Exploring Cultural Diplomacy as Soft Power through Cultural Communication Exports: A Model of Power for Promoting Peace and Security African Journal of Gender, Society and Developm...
Article · October 2020
CITATIONS
0
READS
5,016 2 authors:
Andrew Enaifoghe University of Zululand 90PUBLICATIONS 388CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Nthabiseng Makhutla University of Zululand 4PUBLICATIONS 12CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Enaifoghe on 07 October 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
83
Exploring Cultural Diplomacy as Soft Power through Cultural Communication Exports: A Model of Power for
Promoting Peace and Security
Andrew O. Enaifoghe
Department of Public Administration University of Zululand KwaDlangezwa,
South Africa Email: [email protected]
&
Nthabiseng E. Makhutla
Department of Communication Science University of Zululand KwaDlangezwa,
South Africa
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
This study explores the dynamics of cultural exportation and its influence as a model for soft power in the global system. It is sometimes referred to as
―cultural diplomacy‖, a new form of soft power through communication in the global arena. The pattern of interaction and exchange strives to foster the exchange of views and ideas that promote knowledge of other cultures and build bridges between communities of people. Ultimately, in accessing cultural influence as a new form of soft power that seeks to promote a positive vision of
African Journal of Gender, Society and Development ISSN 2634-3630 E-ISSN 2634-3649
Indexed by IBSS, EBSCO, COPERNICUS, ProQuest, SABINET and J-Gate.
Volume 9 Number 3, September, 2020 Pp 83-107
84
cultural diversity, this paper argued that it has become a source of innovation, exchange of ideas and promotes peaceful coexistence. There are frameworks for cultural diplomacy in the United States that are often too narrow or too broad. On the one hand, self-identified practitioners of cultural diplomacy, within and outside government structures, tend to identify, if somewhat generically, specific exportable forms of expressive culture: music, theatre, literature, dance, murals, or film. This article is documentary research findings show that over the past two decades, cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, has become an increasingly evident–and fraught–subject of foreign affairs, in line with the recent proliferation of multilateral conventions by UNESCO, among others. More specifically articulating international frameworks for the protection and conservation of cultural heritage globally.
This study concluded that to promote peaceful coexistence through cultural exchange, countries must design a strategic framework informed by activities at both the local and national level.
Keyword: Communication, Soft Power, Music, Cultural Diplomacy, Interaction, Cultural Heritage
Introduction
Cultural diplomacy is regarded as a type of international public relations that is understood as a form of soft power in the global system today. It includes the "exchange of ideas, information, art, language and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples to foster mutual understanding" (Waller, 2009: 74). The main reason for having cultural diplomacy is to develop an understanding of ―the nation's ideals and institutions to build broad support for economic and political goals‖ for the people of a foreign nation (Maack 2001: 59). This in essence therefore means that "cultural diplomacy reveals the soul of a nation", which invariably creates influence (the United States, n.d: 3). Although it is often overlooked, cultural diplomacy can play a very significant role in aiding national security efforts.
Cultural diplomacy as soft power through international exportation of culture and arts through communication, is quite new in the international domain, in the foreign policy of most African countries, and the field of international public relations. Even though this term is often progressively used by ―political scientists, and communications experts with politicians‖, it is a space that is relatively rarely acknowledged by researchers. The extent of a nation‘s soft power is increasingly becoming
85
a subject of measurement. Several initiatives have generated a series of global indicators that draw upon culture, education, science politics, and economy to annually assess the extent to which nations have risen through or fallen in these indices, but they primarily make use of proxy measures to reach their conclusions. The historical advantages of cultural diplomacy are the collections and performing syndicates that are world- class, highly skilled and esteemed cultural professionals.
African culture and heritage act as magnets for tourism and business.
In South Africa especially, the creative industries are strong and have the affluence of connections with traditional and unindustrialized powers alike, and a global presence. It is significant to note the emphasis that emerging powers like China and India place on the role of culture in international relations as a means of communication. The objective of this paper is to explore the understanding of cultural diplomacy, as it contributes to existing knowledge of cultural diplomacy in its relatively new form of soft power as a persuasive means to foster peace and cohesion. It explores the benefits to be derived from applying cultural diplomacy through the cultural export of arts and cultural heritage as global commodities of communication in Africa, and as a model for soft power in promoting global security.
Methodology
This research is a documentary content analysis which allows researchers to study and consult and make sense of written materials or documents which may be available either in the public or private domain (Mogalakwe, 2006). The above definition recommends that researchers determine the relevance of the documents that they consult based on their significance to the study. Also, the criteria for selecting documents, or for focusing on particular extracts, should reflect the issues on which the researcher is seeking evidence. This method made it possible for the researchers to explore and address the research question on how cultural exchange can turn into soft power diplomacy through communication in the global system. Data were primarily collected through secondary sources. Over 60 literature that is relevant to this study were consulted from a different database, including Google scholar.
86
Literature Review: Conceptualisation of Cultural Diplomacy
Cultural diplomacy is defined in this study on the contexts of arts, culture and soft power to see how they correlate and some of its fundamental mechanisms. These include ‗public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy and cultural relations‘ which are also regarded as soft powers. There are numerous ways by which soft power has become implicit through communication, beginning with the prominent work of Joseph Nye, which explored the magnitude of cultural activities and arts, been perceived as appreciated avenues of addressing soft power consequences (Nye, 2004a). In defining the expressions of allusion suitably, this section of the study sets out the variances and context in the similarity of usage in ―public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy and cultural relations‖.
Discussing soft power in relation to cultural diplomacy is ―the ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes you want‖ (Nye, 2008:94).
