zaharna-isa pd relational spheres 2011

[email protected] PD Relational Spheres ISA- 2011 1

Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Montreal, March 14-16, 2011. Awarded “Best Paper” by International Communication Division, ISA. Relational Spheres and the Primacy of Domestic and Diaspora Publics in Global Public Diplomacy R.S. Zaharna American University

To date, much of the literature in IR and communication, the parent disciplines of public diplomacy, have been dominated by the Western, and particularly the U.S. experience and perspective. As scholars have noted, this perspective privileges the autonomous individual or entity and focuses attention on the attributes and agency of the individual. For example, soft power resources appear as attributes of an individual entity, while public diplomacy presupposes a separation of “foreign” and “domestic” publics. Literature from other heritages tends to stress relations and holistic social structures. This paper introduces the concept of “relational spheres” that highlights the privileged position of domestic and diaspora publics and three analytical lens (assertive, associative, and harmonious) for viewing the subtle assumptions in the different conceptions and practices of global public. The paper draws on PD examples from Turkey, Iran, Colombia, Brazil, Uganda, South Africa, China, India, Korea, Indonesia and Japan.

In her comprehensive review of literature Kathy Fitzpatrick observed that while there are

divergent views on the conception of public diplomacy, there appears to be widespread

agreement that public diplomacy involves foreign as opposed to domestic publics.1 Earlier in

her discussion, Fitzpatrick notes Etyan Gilboa’s observation that public diplomacy is one of the

most “multidisciplinary areas of modern scholarship,”2

“In each case, scholars and practitioners see public diplomacy through the lens within which they are most familiar. For example, political scientists and politicians see public diplomacy through a political lens. Public relations scholars and practitioners see public diplomacy through a relational lens. Marketing and advertising see public diplomacy through a promotional lens. Diplomacy scholars see public diplomacy through a foreign policy lens.”

expanding across diplomacy studies,

political science, international relations, public relations, international communication, media

studies, marketing and advertising. As Fitzpatrick explains,

3

mailto:[email protected]�


What is significant about Fitzpatrick observation is the relationship between the lens that

a scholar uses and what he focuses on. The importance of lens, however, applies not just to

academic disciplines. While the various academic disciplines offer a variety of lenses or vantage

points for view public diplomacy, all of these social science disciplines share a common lens that

until recently has not been questioned. That lens that encompasses even the most comprehensive

of literature reviews on public diplomacy is a Western, and specifically U.S. cultural lens.

Public diplomacy is by definition a global phenomenon. As Jan Melissen noted several

years ago, foreign ministries around the globe have a heighten interest in public diplomacy.4

While there may be global interest, as Bruce Gregory noted, the overwhelming majority

of PD research has been focused on the U.S. as either the sponsor or target of public diplomacy.

Governments have developed new agencies and departments devoted to public diplomacy,

initiated specialize training programs and reports, and launched broadcast media and other

initiatives.

5

Similar to the PD panels of this ISA conference, American and British scholars dominate the

field. Many of the early and prominent reports were produced by U.S and U.K. government

agencies and private institution. Other prominent sources are also Western in origin, such as the

Clingendael in the Netherlands. Recently there has also been a surge of interest in Asia,

particularly, China, which is broadening the perspective.6

Reaching back to the parent disciplines of public diplomacy – international relations and

communication – one also finds the predominance of Western and again, predominantly U.S.

lens. In international relations studies, surveys of scholarship from 1977 to present reveal that

U.S. scholarly output was and still is overwhelming compared to the European production.

7 In

his review, Ole Wæver profiled the dominance of U.S. over European scholars and tried to

counter the claim that “national perspective was less important than competing paradigms” by

highlighting the significant differences between American and European perspectives.8 In 2006,

van den Assem and Volten noted that more than dominating in sheer numbers, the studies

showed a U.S. preference for a rational choice approach: “In the United States, both academic

discourse and political culture are framed by a material and individualistic approach of reality.”9

U.S. scholars are also dominant in communication, including the communication

subfields (political communication, mass media) and professional communication (public

relations, advertising, and marketing).

10 Wilbur Schramm, the “father for communication” and



his U.S. colleagues with whom he worked closely from 1945 to 1960 help establish the field.11

The “father of intercultural communication” is an American anthropologist (Edward T. Hall),12

while U.S. scholars continue to dominate intercultural communication literature.13 The “father of

public relations,” Edward Bernays, was a member of the U.S. Creel Commission during World

War I and “global public relations” remains informed primarily from the U.S. perspective. 14 As

Peter R. Monge, the former president of the International Communication Association,

remarked, “The preponderance of contemporary communication theory has been developed from

the singular perspective of the United States.”15

The predominance of U.S. scholarship in public diplomacy, as well as the parent

disciplines of IR and communication – combined with the post-9/11 focus on U.S. public

diplomacy experience cannot be underestimated. If one mono-cultural perspective of public

diplomacy is used, not only might other nations with different approaches appear lacking, but

they may overlook or neglect their own unique cultural features that are particularly valuable in

reaching a broad spectrum of culturally diverse publics. The insights on Chinese public

diplomacy by Professor Yiwei Wang, a leading scholar on Chinese foreign policy and public

diplomacy at Fudan University in Shanghai are relevant. The professor noted that while Chinese

public diplomacy had used “U.S. public diplomacy as a major model,”

Monge ranked the need to explore the diversity

of perspectives on what constitutes communication in various cultures as the field’s most

pressing issue.

