I appreciated the previous class topic about public and cultural diplomacy because of its explanation and discussion of the importance of cultural diplomacy in conducting foreign policy. Frankly, before I took Cross Cultural Communication (and another class called Public Diplomacy) I had little interest in cultural diplomacy or even intercultural communication. The topic seemed to me at that time rife with a bunch of academics discussing largely theory about achieving "peace" and other "feel good" lofty goals without real-world or serious policy implications. I am glad to have been proven wrong. Although I still do feel intercultural communication involves many academics attempting to figure out how to "change the world" by changing cultures and their behavior, I now regard cultural/public diplomacy as subjects that do deserve much needed attention. I think these subjects especially hold relevance with regard to achieving America's soft/smart power objectives.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that cultural diplomacy seems to only act in an independent role with reference to a nation's foreign policy goals. Practitioners of public diplomacy should not simply practice it in the name of eventual cooperation, understanding, etc between the nations, but they should practice it also in concert with foreign policy planners to achieve U.S. objectives. There appears to be a lack of cohesion or set of strategic goals that public diplomacy practitioners seem to not have. Is the Korean Wave really helping achieve South Korea's foreign policy goals? Does Mulan actually lead us to a point where we accept Chinese policies? Is Pokemon doing all that much to convince U.S. leaders to change domestic policies to favor Japan? For all the above questions, I believe the answers are all "no." This is because there is some lack of coordination between the "do-good" culture of cultural diplomacy and government foreign policy planners. If cultural diplomacy was really considered a tool instead of an after-thought in the foreign policy toolbox, it would be more integrated and more strategic-goal oriented.
Admittedly, some cultural diplomacy programs are aimed at promoting long term interests of the U.S. But, not nearly enough is done by the government, which is unfortunate. And then there is the whole debate about "if they like us and are receptive to our culture, why aren't they receptive to our policies?" Again, that's another discussion that significantly challenges the entire premise of public diplomacy and its ultimate success.
I think it is safe to say cultural diplomacy is generally positive, especially in a business sense where markets are opened and more cultural products are consumed. But, if cultural diplomacy wants to truly succeed outside of business, it should directly coordinate with foreign policy planners when deciding strategic, long-term objectives for the U.S. or any other nation willing to use it in a government-directed foreign policy context.
- David Lindgren
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you make a good point that with all the talk about cultural diplomacy, there are few actual positive results when it comes to accepting policy. Imported U.S. music, TV and other cultural products can only do so much when the U.S. is pursuing a foreign policy that so many countries find repulsive. In order to make our cultural diplomacy truly effective, we must bring our policies in line with the image we are trying to create. I agree that the U.S. cannot look at cultural diplomacy as an afterthought. If they want it to succeed, they must put more money, people and effort into it. The problem is that it is unlikely that the U.S. will drastically change its foreign policy just to help spread a positive cultural image.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that intercultural communication involves many academics attempting to figure out how to "change the world" by changing cultures and their behavior. From my experience that changing the world, American should changing its' behavior by having a new rule in cultural diplomacy. Such as the dilomacy will need to bring more our sources of culture introduce to the entire world know about America in many different potentials, such as the academics, artistics, libraries, technologies, job training, all facilities, and etc.... I am sure that these will attract to another countries with compliments about America and that how America need to focus on Cultural Diplomacy because only through Cultral Dimplomacy can open a new page for America.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the idea of Cultural Diplomacy is in fact a good thing, and can be viewed as generally positive. The way the government has gone about promoting American culture, however, has not provent to promote a more significantlly peaceful and understanding relationship with other countries. I think you are right in saying that if we really want to use cultural diplomacy, we need to take it out of the context of purely busniness relationships and focus more on long term strategies.
ReplyDeleteCultural diplomacy is clearly needed and a good thing however we can see how it is miss used. When going to the conference in the SIS lounge where they were discussing this topic, this was evident. The wife of an ambassador was rambling on and on about how awesome it was that they raised 5 million dollars to place some stature in Germany... wow. That was both absurd because she was clearly trying to drop names and the like, btu moreso that germany and the US dont really lack cultural understanding. I was talking to a man who was there to view this event and he was reiterating the importance of needing museums, and libraries they were discussing. Many nations lack these important intellectual hubs and by promoting these there can be a place where knowledge can be transferred as well as a cultural exchange between host countries and the nations helping them build them.
ReplyDeletePersonally i also feel as though there is not enough emphasis put on the cultural exchange that occurs between diplomats. So much of their interaction is dependent upon cultural understanding and differences, yet not in the way one would assume. For some reason people are quick to assume that this gap is not bridged however, more often then not it is.
I would argue that the whole argument that culture is such a hindrance of understanding in some senses Furthermore it can be seen that cultural misunderstanding can be used as an excuse rather then a reason. Even though there are extreme cultural differences between cultures i have personally been whiteness to people communicating efficiently across those barriers regardless of subtlety, or body language or use of time when their goals are in congruence. I would argue that individuals will throw off their cultural wrappings if you will to meet on some common ground. Moreover they will forgive faux pas and seeming ignorance if they believe that it will help them achieve something politically. We keep reading things about the whole polychronic use of time and people changing meeting times, yet i wonder if we look at the purpose for those meetings and the significance of the outcome to the person who kept being late weather or not they would help hem achieve some political goal. If not it would be easy to constantly reschedule or be late to meeting of seeming unimportance. However if a person form this polychronic time was the one trying to gain something of great importance form that meeting there would probably be little cultural barrier preventing it from happening efficiently. Here you can easily see cultural difference being used an excuse of sorts.
In the case of diplomats cultural misgivings are on an individual level, so when one person comes off as a crazy religious right wing conservative, diplomats of other nations are probably going to judge them and view many of us in that light. This wont prevent them from doing their jobs efficiently but, as a diplomats job is half dependent on being a social person, its does portray a certain image and perpetuation of stereotypes.
I agree that the symposium was interesting and better than expected. However, I was the same way as you were when you first thought about intercultural communication. I felt/still feel as though it is slightly lofty and maybe not realistic enough but the conference was very interesting to see how many people had such a passion for it. The fact that people got into some serious discussions and there were really good questions asked, showed that there are a lot of people with a lot of knowledge on the subject and enjoy studying intercultural communication. However, the one thing that I thought odd in the symposium was the constant call for the students in the room to help the cause and be used as a way to further the study. This is what brought me back to the feelings that the study is a little lofty and I just felt that it was a slightly odd call for help.
ReplyDelete