He goes on to note that this can be achieved using three avenues of influence comprising ―threats and coercion (―sticks‖), inducements and payments (―carrots‖) and attraction that makes others want what you want‖ (2008: 94). Soft power is concerned with the attractiveness of a nation – the business of inspiring others to want what you have – though often focused on intangible and elusive notions such as ―culture, political values and foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and possessed of moral authority)‖.Culture plays a key role in international diplomacy, as there remains an unambiguous divergence between the amount of consideration, money and column inches dedicated to this sector that is associated with more formal international relations. Culture and social exchange are frequently considered as being desirable, but not essential in the discourse on foreign policy, which is often dominated by realpolitik philosophy.
A common view of this is that, while cultural diplomacy can help to establish and support working relationships between countries, it is strictly subordinate to the ―harder substance of laws and treaties, bilateral negotiations, multilateral structures and military capability‖ (Bound, et al., 2007: 3). The grey academic kinds of literature often have blurry lines on the role of culture in public diplomacy, cultural relations, cultural diplomacy as well as the role of non-departmental public bodies (NDPB), charity organisations, cultural organisations and governments in promoting the use of soft power and its outcomes to promote security.
Deriving from arts and cultural activity (McPherson, McGillivray, &
87
Mamattah, 2017), which explores the differences between–and similarities across–public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy and cultural relations (Bound, 2007; Rivera, 2015). The authors examined the evidence on how each contributes to soft power processes and outcomes.
Over the past few decades, social legacy or cultural heritage have become increasingly both tangible and intangible and apprehensive
―subjects of foreign affairs‖. The reasons are as a result of the ongoing expansion of multilateral shows by UNESCO, among others, all the more explicitly articulating universal systems for the assurance and preservation of social legacy and to achieve global security. The term
―culture‖ is defined as a set of values and practices that create meaning for society, according to Nye (2004a: 22). This includes both ―high culture (literature, art, and education, which appeals to elites) and popular culture (appeals to the masses)‖. This is exactly what most governments seek to showcase to foreign audiences when engaging in cultural diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy is a type of soft power that gives you the
"ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from a country's culture, political ideals and policies"
(Nye, 2004: 18). This, therefore, indicates that the value that is derived from culture is in its capacity to draw foreigners to a nation.
Cultural diplomacy is as well seen as a component of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is seen to be ―enhanced by a larger society and culture‖, but public diplomacy helps to "amplify and advertise that society and culture to the world at large" (Lord, 2006: 15). This means that culture can be the ―information component of public diplomacy can only be fully effective where there is already a relationship that gives credibility to the information being relayed‖. According to Lord (2006:
30), ―this comes from knowledge of the other's culture‖. According to the United States (n.d: 3) report document, ―cultural diplomacy has been called the linchpin of public diplomacy" which is a result of the cultural activities that can demonstrate the best of a nation. In this regards, it is safe therefore to conclude that cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy are closely interconnected. As noted by a former State Department cultural diplomacy practitioner, Richard T. Arndt;
Cultural relations grow naturally and organically, without government intervention–the transactions of trade and tourism, student flows,
88
communications, book circulation, migration, media access, inter- marriage–millions of daily cross-cultural encounters.
If this is correct, cultural diplomacy can only be said to take place when formal diplomats, serving national governments, try to shape and channel this natural flow to advance national interests (Waller, 2008: 74- 75). Just as indicated above, it is essential to understand that while cultural diplomacy is a government activity, obviously, the private sector also has a very tangible role to play as such. The government does not create culture, consequently, it can only make efforts to create a culture that is known and define the effect the organic growth will ultimately have on national policies. Cultural diplomacy makes efforts to manage the international environment by utilizing these sources and achievements and making them known abroad (Cull, 2008: 33). As stated in the report document of the United States (n.d: 7), An important aspect of this is listening- cultural diplomacy is meant to be a two-way exchange‖. This exchange is then anticipated to foster a mutual understanding as it gains influence within the target nation.
Cull (2008: 36) argues that ―cultural diplomacy derives its credibility not from being close to government institutions, but from its proximity to cultural authorities‖. Cultural diplomacy as soft power is seen as a silent weapon to gain soft control over another nation with the application of a non-violent means to promote relationships, engender mutual understanding, and support the various countries involved. The purpose of promoting cultural diplomacy is ultimately perceived as the goal to influence a foreign audience and utilize the influence that is built up over a long period. As ―a sort of goodwill reserve to win support for policies,‖ which is the primary goal of cultural diplomacy. According to Waller (2009: 77), the main purpose of cultural diplomacy is to ―harness the elements of culture to induce foreigners to have a positive view of the country's people, culture and policies‖. To induce greater cooperation between the two nations, aid in changing the policies or political environment of the target nation, prevent, manage and mitigate conflict with the target nation (Waller, 2009: 77).
In turn, it is worthy of note to recognize the fact that cultural diplomacy can be advantageous to a nation to better understand the
―foreign nation it engages‖ with and thereby help to foster relationships of mutual understanding. Cultural diplomacy, according to Waller (2009:
89), is ―a way of conducting international relations without expecting
89
anything in return in the way that traditional diplomacy typically expects‖. Foreign Affairs (2020) avers that cultural exchange programs work as a standard or means to communicate a favourable ―impression of the foreign country to gain outsiders' understanding and approval in their cultural practices and naturalize their social norms among other cultures‖. Generally, cultural diplomacy is seen to be more focused on longer-term and less on specific policy matters (Lord, 2006: 30). The obvious intent of using cultural diplomacy for particular policy-related matters is apparently to build up influence over the long term for when it is needed by engaging people directly.