16 even though he believed

that the Chinese approach was closer to the cultural exchange/cultural diplomacy of the French

than the “American-style media diplomacy.”17 He presented this difference as a limitation,

faulting the Chinese culture, “Chinese culture poses a considerable obstacle to effective Chinese

public diplomacy. The problem lies in the tradition of the rule of virtue. Chinese people prefer

self-examination and look for self-transformation in attempts to convince or convert others.”18

In a globalized, multicultural environment, it may well be that any one mono-cultural

perspective of communication may be limited in its reach and effectiveness. Liabilities in one

cultural context may be an asset and conversely, assets may be perceived as a liability in another

context. The advancement of public diplomacy scholarship and practice may not rest on finding

Viewed against the U.S. model, the Chinese approach to public diplomacy was seen as a lacking

rather than different.



one universal model or conception of public diplomacy, but rather developing a multi-cultural

perspective of what appears to be a multi-cultural phenomenon.

In this paper I explore the cultural underbelly of public diplomacy, focusing specifically

on assumptions that relate to the role of the domestic public. Part I draws from IR studies,

intercultural communication and public communication scholarship to explore assumptions

about communication, beginning in U.S. scholarship then moving around the globe. Part II

presents three different lenses for viewing communication and by extension, public diplomacy.

Part III looks at nation branding through the three different lenses. As the paper illustrates, the

importance of the domestic and diaspora public maybe the public diplomacy rule rather than the

U.S. exception.

PART I: Exploring Assumptions

Japanese scholar Yoichi Ito posited that social science theories are “cultural bound,” in

that they reflect cultural norms, biases and other characteristics.19 Buried in the U.S. perspective

are implicit cultural ideals and assumptions that shift researchers’ attention onto certain aspects

and away from others when examining phenomenon. Given that culture tends to hide itself most

effectively from its own members, those closest to the U.S. perspective may be the least likely to

have the distance to see its inherent biases. Over the past decade and more, these scholars from

other intellectual heritages and cultural perspectives have highlighted a host of features that

characterize the U.S. research perspective, including positive, quantitative, and linear.20

Among the most frequently cited assumption across the social sciences about the U.S.

perspective is that of “individualism,” and specifically, the “autonomous individual.”

21

Individualism has been a defining U.S. feature from when Alex de Tocqueville first coined the

term in his visit to early America in the 1830s.22 Over a century later, Robert N. Bellah’s study

of American society, Habits of the Heart, asserted that “Individualism lies at the very core of

American culture”23 Larry Samovar and his colleagues link individualism to survival in the

founding and settling of the United States: “The more people were able to accomplish on their

own, independent of others, the more able they were to survive the unsettled land… self-reliance

was paramount.”24 Despite the waves of new immigrants that have come to America’s shores,

individualism continues to define the American persona. In the recent Pew Global Attitude



surveys, individualism stood out as the defining characteristic that distinguished Americans from

the world.25

The assumption of the autonomous individual has several implications for

communication. First, by definition of being autonomous, it is possible for the individual to

communicate without being in a relationship. Communication is the process by which the

autonomous individual makes himself known to others and forms relationships. Second,

communication is a linear process of messages being passed back and forth between the

communicator and receiver. One-way communication presumes no relationship; two-way

communication initiates relationship building. Third, the individual is the primary level of

analysis. The communicator’s individual attributes and behaviors largely define the

communication. These attributes and behaviors are studied in relation to the message and

audience.26

A final important assumption is that the autonomous individual presupposes an Other, or

another entity different from the Self. Thus by definition, the audience or receiver of the

communication is external (rather than part) of the Self. In interpersonal communication,

scholars speak of Self and Other. In public communication and mass communication, we find

communicator and the audience, or more specifically the “target audience.” In public diplomacy

if the nation is viewed as the source, the audience would be those external to the nation, or

foreign publics.

These aspects of communication are reflected in the literature on U.S. public diplomacy.

The traditional definition of U.S. public diplomacy to “inform, influence, and understand”

foreign public is inherently one-way and assumes the audience is external to the United States.

