheral communicants) of the individual who has a di-rect relationship with the host country. These individuals have an indidi-rect and tangential reputational relationship with the country (Grunig & Kim, 2011; Kim, Hung-Baesecke, Yang, & Grunig, 2013). For example, parents who perceived a positive relationship when choosing to send their children to school in the United States may feel differently if their child is treated unfairly or experiences racism. There may also be individuals who experience both lev-els of the relationship, such as immigrants who left their home country based on a positive reputational relationship with a host country and then experi-enced a behavioral relationship with the people and the country that may or may not confirm the reputational relationship. Either of these situations may influence publics or individuals at the first or second level to engage in com-municative activism. Activism that engages social networks can spread quickly and affect the host country’s soft power. Negative megaphoning and word of mouth may more easily damage soft power because this power essentially relies on the country’s appeal and attractiveness to others through its culture, ideologies, and institutions (Nye, 2004). Stories of others’ negative or posi-tive experiences can more immediately impact others’ views of that country, thus directly impacting the attractiveness of that country to others and in turn the power or influence that country has.
Framing the Relationship: Major Contextual Factors of Perceived Relationships Among Foreign Publics
Work by a variety of scholars has attempted to conceptualize the major sourc-es of soft power that influence the perceived relationships, both behavioral and reputational, that foreign publics have with their host country (Kim &
Ni, 2011; Yun & Kim, 2008; Yun & Toth, 2009; Pratt, 1989). Kim and Ni (2011) summarize the three antecedents of soft power as follows: polit-ical and economic interactions; people-to-people interactions; and cultural interactions. It is important to note that only the first of these functions at an institutional/governmental level. The second construct more immediately impacts the direct or behavioral relationship with a country.
Figure 8.2. Antecedents of soft power: A positive model. (modified from Kim & Ni, 2011)
Although the construct of people-to-people interactions reflects socio-logical public diplomacy and interpersonal interaction, Kim and Ni (2011) also acknowledge the role of information technology in making this type of interaction cheaper and more accessible to many even though it may not always reflect actual face-to-face interaction. The third antecedent, cultural interactions, reflects more immediately on the indirect reputational relation-ship with a country. This antecedent reflects the individualized consumption of cultural products such as music, literature, art, and films. This consump-tion can lead to the development and amplificaconsump-tion of a percepconsump-tion about the cultural products and the country of origin (Kim & Ni, 2011). It is re-cent developments such as globalization of economies, social media, and new media technology which have allowed for greater individual participation in international relations making these types of cultural and media diplomacy possible (Signitzer & Wamser, 2006). These have in turn impacted the factors that most directly shape individuals’ relations with foreign countries and the
ways in which they can impact the soft power of those nations as a result of their relationships.
Taking a slightly different approach to soft power, Yun and Kim (2008) developed a regression model with three predicting variables: ethnic relations, between country relationship quality, and normative performance (reputa-tion) of the country. Ethnic relations, like in the constructs of Kim and Ni (2011), were based on sociological globalism and interaction with members of other ethnicities. Relationship quality was a measure of the relationship be-tween the individual’s home country and the host country or other country in question. This is similar to the construct of political and economic interac-tions from Kim and Ni (2011). Yun and Kim (2008) found that relainterac-tionship quality had the most significant influence on soft power and that ethnic rela-tions had a sizeable and significant effect as well. Normative performance had a weak and insignificant impact on soft power.
Examining these two studies, it seems consistent that although the role of the institution and government in forming relationships and soft power with other publics has not been eliminated, it is also no longer the main factor. The relationship between one’s country and another country in terms of politics, policies, and economy does impact the relationship citizens perceive with that country (e.g. hostile vs. friendly). However, the increased access to cultural products as well as direct or digital interaction with individuals who are from or have been to these countries has changed and continues to change the way in which individuals’ relationships with countries are shaped.