This influence as noted by Leonard (2002: 51) has implications which range from ―national security to increasing tourism and commercial opportunities‖. This has allowed the government to create a ―foundation of trust and a mutual understanding that is neutral and built on people- to-people contact‖ (Leonard, 2002: 51). Also, the unique important element that is seen in cultural diplomacy is its ability to reach youth, non-elites and other audiences outside of the traditional embassy circuit.
The United States posits that ―cultural diplomacy plants the seeds of ideas, ideas, political arguments, spiritual perceptions and a general viewpoint of the world that may or may not flourish in a foreign nation‖
(the United States, n. d: 3, 4, 9.). Therefore, according to the US Foreign Affairs (2020: 12-15), ―ideologies spread by cultural diplomacy about the values that American people believe in enables those that seek a better life to look towards the Western world where happiness and freedom are portrayed as desirable and achievable goals‖.
Cultural Export: The Correlate of Cultural Diplomacy to National Security
The concept ―cultural diplomacy‖ is first and foremost a demonstration of national power, as it discloses to foreign audiences every aspect of a culture, including the wealth, scientific, and technological advances. It also showcases the ―competitiveness in everything from sports and industry to military power, and a nation's overall confidence‖ (Waller, 2009: 76). The acuity of power has some level of significant implications for a nation's capability to guarantee its security. Examples can be seen from China, Russia, North Korea and the United States of America with their military forces. Furthermore, as a result of the fact that cultural diplomacy comprises of political and philosophical arguments, where it
90
uses the language of ―persuasion and advocacy‖, it can also be used as an
―instrument of political warfare‖ and become useful in achieving
―traditional goals of war‖ (Waller, 2009: 93). According to Nye (2004:
23), a Chinese activist was quoted as saying "We've seen a lot of Hollywood movies – they feature weddings, funerals and going to court.
So now we think it's only natural to go to court a few times in your life." Giving the above as an example of a cultural export—Hollywood movies—possibly having a subtle effect on the legal system in China, which can ultimately benefit the United States or any other nation which wishes to see a more democratic China. This is how ideas and perceptions can ultimately affect the ability of a nation to achieve its national security goals (Leonard, 2002: 49). In terms of a policy that supports national security goals, ―the information revolution has created an increasingly connected world in which public perceptions of values and motivations can create an enabling or disabling environment in the quest for international support of policies‖ (Leonard, 2002: 49).
The struggle to affect key transnational developments has become progressively about winning the information tussle, to define the understanding of what states' actions are all about. Metzl (1999: 178), argues that ―if an action is not interpreted abroad as the nation meant to it be, then the action itself can become meaningless‖. In that regard, this paper finds cultural diplomacy to have the ability to create an atmosphere whereby a nation is acknowledged as ultimately good, which therefore means that it can help to frame its actions in a positive light. Participants in cultural diplomacy often have insights into foreign attitudes that official embassy employees do not. This can be used to better understand a foreign nation's intentions and capabilities. It can also be used to counter hostile propaganda and the collection of open-source intelligence (Waller, 2009: 78-79).
In summary, cultural diplomacy is perceived to have the potential to establish and demonstrate a national power, the capacity to create a background to an atmosphere that is conducive not to only support but to help in the collection and interpretation of information. As information is seen as key to power, this, in turn, helps in the interpretation of intelligence gathering, augments a nation's prestige, and helps with storing provision for policies abroad. All of these factors put together ultimately affect a nation's security, as a consequence, cultural diplomacy has an impact on, and a key role to play in promoting national security.
91 Tools of Cultural Diplomacy
The various tools used in cultural diplomacy can be seen in every aspect of a nation's culture, which include the following as highlighted by Waller (2009: 82-87): ―arts, exhibitions, educational programs, exchanges, literature, broadcasting of news and cultural programs, gifts to a nation, and religious diplomacy‖. Waller (2009: 82-87) points out that the arts include ―films, dance, music, painting, sculpture‖ adding that the exhibitions ―offer the potential to showcase numerous objects of culture‖. Educational programs include the ―universities and language programs offered abroad‖ (Waller, 2009: 82-87). Significantly, the exchange aspect ranges from the scientific, artistic, and educational, while the area of literature encompasses ―the establishment of libraries abroad and translation of popular and national works‖ (Waller, 2009: 82-87).
There is another key tool of cultural diplomacy which is ―the broadcasting of news and cultural programs‖. Gifts to a nation are perceived as demonstrating a form of thoughtfulness and respect.
Religious diplomacy is another tool of cultural diplomacy where inter- religious dialogue emerges, while the ―promotion and explanation of ideas and social policies‖ (Waller, 2009: 82-87). All of the enumerated tools of cultural diplomacy strive to bring an understanding of a nation's culture to foreign audiences. These tools of cultural diplomacy are said to work best when they are upheld to be pertinent and applicable to the target audience, which may require an understanding of the audience.
The tools, according to Leonard (2002: 51, 52), can be employed through non-government organisations (NGOs) working in diasporas as well as
―political parties abroad, which may help with the challenge of relevance and understanding‖. These tools are mostly not fashioned or created by the government, but shaped by the culture, which the government can facilitate their countenance abroad to a foreign audience, and this is mostly done to gain influence.
Understanding cultural relation and its application to soft power diplomacy
Today, cultural diplomacy is argued to, more than ever before, have a vital role to play in international relations. This stems from the wider, connective and human values that culture has. Culture is both how we come to understand others, and an aspect of life with the innate worth
92
that we enjoy and seek out (Bound, et al., 2007: 3). The cultural exchange offers us the opportunity to not only appreciate our points of commonality and, where there are differences, to understand the impetuses and humanity that inspire them, and identify the politics that exert an increasing influence on domestic and international exchanges.