One-way

Two-way

Source Message Receiver

S O

Interactive



Similarly, in the 2008 collection on public diplomacy, Geoffrey Cowan and Nicholas Cull

defined public diplomacy as “an international actor’s attempt to advance the ends of policy by

engaging with foreign publics.”27

This basic sender-message-receiver model is one of the dominant models used around the

globe. However, while the model is omnipresent, the assumption of the autonomous individual

may not be so wide spread. In fact, the assumption of the autonomous individual as the basic unit

of society and study may be unique to the U.S. view. The brief global tour below draws

primarily from IR studies, intercultural communication and public communication scholarship

and focused on the views of individual, relationships and communication in society.

The addition of “engagement,” along with listening and

dialogue and even networking approaches highlight the importance of relationship building as a

means to connect with others. What is important to note is that these are relational strategies or

tactics for building relationships with foreign publics. There is assumption of the autonomous

individual remains in U.S. public diplomacy as the source of control over the communication

process.

28

The United States and Europe are often combined under the umbrella “the West” when

compared to non-Western scholarship. However, recent communication scholars echoes that of

IR scholars who found important differences.

29 The most notable are different assumptions

about the nature of relationships and communication. In public communication, U.S. scholarship

tends to separate communication from relationship management. John Ledingham, reflects the

U.S. view when he described “relationships – not communication – as the domain of public

relations,” and called communication acts “as a tool in the initiation, nurturing, and maintenance

of organizational-public relationships.”30 In Europe the division between communication and

relationship is not as pronounced. Dejan Verčič and Betteke van Ruler found in their study of

public communication in 25 European countries that European practitioners tended not to

distinguish between communication and relationships, but rather used them interchangeably.31

It is perhaps noteworthy that one of the first and strongest moves away from the linear

views of public diplomacy comes from European writers. Jan Melissen’s frequently cited

depiction of “the new diplomacy,” also contains the assumption of relationships as

interchangeable with communication.

The new public diplomacy is no longer confined to messaging, promotion campaigns, or even direct governmental contacts with foreign publics serving foreign policy purposes. It is also about building relationships with civil society



actors in other countries and about facilitating networks between non-governmental parties at home and abroad.32

Another important distinction found in European scholarship is the importance of

context, specifically the social context. The influential German sociologist Jürgen Habermas

notion of the “public sphere” is prominent in communication-based pieces by European

scholars.33 Verčič,and his colleagues suggested the concern with the “public sphere”

distinguishes European public communication from the American focus on “publics.”34 What is

interesting about the U.S. scholarship is the tendency to focus on the entity’s communication and

relation with a public, or dyadic relationship itself.35

The inclusion of the public sphere as an assumption in public diplomacy is found in

Donna Oglesby observation: “some public diplomacy scholars, largely European, do embrace a

civil society centric definition of public diplomacy.”

Missing is the social context within which

organization-public relationships may emerge. For European scholarship organization-public

relations do not occur within a social vacuum but within a social context, specifically the “public

sphere.”

36 She cites the definition by Spanish

sociologist Manual Castells’ assertion that public diplomacy is “the diplomacy of the public, not

of the government” and that it “intervenes in this global public sphere.”37

Latin American scholarship further delineates the notion of social context in terms of

specific, concrete social relations. The individual-level perspective is acknowledged but it is

repeated tied to the centrality of the family as center of social gravity and communication. As

Korzenny and Korzenny state, “[there is]strong inclination to collectivism, thinking of the family

and the groups to which they belong, as essential elements to the functioning and enjoyment of

their lives.”

38

The significance of the family as the core expands the focus of communication from

individual-specific elements to group dynamics. Relationships become an inherent dimension of

group-level communication, not just a component or possible outcome of individual-level

communication. Individuals are not autonomous by nature but presumed to be linked to others.

The family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society is inscribed in the

national constitution of some countries. The Chilean constitution, for example, specifically states

in Article 1, “The family is the basic core of society.” It speaks of rights and responsibilities of

social group. In comparison, the U.S. Constitution focuses on individual rights and

responsibilities.



This raises the idea of “relational spheres” or patterns of relationships rather than random

relations in an abstract public sphere.

One might conceptualize relational spheres as relations that radiate out from the

individual from those that are strong and intimate to those more weak or distant. Anne-Marie

Slaughter, writing in Foreign Affairs provides a picture of a relational sphere in her description

of Brazilian diplomacy:

“Brazil, for example, defines its foreign policy in terms of concentric circles. It starts with Mercosur, the South American trading bloc, then continues to Latin America, the Americas, and the rest of the world.”39

Relational spheres privilege in inclusive circles those closest to the core entity. In the case of

Brazil, this means close trading partners. Relational spheres draw attention to the nature of

extended or patterned relationships with others. In the Asian heritage discussed shortly, the

relational patterns grow in complexity as the relational patterns become more complex.