These points make culture and cultural exportation a critical medium for negotiation and a standard of exchange in finding a collective solution.
Also, cultural communication affords a forum for informal governmental relationship-building between nations.
It has become an open negotiating channel with countries where political connections are in jeopardy and helps to recalibrate relationships for changing times with emerging powers such as India, South Africa, China and the United States (Bound, et al., 2007: 3). Cultural diplomacy as soft power through international exportation of culture and arts through communication, which is quite new in the international domain in the foreign policy of most African countries and the field of international public relations. The main argument is that cultural diplomacy can be dynamic through the use of cultural influences as a model for soft power to promote security, which can maintain, enhance and even create trust among different states and at the same time. The value of cultural diplomacy can influence trust-building. Social and cultural diplomacy is interwoven with the idea of ―marking‖ or "brand management". It might be expected that the critical standards in structuring the brand of a nation are equivalent to its identity and personality building. Culture and arts are in the cutting edge of various nations' special endeavours in "promotional efforts‖. In the United States, for instance, systems for social tact or diplomacy are often both
―too narrow and too broad‖.
The Social Strategy of Culture as the Art of Diplomacy
From another perspective, self-recognized professionals of social strategy, within and outside government sphere, will, in general, distinguish, if to some degree, conventionally explicit exportable types of expressive culture (think music, theatre, writing or literature, move, paintings, or film). This is especially for government-supported socio- cultural strategy programming. Marta (2009) states that culture or social diplomacy as a term is very new in the African domain of foreign policies. Even though this term is utilized progressively frequently by
93
political specialists or scientists, communications specialists as well as politicians, it is still an area or territory that is generally of little knowledge. It must be acknowledged that "art and culture are at the forefront of many countries‘ promotional efforts".
Most nations perceive that showing their cultural or national social legacy provides them with a chance of demonstrating their identity and creating a positive picture, thereby accomplishing their political goals and objectives. Therefore, ―reflecting on the concept of culture‖ as international export through interactions and diplomacy will make it simpler to analyse the ―concept of culture as a soft power of diplomacy‖.
The various writing regarding this matter gives numerous meanings of culture. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (952: 4) in their work Culture, A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, gathered 168 definitions and partitioned them into six sorts, which accentuate certain angles in various definitions, engaging position (ostensible), chronicled, regularizing, "psychological, structural and genetic". What is fascinating from the perspective of social discretion and diplomacy are the definitions that characterize the verifiable part of the culture.
Research published the British Council attempted to measure the conditions under which ―soft power‖ can sway and translate into economic, political and cultural benefits. In the research, it turned out that stimulating or advancing a nation‘s culture and political morals on the world stage have the real capacity to bring substantial economic and strategic rewards. Studies have proven that a ―state‘s soft power has a significant impact on foreign direct investment (FDI), overseas student recruitment, tourism and international influence in forums like the UN General Assembly‖ (British Council, 2018: 1). A UK government 2016 White Paper avers that there is increased interest in and attention to the emerging evidence base for the value of soft power (British Council, 2018). The 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage defined cultural diplomacy as ―the exchange of ideas, information, art, lifestyles, value systems, traditions, beliefs, and other aspects of culture across nation-states, with the intention of mutual understanding‖ (UNESCO, 2014).
To define the concepts to understand the contexts of cultural diplomacy, this study examined scholarly literature on arts, culture and soft power to see how they correlate and some of its fundamental mechanisms: ―public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy and cultural relations‖. The handles through which hard power is applied are broadly
94
implicit by both the organizations that deploy them and non-state actors who, most commonly, face the consequences of that deployment (Bound, et al., 2007: 3). On the other hand, the considerations of soft power with its content and potential significance as a diplomatic and social tool, are less tangible. According to Wilson (2008: 116-17), the deployment of soft power can be influenced by institutional suspicion of its efficacy, primarily expressed as an unwillingness to invest in its development, However, where it is utilised, those who employ soft power must be wary of the potential to raise suspicions of propagandising among their intended audience; the often-cited criticism of soft power initiatives.
Soft power is claimed not to be power at all as any resource, even military force, can be soft when applied, for example, to humanitarian aid (Gibola, 2008:62). In this regard, ―soft power is not the concern of a single institution, government department or ministry.‖ The different styles to the use of soft power are evident in Europe when compared to the USA. For instance, in the USA, there are various concerns that investment in the generation, preservation and abuse of soft power prospects have waned, predominantly since the end of the Cold War (Gould-Davis, 2003; Grincheva, 2010; Schneider, 2009). The US government cut funding to the United States Information Agency (USIA) after absorbing its activities into the State Department in the late 1990s (Schneider, 2006). European countries, on the other hand, particularly Italy, Germany, France and the UK, strove more steadily to invest and build on the efforts of their comparable cultural agencies (Alliance Française, Dante Alighieri, Goethe Institute and British Council) (see Paschalidis, 2009).
For these countries and others, the primary features of soft power consist of attempts to increase acknowledgement for their cultural exportation, examples of which include ―language and literature in France‖, educational, creative, scientific and technological innovations and achievements in the UK, sports and other accomplishments.
Nevertheless, the broader attractiveness of a nation‘s governmental and political models, social and economic principles are significantly fundamental to cultural diplomacy concerning soft power. Bearing in mind how the artworks contribute to soft power, there is some early emerging evidence from the literature about arts winning large scale international audiences and then swaying people on a passionate level.
Still, there is the real struggle of calculating this over the long term as
95
emphasised in the Art of Attraction (2014) from the British Academy. It is must be noted that the nature of ―cultural connections‖ are incremental and the nature of artistic reactions are ―indirect‖ on most issues around the world.
The Churchill Global Leadership Programme (2015) explored the issue of the arts and soft power and found evidence that arts and culture can support the development of understanding, and can create further connections to influence and change people‘s perceptions of themselves and each other. The AHRC Cultural Value Programme, evaluated by Crossick & Kaszynska (2016:54), highlights through the role of the arts in developing the ‗reflective individual‘, engendering a greater understanding of themselves and their lives, thereby increasing understanding concerning others and an appreciation of the variety of human knowledge and cultures. More so, the Art of Attraction also discovered the role of culture in constructing the multicultural society of the United Kingdom. The comprehension of culture is ―the common legacy, the product of the imaginative and handled exertion of endless ages‖. That is, the body of the target components of the common resources, in a manner fit for being disseminated; (Kroeber &
Kluckhohn, 952).
Such comprehension is close to what was verbalized by Labno- Falecka (1999), who connects the ostensible and recorded perspectives and separates the accompanying ideas of culture: In a severe sense, culture is an incentive in itself (conventional structures like painting, writing, music, theatre, and film). In a more extensive sense—culture versus nature—everything that is not nature is culture. Culture is the human advancement made by man. In this sense, we as a whole make culture (Łabno Fałęcka, 1999). According to Klosowska (1981), culture implies characterized classes of items, phenomena and forms or specific kinds of conduct. In the philosophical sense, culture is comprehended by everything which does not develop of itself from nature but rather comes to fruition from the cognizant exertion of man, being the impact of thought and human activity (Kłoskowska, 1981). In proceeding in this vein, Linton's definition becomes inconceivable. He characterizes society as comprising or constituting "a set of behaviours people have learned", components of which are basic for individuals from a specific culture and imparted inside it (Linton, 1952).
In connecting these two ideas, it very well may be said that culture is not just the conduct in a specific culture yet additionally the material
96
accomplishments of individuals and the consequences of joint endeavours. For Thomas (2018a), ―soft power can create a vibrant image of a country and give it a higher status in global networks. But what part does culture play, and how can we measure its contribution‖. Also, the
―Art of Soft Power‖, makes a useful distinction between cultural diplomacy ―reaching out‖ and soft power ―standing out‖. This means
―bringing together diplomacy, cultural relations and national interest in a way which turns away from relying solely on military intervention and humanitarian aid and instead provides a more holistic way to promote our values and help others‖.
Assessing Cultural Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy
The global view of cultural diplomacy is as a major determinant of how people perceive each other and negotiate their differences when cultures meet, mingle and morph. The report further highlights that through arts and culture, people find points of commonality as well as their differences and the means to understand one another. The exhibitions, performances and other cultural forms allow people to not only engage but interact with others‘ cultural heritage. Therefore, one of the most significant gifts that culture can give to a country‘s public cultural diplomacy is the ability to showcase a diversity of interpretations, outlooks, perspectives and sentiments, breaking down persistent national stereotypes and stimulating the awareness that a country‘s political leaders and their policies are identical with the views of their citizens (British Council, 2017).
Arts and culture play a key role in providing meeting points for exposition and clarification. They also provide room for dialogue and discourse and offer the functional context for political affairs of the states on the international scene. Furthermore, the evaluation of the British Council‘s Shakespeare Lives programme in Russia, China and the Horn of Africa (British Council, 2017:5), showed that “the arts might create a connecting ground and unique and secure spaces, opportunities and forums for the reciprocal interchange of culture, or exploration of ideas and themes through cultural practice‖. Nevertheless, the term culture and public diplomacy were first coined in 1965 by Guillon as one that is concerned with the influence social perspectives have on the devising and implementation of foreign policy.
97
Public diplomacy covers aspects of international relations that fall outside traditional diplomacy such as influencing public opinion abroad, mutual impacting by private groups and pressure groups in one another‘s countries, reporting on events abroad and their impact on politics.
Scholars define public diplomacy differently. The common term for public undertakings aimed at countries abroad, especially in the fields of information, education and culture is public diplomacy. A scholar like Malone (1988: 6) aver that the aim of ―public diplomacy is to influence citizens of other countries to achieve a positive attitude to one‘s country‖. This form of communication constitutes two kinds of undertakings; firstly, short-term ones, which consist of shaping opinion abroad that are favourable to the policy of the government of the day (Malone, 1988).
The second form of communication is the long-term ones aimed at familiarizing individuals abroad with the respective country and its people. Some analysts view public diplomacy in the context of intercultural communication. Tuch (1990) feels that legislative efforts to create a suitable ―communicative environment for foreign policy, is in effect something of a damage limitation exercise to reduce the level of mistakes, misunderstandings and bad reception, which complicate the relations of a given country with another one‖ (Tuch, 1990: 17). Ociepka (2008) defines public cultural diplomacy in the context of imagery and feels that ―it aim is to create or reinforce a positive image of a given entity on the international stage by influencing public opinion, fostering positive attitudes to the entity thus facilitating the achievement of its aims in the field of foreign policy‖. Wang (2006) considers public diplomacy as what makes it possible for the reputation of the country to be shaped in a way which will determine its place on the international stage.
Szondi (2005) notes that reputation is rooted in public opinion which indicates whether the country has the mandate for its undertakings.
Public cultural diplomacy can be seen as the sum of all the foreign undertakings of a country abroad that is aimed at modelling public opinion abroad. However, for McClellan, diplomacy perceived in the traditional sense does not cover the interaction between governments but rather between the government of one country and the society in another (McClellan, 2005). This definition takes cognisance of new trends that draw a strong distinction between tradition/culture and public diplomacy. It must be noted that the technological revolution of the 20th
98
century made it easier to have access to information. The benefits it came with requiring more integrity in mutual connections. Also, 20th-century technological innovations have made it increasingly easy to send knowledge across distances. This facilitates how the image of a nation is designed and shaped in the global system.