Scholarship from the Arab world and greater Middle East echoes the importance of the

family and fundamental premise of extensive relational groupings (family, tribe, village,

community) as the basic unit of society and social scientific study. Historical, philosophical and

social accounts as well as religious texts such as the Qur’an and Sunna focus on the family and

social group, rather than the individual, as the basic unit of society. The founding Arab

sociologist Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) linked the strength of human social organizations to the

concept of “asabiyah,” or ‘solidarity,’ ‘group feeling,’ or ‘group consciousness.’ Asabiyah could

be built within a tribal clan or politically across an entire geographic region.40 More recently,

Arab sociologist Halim Barakat suggested the expression of “social complementaritality.” He

called the continuing dominancy of primary group relations, “characterized by intimate,

personal, informal, noncontractual comprehensive and extensive relations” a distinctive feature

of the society.41

The extensive nature of relations presupposes that all individuals are imbedded in some

type of relationship; no individual emerges or exists alone. Relationships are the pivotal, central

feature in communication and communication related scholarship across the region. As

Ambassador n Kenton Keith noted, “It is hard to overestimate the importance of personal

relations in the Arab world.”

42 In an earlier piece, I described an “associative view” of



communication competence in which “the significance, meaning, and purpose of communication

are derived from relationships among the parties and the social context within which it occurs.”43

The idea of being imbedded in relationships has several important implications,

particularly for public diplomacy. As mentioned earlier, U.S. scholarship proceeds from the

assumption of the autonomous individual and focuses on the individual’s or individual entity’s

communication. One does not have to be ‘in a relationship’ in order to communicate. One can

disseminate information. As the prominent public communication scholar James Grunig noted,

the asymmetrical (one-way) model of public communication is the most frequently used model

among U.S. practitioners.

44

The assumption of being in relations, including extended relational grouping, raises

another note about individual agency in initiating relationships. Inherent in the U.S. scholarship

is the implicit assumption that the autonomous individual can initiate and cultivate relationships

on his own or without assistance from others. The individual’s attributes or behaviors are

sufficient to create relations with a stranger.

With the one-way as the norm, (U.S.) scholarship must promote the

idea of two-communication and “relationship management” as a viable alternative. One sees a

similar stress in (U.S.) public diplomacy, with scholars stressing the need for relationship

building through a stronger emphasis on listening, dialogue and collaboration as well as cultural

diplomacy and exchanges. In societies in which relationships are an inherent feature of social

groups, individuals are presumed to be “in relations.” Rather than viewing the idea of

“relationship management” as a novel idea that needs stressing, communication activities

presuppose a relational orientation. In terms of public diplomacy, one might find a greater

reliance and even sophistication of relations-based initiatives while the nation’s one-way

initiatives may appear clumsy or “propagandistic.”

The idea of individual agency in initiating and cultivating relationships with others whom

one does not already have some type of connection is not a universal assumption. Globalization

may be increasing the likelihood or need for initiating interaction with “strangers” or with others

whom has no form of connections. However, traditionally, Arab societies are similar to many

Asian societies in that one would need “an introduction” or seek out another who already has

connections to initiate and facilitate relations. In the Arab world, the notion of wasta (which

literally means “the middle”) is both a verb and a person who acts as an intermediator between

persons to make connections. Cunningham and Sarayrah called wasta the “hidden force in



Middle Eastern society.”45 Hutchings and Wier likened wasta found in the Arab countries to the

more familiar concept of gunaxi, the social networking of relationship building found in China.46

Returning to the notion of relational spheres, one can see the regional focus (similar to

Brazil’s pattern) with an added emphasis on mediation and cultural affinity in the activities of

several countries that have gained prominence for their diplomatic acumen. In recent years,

Turkey has “turned east” building relations in the Arab world. It launched several public

diplomacy initiatives with its immediate neighbor Syria and has served as a mediator for its other

neighbor, Iran, with Western powers. Its sponsorship of the Liberty Flotilla to Gaza in 2010

garnered attention across the Arab world. Similarly, the tiny gulf state of Qatar has been

repeatedly cited for punching above its diplomatic weight for being able to successfully mediate

disputes where others have failed. That diplomatic success has brought it increased positive

visibility.

The idea of “foreign” relations is relative to one’s social grouping; one uses the idea of relational

spheres to identify relational boundary spanners.

47

In turning to African scholarship, the assumption of the autonomous individual also

appears alien. The individual finds personal definition within and through the group relations.

The primacy of relationships is inherent in the idea communal whole or communalism found

across the continent. As Peter Nwosu and his colleagues explain, “Whereas individualism

represents commitments to independence, privacy, self, and all-important I, communalism

represents commitment to interdependence, community affiliation, others and the idea of we.”

48

The most frequently cited term used to express the inter-connected humanness is the Zulu word,

Unbutu. The idiom is umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu (a person is a person through other persons).

As Antjiehi Krog explains the idiom, “one’s human-ness manifests itself in one’s relations with

others.”49 Not only is one human by being in relationship, being severed from critical

relationships can be equated with death.50 The Igbo people of Eastern Nigeria would say, “Onye

ya na Umunna ya a akwuro ga eli onwe ya” (a person who is not with his or her extended family

must bury himself).51

Krog speaks of the need “to learn how to ‘read’ interconnectedness.”

52 In the “wholeness

of life” or “the circle of life,” everything is interrelated, and as such the elements of life cannot

be compartmentalize or understood in isolation from each other.53 This interconnected offers

several insights. First, if one might ‘read’ the various types of interconnectedness: the



autonomous self that asserts agency to connect with others; the Arab presupposition that one is

embedded in relationships; and the African view that one’s humanness is bound up and

inseparable from those relationships.

Second, the inter-related and non-compartmental aspects suggest a blurring or fluidity of

relational boundaries between the individual and the larger social group. This fluidity of

boundaries and its implications for organization-public relations can be viewed from multiple

angles.54 The U.S. literature views the individual or individual entity as separate from the

community or public, hence the need to build relations and engage in relationship management.

In the African context, there is an implicit assumption that the entity is part of the community or

contained within the group boundary. This membership within the group carries with it specific

duties and obligations for the organization to the rest of the community. Failure to fulfill

relational expectations can be socially costly in terms of loss of face, or reputation. Additionally,

the fluidity of relational boundaries between the individual and the larger social group appears to

extend over time (generationally) and space (geographic). Hence an organization’s

communication to the community may extend beyond those immediately present, either

physically or temporally. Not coincidentally, ancestors play an intimate role in many African

traditions. Similarly, while notions of sovereignty and statehood are foundational components of

Western IR, African scholars have questioned the basic importance of the state.55

For public diplomacy, this fluidity and extension of relational boundaries as well as

communal obligations and duties associated with relations suggest that all government

communication by necessity would include its domestic public and even the geographically

dispersed diaspora community. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest such as will be discussed

later in the nation branding examples. The successful nation branding campaigns by African

governments contain strong domestic messaging strategies. One campaign designed by a

European public relations firm, which resonated positively with European audiences but not with

the domestic public, lasted only a few months before quietly fading away.

Diaspora publics also appear important. The Kenyan foreign policy strategy, for

example, rests on four interlinked pillars of economic diplomacy, peace diplomacy,

environmental diplomacy and diaspora diplomacy.56 In 2009, the government established a

databank to woo their disapora.57



India, along with other East Asian countries (particularly China, Japan and Korea) has

been at the forefront in questioning the applicability of Western social science theories to their

society. In recent decades, they have developed a rapidly growing body of indigenous

scholarship. In much the same way Western scholars refer back to Aristotle’s Rhetoric, scholars

across Asia (not just in India) have turned to their religious and philosophical treaties to develop

normative theories of communication.58One finds Indian scholars drawing from the wealth of

ancient Sanskrit works, such the upanisads (the philosophical texts of the Hindu religion, 2000-

600 B.C.), Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya and Bharat Muni’s Natyashastra, or the epics of

Ramayana and Mahabharat . Nepalese scholar Nirmala Mani Adhikary offers a comparative

analysis of Aristotelian and Hindu perspectives of communication.59 Other scholars have

proposed components of a Buddhist perspective.60 Scholars writing from the Islamic perspective

reference ayat or verses from the Quran as well as Sunnah (way of the Prophet).61

One dominant feature emphasized in Indian as well as other Asian scholarship, is the

holistic approach to studying communication and relations. In U.S. scholarship, one finds

complete discussions of relationships without any mention of a social context within which the

relationship occurs. In European, Latin, and Arab perspective, scholars assume a social context.

In Asian scholarship, one gets the sense of a social system and relationships are viewed from a

systems perspective. From systems perspective, everything is interlinked or interconnected. The

individual is not the unit of analysis, but the larger system. As Kim notes, “Specific obligations

and duties are attached to roles and status, but not to individuals.”

Among East

Asian scholars, Confucius’ the Analects (which contained detailed commentary on social

relations) is one of the most frequently cited works.

62

One sees this holistic perspective in public diplomacy described by Shelton Gunaratne.

Gunaratne argue that “Because of such obvious intereconnections and interdependence of all

peoples and nation-states, we have to study the world-system as a single unit of analysis.”

One cannot understand or

study an individual relationship without considering its connection to and within the larger social

system.