One has to accept that this will be managed by its beneficiaries, which is the intercontinental community. To further discuss public cultural diplomacy, it is almost entirely impossible not to locate McClellan‘s pyramid, who by all account tried to place it within the context of traditional diplomacy. The top of the pyramid is understood by its author as voices on the fora of international organizations, military alliances or trade agreements (McPherson, et al., 2017), which then follows that the next level is the involvement that requires a two-stage flow of information. This, therefore, according to McPherson, et al.
(2017), means the support of a given country by opinion-makers who can later influence the opinions of others.
A further look at this configuration of the next level of developing knowledge of a country‘s image includes studies in the country, exchange programs, cultural centres etc. This leads to the next level, which is curiosity and the consequent search for information about the country, which may include concerts or studies in the given language (McPherson, et al., 2017). McPherson, et al, (2017), highlighted that the basis of the pyramid is consciousness about the given country in the basic target group, i.e. the society in the given country in which, as a result of military actions, aid programs, cultural events or the mass media- awareness of the existence of the given country on the international scale is communicated McClellan, 2005).
Communication as Cultural diplomacy
Cultural diplomacy is understood to be a form of international communication in the global sphere. The world and its geopolitics of influence are being supplanted by a post-modernist world of images and influence. It has been observed that ‗traditional diplomacy is gradually disappearing and the politics of creating an identity is becoming the main focus of activity for politicians and countries‖. Traditional diplomacy focuses on problems whereas public diplomacy focuses on values. Public diplomacy from the perspective of the media, according to Gilboa (2001), is the conduit for state and non-state actors to channel their
99
messages to influence the public opinion of societies abroad. Gilboa in this regard, further identified three approaches of public diplomacy as a means of communication, which are distinguished by their participants, their aims and the methods they employ (Gilboa, 2001).
The intricate variation denotes the use of the media in countries where the state has an unscrupulous appearance. The reason for this clarification is to communicate stable information about the state. This variable, as suggested by Marta (2009), assumes that the population who will be the recipient of such information will exert pressure on their government to change the policy towards the state that channels the information. It should be mentioned that this method was the same employed by the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War (Marta, 2009). Another form of communication in public cultural diplomacy is known as the non-state transnational variant.
In this case, not only state governments can engage in diplomacy, but in the last two decades, evidence has shown that non-state players have also impacted views and opinions that can later influence the decisions that governments have taken (human rights campaigns regarding China) (Marta, 2009).
Furthermore, it is argued that domestic public relations alternatives as a form of communication in public diplomacy, is mainly concerned with the use of public relations agencies and lobbyists by the state to conduct public diplomacy through cultural communication. Besides public diplomacy, Gilboa (2001) offers two other models for utilizing the media as the main instrument of implementing foreign policy. These include ―media diplomacy utilizes the media to communicate with other players and the media broker diplomacy model whereby the media temporarily take on the mantle of diplomats and play the role of mediators in international negotiations‖ (Gilboa, 2001). Marta (2009) argues that other analysts identify ―public diplomacy with public relations played out on an international stage‖. In each of these areas, the creation of an image in an international background is of key significance (Marta, 2009).
Signitzer (1995) observed that both concepts advanced autonomously with public relations, springing from the science of communication, while public diplomacy is from political science and international relations. Szondi (2005) views public diplomacy as falling within the jurisdiction of ―foreign policy of states, with international cultural relations, national branding, tourism promotion and image
100
management in the sphere of international public relations. Cultural communication is extended to areas such as the cinema or art. Similarly, Frederic (1993) includes culture in his definition of public diplomacy.
―Public diplomacy covers undertakings aimed at (recipients) abroad in the fields of information, education and culture, the aim of which is to influence a foreign government by influencing its citizens‖ (Frederic, 1993).
Cultural Exchange and the Politics of Diplomacy
Cultural exchange has been intertwined with the pursuit of foreign relations throughout history. From the reciprocal gifts of arts, people have used culture to display themselves, to assert their power, and to understand others. Thomas (2018a) states that soft power and cultural diplomacy, in the widest sense, have increased in importance, whereas traditional diplomacy and military power are now of limited use. The interchange of ideas, information, art and other cultural expressions between countries and people, is fundamental to UNESCO‘s efforts to promote peace through international dialogue and exchange in the areas of culture, natural science, education, social and human sciences and communications (UNESCO, 2014).
Cultural exchange is key to addressing the challenges of urbanization, as more than 50% of the world‘s population now living in urban areas, cities are increasingly placing where growth, innovation and diversity exist side by side with inequality, discrimination and conflict (UNESCO, 2014).
To bridge this gap, cities must find a way to harness the power of cultural exchange to promote developments that work for everyone.
Cultural soft power, according to Thomas (2018), is indispensable in countering the systematic damage of cultural heritage by extremists, as well as to rebuild broken societies in post-conflict situations (McPherson, et al., 2017). They noted that ―extremists target heritage for the values it represents, seeking to destroy references to the diversity that clash with their exclusionary vision of history and culture‖ (McPherson, et al., 2017). Intercultural discourse and reverence for cultural diversity are considered to be among the most powerful tools for the preservation of heritage and stimulating reconciliation. Cultural exchange can also
101
support sustainable development. Global trade in creative goods more than doubled between 2004 and 2013, and today the cultural and creative industries represent around 3% of global GDP and 30 million jobs.