63 Qin

Yaqing speaks of the lack of an awareness of ‘international-ness.”As he explained, the world or

the state in the Chinese culture was not a clearly defined entity with infinite boundary but

referred to everything under the heaven and on the earth.64 Tingyang Zhao spoke of two totally

different spheres of thinking: “to think about the world” from an individual level and “to think



from the perspective of the world” from a global level. As he explained, the individual level

provides “the view from somewhere,” the global is “the view from everywhere.” 65

Asian scholarship brings full circle the U.S. ideal of “individualism” as autonomous

entities. From the U.S. perspective of the autonomous individual, which views relations as a

choice rather than condition, being imbedded in pre-defined relations might be viewed as a

limitation, threat or restriction.

66 From this perspective, the relationship between the individual

and society turns oppositional, that is the individual versus society. Asian scholars (including the

Far East), questioned the assumption of the oppositional stance.67

“The model of human … in the West is ‘human in society,’ as ‘human and society’ – the two being conceptualized as distinct and separate. As far as Indian thinking goes, the model is ‘human-society,’ i.e., the two being in a state of symbiotic relationship where you cannot separate the one from the other.

Similar to the African

communalism, Asian scholars speak of the harmony of human interconnectedness. D. Sinha tried

to capture the distinction between “human and society,” “human in society” and “human-

society.”

68

The holistic and ‘human-society’ perspective underscores the appeal of harmony in

relations with others. Gou-ming Chen described “harmony” as a cardinal value in Chinese

philosophy and used elements from Confucius to develop a “harmonious theory of Chinese

communication.69 From the view of the autonomous individual, harmony implies conformity.70

In Confucianism, harmony is associated with diversity.71As stated in Confucius’ the Analects:

“Gentlemen seek harmony but not conformity, small men seek conformity but not harmony.”72

Harmony is also questioned because of the assumption of duality and natural conflict

between separate entities. Robert Koehane suggested harmony was not possible, at best there

would be coordination.

73 To which Qin Yqaing answered, “In a holist world view, it [harmony]

is not only possible, it is inevitable, for the seemingly opposite elements always complement

each other. 74 In a system of inter-connected, inter-penetrating elements in which all are linked

together, as Shi-xu added, one is compelled to harmony.75

Given these assumptions associated with the inter-connectedness of relations, harmony

would appear to be as logical and desirable from the Asian perspective as “independence and

freedom” would be from the perspective of the autonomous individual. Not surprisingly, the

notion of harmony is a prominent, recurring theme expressed by Asian nations for the diplomatic

relations. Writing several decades ago, former Vietnamese diplomat Tran van Dinh included



harmony as one of the fundamental goals of a diplomat wants to convey to other governments

and their publics.76 “Harmony with the international community” was the key phrase for

Japanese diplomacy as it sought to stem Western fears of its growing economic power was in

from the late 1980s to early 1990s.77 More recent, China has also adopted “harmonious world”

as a diplomatic goal.78

The perspective of human-society and of “relational being” negates the idea of human

agency or absolute control in social relations. Korean scholars, for example, speak of the concept

of yon in communication: “Yon is related to the belief that relationships are formed, maintained,

and terminated by uncontrollable external forces, not by an individual’s conscious efforts.”

79

This relational being suggests a very different perspective from the autonomous individual. As

Japanese scholar Akira Miyahara pointed out, the English language literatures uses words such

as “create,” “build,” “manage” or “end” relations with others.80

A final notation from Asian scholarship, particularly from East Asia, is the complexity of

relationships. The complexity of the interwoven relationships in Asian societies is seen in

Confucius’ discussion of the five fundamental relationships as well as the concepts of li and ren.

It is similarly evident in the multi-layered honorific system of greetings that stipulate how one

addresses others in Japanese. Because one is embedded in a constellation of relationships, and

relationship differs, one must know the nature of the relationship in order to communicate. The

individual uses her awareness of social dynamics and relational strategies to achieve her goals.

In this respect, while the rules of the larger system may seem rigid, the individual may use his

relational acumen to navigate that system for his advantage.

From a relational perspective,

such vocabulary not only appears alien but redundant: How can one claim to “create” what

already exists?

81 Chinese scholars have referred to

Fei’s “manners of different orders.” Fei compares the evolution of one’s interpersonal relations

to “a stone cast into the water which generates ripples represent those closest to the social actor,

with different degrees of the ripple effect representing different degrees of intimacy and

obligation.”82

The complexity or interwoven nature between the individual and society is reflected in

the relationship patterns and relational spheres. In speaking of Indonesian IR approach, Sebastian

and Lanti, use the term “inter-mandala relationships.”