Promoting the mobility of artists, particularly from the Global South, is, therefore, an effective means of encouraging both intercultural understanding and economic development (UNESCO, 2014)
Culture has been used as a diplomatic tool by leaders and countries to display who they are, affirm their influence and build lasting relationships. However, in the sphere of foreign policy, it is often subjugated by ―realpolitik thinking, culture and cultural exchange‖, that are often regarded as being desirable, but not essential (UNESCO, 2014).
Another common understanding of cultural diplomacy global export is that, while cultural diplomacy may help in establishing and supporting working relationships between states, it is firmly subordinate to the tougher issues of laws and agreements, including the ―bilateral negotiations, multilateral structures and military capability‖ (UNESCO, 2014). Cultural communication in diplomacy more than ever before has a vital role to play in international relations (McPherson, et al., (2017). This is from the broader, connective and human principles that culture has.
Culture is both how we come to understand others and an aspect of life with the innate worth that we enjoy and seek out.
Cultural exchange gives us the chance to appreciate points of commonality and, where there are differences, to understand the motivations and humanity that underlie those (Bound, 2007). Cultural diplomacy as identity global politics exerts a snowballing influence on local and international connections. These attributes make culture as an exportable commodity a critical environment for negotiation and a standard of exchange in finding common solutions to global issues.
Cultural contact can offer a forum for unofficial political relationship- building:
It keeps open negotiating channels with countries where political connections are in jeopardy and help to recalibrate relationships for changing times with emerging powers such as India and China (Council of Europe, 2008).
In the future, alliances are just as likely to be forged along lines of cultural understanding as they are on economic or geographic ones. The UK has several historical advantages in this regard. Cultural diplomacy
102
has serious roles to play with its ability to build transnational relationships.
Finally, there is no modest reaction to interesting questions on how the works of arts and cultural activities proffer value as a form of communication in the global sphere in the pursuit of soft power. The literature made clear clarifications concerning the most suitable methods to consider the ―processes, outputs and outcomes connected with the works of arts, culture and soft power‖. McPherson, et al. (2017) suggests that there are key principles that should inform the choice of those methods or approaches and subsequent accumulation of evidence. It is indispensably imperative that arts and culture are tied to strategic soft power intents if it is to be effectively appraised.
Also, McPherson, et al., (2017), linking the British Council‘s cultural relations activities to strategic objectives, helped in clarifying to what extent arts and cultural activity are part of a soft power strategy. They further noted that the differentiation should be done at the beginning of the programme as the applicable assessment tools will be based on this foundation. It is not enough to have a soft power benefit by raising awareness during an event or a campaign as an unpredicted consequence of development if the drive is lost or has ended.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This paper highlighted that the historical advantages of cultural diplomacy are the collections and performing syndicates that are world- class, highly skilled and esteemed cultural professionals. African culture and heritage act as magnets for tourism and business, particularly in South Africa (with huge revenue collection from its tourism sector), the creative industries are strong and have the affluence of connections with traditional and unindustrialized powers alike around the world today. The Nigerian movie industry, Nollywood, sits at number 2 in the world behind Hollywood as the largest entertainment industry. This can be used as a source of influence to promote cultural communication and peaceful coexistence. It is significant to note the emphasis that emerging powers like China and India are placing on the role of culture in international relations as a means of communication.
Culture and social exchange are frequently considered desirable, but not essential in the discourse on foreign policy that is often dominated by realpolitik philosophy. Nevertheless, arts and culture continue to play key
103
roles in providing meeting points for exposition and clarification, a room for dialogue and discourse, and the functional context for global political affairs of states. This paper sustains the argument that cultural diplomacy can be dynamic through cultural influences as a model for soft power in promoting, peace, cohesion and security, which can maintain, enhance and even create trust among different states. Cultural diplomacy can influence trust-building. This study found that cultural diplomacy has become a form of soft power through communication and the global export of culture, arts and other exchanges. This is as the world and its geopolitics of influence are being supplanted by a ―post-modernist world of images and influence‖. It also found that ‗traditional diplomacy is disappearing and the politics of creating an identity is becoming the main focus of activity for many countries‖.
It is recommended that to promote peaceful coexistence through cultural exchange and security, countries must design a strategic framework informed by activities at both the local and national level. It also recommends that for a smooth undertaking of cultural diplomacy in Africa to create the benefit conditions for the people and pave the way for political information like soft power, many things have to be in place.
This includes the need to create powerful cultural institutions in Africa, with a strong position on the world stage for the system to promote its rich cultural heritage abroad.
References
Bound, K., Briggs, R., Holden, J., and Jones, S. (2007), Cultural Diplomacy. Culture is a central component of international relations.
It‘s time to unlock its full potential. Demo
British Council (2015), Assessing the value of the UK-Iran season of culture: a British Council – Open University research partnership.
British Council (2015) Churchill: an icon of soft power?
British Council (2017), Connecting Ground: Shakespeare Lives and Perceptions of the UK in Russia, China and the Horn of Africa
British Council (2018), Soft Power In The Cultural Diplomacy. Culture &
Creativity. Available: https://www.culturepartnership.eu/en/article/s oft-power-in-the-cultural-diplomacy
104
Council of Europe (2008), Intercultural dialogue as a basis for peace and sustainable development in Europe and its neighbouring regions‖
Conference of Ministers responsible for Culture Baku, 2-3 December 2008 Crossick, G. & Kaszynska, P. (2016), Understanding the value of arts and
culture: The AHRC Cultural Value Project, Swindon: Arts and Humanities Research Council Cummings,
Cull, N.J. (2008), Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (March 2008):
33.
Cull, N.J. (2008), Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (March 2008):
39-40.
Cull, N.J. (2008a), The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy, 1945-1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 162-167.
Foreign Affairs (2002), Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2015-12-15.