“Indonesia sees its own role to some extent in traditional terms reminiscent not of territorial nation-states with clearly demarcated borders, but of centres of foci which radiate power and prestige over larger or smaller regions from one period to another. Indonesia is perceived to stand at the centre …”83

One of the best IR examples of the interlocking nature of relations is from India and

China. Former Chinese diplomat Lu Zhongwei describes the vision of the leaders of the Chinese

and India of the 1954 Five Principles or Panchsheel signed between China and India for a system

of collective security or collective peace:

“They visualized the conclusion of Panchsheel agreements of the type between India and China to be signed between China and Myanmar, then Myanmar and India, then China and Indonesia, and Indonesia and India, and so on between as many countries as possible in Asia and the rest of the world.”84

The description of the Indian-Chinese treaty illustrates the more complex relational sphere that

goes beyond singular spheres to interlocking spheres. Perhaps not surprisingly, in Asia we find

the general assumption that public diplomacy includes domestic and diaspora publics – both are

the publics closest to the inner circles of the relational sphere. Thus, internal publics are a pre-

requisite before communication with more distance external publics.

As one can see from the literature, there are multiple views or assumptions about the

inherent nature of individual and society. The assumption of an autonomous individual that is

separate and distinct from other individuals and society appears to be a uniquely U.S. view. Just

as the U.S. assumptions shape a unique view of communication and by extension public

diplomacy, alternative views of individuals in society suggest different view of communication

and public diplomacy.



PART II: Analytical Lens

Based on the heritage of other societies, there appears to be an equally dominant

relational perspective of human society that assumes that entities are connected rather than

autonomous. This view would suggest a relational perspective of communication, and by

extension public diplomacy. Based on my research I have identified three lenses of the relational

perspective. The Assertive or expressive perspective assumes no relations; the individual is

separate and autonomous. Associative or relational perspective assumes paired relations,

individual connected to others. Harmonious or contextual perspective assumes network or

matrix of inter-connected, inter-penetrating relations.

The first perspective, the Assertive or expressive lens, is based on the U.S. assumption of

the autonomous individual and accentuates the individual’s attributes and behaviors as key to

understanding communication. It is possible “to communicate” without being in a relationship.

Because no relationship is presupposed, individuals use communication to assert their presence

into the social context and master their social environment, including relations with others. The

individual’s attributes and behaviors are key to defining the nature of the communication.

Communication is used to build and shape relations with others. Cultural diplomacy, citizen

diplomacy, sports diplomacy are strategies or approaches for building relations.

Assertive

Lens

This view of communication based on the autonomous individual has a parallel view of

public diplomacy. The Assertive or expressive view of public diplomacy is basically linear either

one-way or two-way between autonomous entities, that is the PD sponsor and the external

public. U.S. public diplomacy exemplifies the assertive view of public diplomacy. Jian Wang’s

description of “conventional public diplomacy” captures the essence of assertive public

diplomacy: “In conventional public diplomacy, the prevalent mode of communication is mass

S R



media-driven, one-way communication, supported by two-way communication such as cultural

and educational exchanges.”85

Because no relationship is assumed, when public diplomacy is viewed as the

communication by a nation, the audience would be those external to the nation, or foreign

publics. The image below reflects the relationship between the PD source and external audience.

PD source / Self Other /External, foreign audience

A second possible perspective suggested by the literature is a relational or Associative

lens of communication. The Associative lens views the individual imbedded in society (human in

society). From Associative perspective, an individual may have agency and attributes, including

individuality, but these aspects are defined primarily by the relations one has with others.

Because individuals are presumed to be imbedded in relations, it is the nature of the relations that

define communication.

The diagrams below seek to capture the Associative or relational lens, particularly the

intimate link between the communicator and the listener. Associative communication

presupposes a listener; a listener is needed to complete the communication of the speaker. As one

can see in the diagram on the left, the communicator, listener and message are all connected and

all have equal communication weight.86 The figure to the right, the basic infinity sign, reflects

the dynamic interactive communication experience of communication participants in a

relationship.87

Associative or Relational Lens

Secondary audience

Primary audience



As mentioned earlier, the diplomacy of Turkey and Qatar suggest an associative

perspective. Strong associative or relational features are also found in Iran’s public diplomacy.

Ramin Asgard, writing on Iranian cultural diplomacy, captures the distinction between an

Assertive and Associative perspective of cultural diplomacy. Asgard opens with what he calls

“the seminal review of modern American cultural diplomacy” by Richard Arndt.88 As Asgard

notes, the U.S. scholar differentiates between “cultural relations” (or relations between national

cultures and the cultural aspects that flow across border) and “cultural diplomacy.”89 According

to Arndt, 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.”90

Asgard finds a “broader” view offered of cultural diplomacy by Abbas Maleki writing in

Iranian Diplomacy.

91

“The major responsibility in cultural diplomacy is supposed to be undertaken by diplomats…[C]ultural diplomacy is not excluded to foreign diplomacy handlers. All people, including artists, traders, athletes, journalists, clerics, etc. can be representatives of the Iranian cultural and inform other societies on the cultural and civilization richness of Iran.”