Gibola, E. (2008), Searching for a theory of public diplomacy, Annals American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, pp. 55- 77
Gilboa E. (2001), Diplomacy in the Media Age: Three Models of Uses and Effect, Diplomacy & Statecraft”, No.2, p. 1-28.
Gould-Davis, N. (2003), The logic of Soviet cultural diplomacy, Diplomatic History, vol. 27:2 pp. 193-214
Grincheva, N. (2010), U.S. arts and cultural diplomacy: post-Cold War decline and the twenty first century debate, The Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society, vol. 40:3, pp. 169-183
Ham, P. (2001), The Rise of the Brand State. The Postmodern Politics of Image and Reputation. ―Foreign Affairs’’, September-October, Vol. 80, No.5, p. 4.
Kennedy, L. (2003), Remembering September 11: Photography as Cultural Diplomacy," International Affairs 79, no. 2 (March 2003): 315- 323.
Kłoskowska, A. (1981), Socjologia kultury, Warszawa: PWN, 1981.
Kroeber, A. L., and Kluckhohn, C. (1952), Culture: a critical review of concepts and definitions. Papers. Peabody Museum of Archaeology &
Ethnology, Harvard University, 47(1), viii, 223.
Łabno – Fałęcka, E. (1999), Kreowanie obrazu Polski w świecie – Zagraniczna polityka kulturalna, [in:] Kreowanie obrazu Polski w świecie, A. Kuklińskiego i Kingi Pawłowskiej (ed.), Nowy Sącz:
Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Biznesu, p. 182.
105
Leonard, M. (2002), Diplomacy by Other Means," Foreign Policy 132 (September/October 2002): 49.
Linton, R. (1952), The Cultural Background of Personality, London:
Routledge & K. Paul, p.31.
Lord, C. (2006) Losing Hearts and Minds? Public Diplomacy and Strategic Influence in the Age of Terror (Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2006), 15.
Maack, M. N. (2001), "Books and Libraries as Instruments of Cultural Diplomacy in Francophone Africa during the Cold War," Libraries &
Culture 36, no. 1 (Winter 2001): 59.
Malone G.D. (1988), Organizing the Nation’s Public Diplomacy, Boston:
University Press of America, p. 1.
Marta, R, K. (2009), Cultural Diplomacy as a Form of International Communication. Finalist Paper, Institute for Public Relations BledCom Special Prize for best new research on the cultural variable in public relations practice. Posted online on January 10, 2009.
McClellan, M (2005), Public Diplomacy in the Context of Traditional Diplomacy. www.publicdiplomacy.org/45.htm, (23.04.2020).
McPherson, G., McGillivray, D., and Mamattah, S. (2017), Arts, Cultural Relations and Soft Power: Developing an Evidence Base Interim report 10th February, 2017
Metzl, J. F. (1999), Popular Diplomacy," Daedalus 128, no. 2 (Spring 1999): 178.
Mogalakwe, M. (2006). Research Report. The Use of Documentary Research Methods in Social Research. African Sociological Review, 10(1), 221-230.
Nye, J. (2004), The decline of America’s soft power, Foreign Affairs Comment published by the Council on Foreign Relations
Nye, J. (2008), Public diplomacy and soft power, Annals American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, pp. 94-109
Nye, J.S. (2004), Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (Cambridge: Perseus Books, 2004), 22.
Ociepka B. (2008), Public diplomacy, Hasło encyklopedyczne, [in:]
Donsbach (ed.) W., The International Encyclopaedia of Communication vol.
IX, Blackwell Publishing, p. 39-56.
Paschalidis, G (2009), Exporting national culture: histories of cultural institutes abroad, International Journal of Cultural Policy, vol. 15:3, pp.
275-289
106
Rivera, T. (2015), Distinguishing cultural relations from cultural diplomacy: the British Council‘s relationship with Her Majesty‘s government, Figueroa Press, Los Angeles
Schneider, C.P (2009), The unrealised potential of cultural diplomacy:
‗best practices‘ and what could be, if only… The Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society, vol. 39:4 pp. 260-278
Schneider, C.P. (2006) Cultural diplomacy: why it matters, what it can – and cannot – do? Short course on cultural industries, technologies and policies annual meeting of the American political science association, Philadelphia: August 30th
Signitzer, B. (1995), Public Relations and Public Diplomacy, [in:] W.
Mahle (red), Deutchland in derinternationalen Komummunikation, Konstanz, p.73.
Szondi, G. (2005), The Panteon of International Public Relations for Nation States: Country Promotion in central and Eastern Europe, [in.] Ławniczak R. (ed.), Introduction Market Economy Institutions and Instruments: The Role of Public Relations in Transitions Economies, Poznań:
Piar.pl, p. 217.
Thomas, I. (2018), British Council on Evaluating Arts & Soft Power Programming. Jan 19, 2018
Thomas, I. (2018a), The soft power of the arts. Arts Professional.Available: https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/art icle/soft-power-arts
Tuch, H. (1990), Communicating with the World. US Public Diplomacy overseas, New York, p. 4.
UNESCO (2014), Heritage and Cultural Diversity at Risk in Iraq and Syria‖. International Conference. UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 3 December 2014 Room II 2.30 – 5.30 pm
United States (n.d.), Department of State, Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy, Diplomacy Report of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy, 3.
Waller, M. J. (ed.) (2009), Cultural Diplomacy, Political Influence, and Integrated Strategy," in Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda, and Political Warfare, (Washington, DC: Institute of World Politics Press, 2009), 74.
Wang, J. (2006), Managing international reputation and international relations in the global era: Public diplomacy revisited, ―Public Relations Review‖ no 32, p. 92.
107
Wilson III., E. (2008), Hard power, soft power, smart power, Annals American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, pp. 110-124
View publication stats