Implicit in the phrase and description of “all people” are the Iranian

domestic public:

Another associative feature in Iranian diplomacy is the presence relational spheres. Von

Maltzahn’s description of Iran’s Islamic Culture and Relations Organization (ICRO), responsible

for coordinating Iran’s cultural foreign policies, captures the regional as well as cultural

dimensions of Iran’s relational spheres. Note the distinction between activities for the different

countries (Lebanon, Syria and Indonesia) and their proximity in Iran’s relational relations.

ICRO regards it cultural diplomacy work in Syria as exemplary. The Iranian Cultural Center in Damascus is amongst the largest and most active centers of ICRO. Whilst the organization regards it as important to reach out to other countries in general, it is a lot more active in countries that have good relations with Iran and have a large Muslim population, such as Syria, Indonesia and Malaysia for instance (ICRO officials 2008). In Lebanon, a country with much stronger historic cultural links to Iran than Syria, ICRO is less active – relations between Iran and Lebanon take place much more on a popular rather than on a state-to-state level. Iran’s cultural diplomacy work in Syria thus has to be seen within the specific framework of the Syrian-Iran alliance.92

The third perspective, the contextual or Harmonious lens, emphasizes the social context

as the key to defining communication, including that expected for the individual’s position. For



both the Associative and Harmonious perspectives focus is on relations, specifically managing

relations rather than delivering messages to external audiences. Hui-ching Chang captures the

distinction between assertive and harmonious understanding of communication, ‘Fundamentally,

the existing-alone American ‘self’ must be revealed through communication, whereas the

Chinese self lies in a network of interconnectedness in which communication is primarily a

lubricant.”93

There is an important distinction to underscore between the Associative and Harmonious

lenses in terms of the nature of their relationship formation and strategy. The Associative lens

tends to focus intensively on defining and solidifying paired relations or alliances with others in

close geographic or ideological proximity. The Harmonious lens is bounded by the larger

contextual sphere and hence seeks to develop extensive links with and between entities in a

matrix or network relational formation. This distinction influences the relational spheres one

finds in their public diplomacy.

The diagrams below illustrate the Harmonious lens. Similar to the Associative

perspective, communication presupposes being in some kind of relationship. It is the relationship

that influences the nature of the communication. The diagram to the left highlights the network

structure (ideally it would be 3-dimensional). The mandala diagram (from present day

Uzbekistan) illustrates the complex interlocking relations.94

Harmonious or Contextual Lens

The yin-yang symbol captures the interpenetrating, holistic perspective. The Assertive

perspective tends to view the symbol as two opposites, one white, the other black. The

Associative perspective tends to view the symbol as complementary pairs, each aspect



completing the other, such as the night for rest, the day for activity. The Harmonious lens would

tend to see a circle. In traditional Chinese medicine, the division of the holistic circle is in

quadrants, which as one may see always simultaneously includes both yin and yang aspects. The

waving line, as oppose to a straight cutting line, indicates the constantly changing nature between

the yin-yang, similarly the smaller dots within each element reflect the interpenetrating nature of

yin-yang.

Because there is no “autonomous” individual who is separate from the listener or

divorced from the social context, there is no truly separate, external audience. Communication by

definition presupposes a relationship; one must know or define the relationship in order to

communicate. Where there are no relations, there is limited or no communication. If

communication is required, communication boundary spanners or individuals who have relations

are used to gain access and immediacy.

In turning to public diplomacy viewed through the Harmonious lens, the domestic as well

as diaspora publics are assumed to be a central part of a nation’s public diplomacy. In fact,

because of their proximity to the core in the relational sphere, both play visible and prominent

Nation

Domestic public

Regional publics

Diaspora

Allied Publics

Foreign Publics



roles in public diplomacy. In public diplomacy, the diaspora public plays an additional important

role as boundary spanners across relational spheres.

One sees the assumption of the domestic public in India’s description of public

diplomacy. The opening line in a background paper on India’s first conference on public

diplomacy equates public diplomacy with “people to people diplomacy” and describes public

diplomacy as “a new dimension to international relations and redefined the way a country

engages with its citizens to garner their support for its foreign policy and national interests.”95

Yiwei Wang’s observation of the “Chinese government practice of mixing external and

internal propaganda,” (which he described as weakness), is very much indicative of the inclusive

vision and blurring of boundaries of the Harmonious lens. Similarly revealing is Wang’s

description of the Chinese understanding of public diplomacy: “the Chinese understand public

diplomacy by emphasizing the importance of minjian waijiao (people-to-people diplomacy).”

96

In other pieces on Chinese public diplomacy, particularly news pieces, one finds the public

diplomacy described as “people’s diplomacy.” 97 Rather than stressing the activities of the

government, the government appears to stress the activities and the contributions of the people.98

The importance of educating the domestic public was clearly evident when the Chinese Ministry

of Foreign Affairs announced the opening of the public diplomacy department in March 2004:

“China will not only greatly enhance the public's interest in diplomatic activities, will also help

train the national open mind.”99

A notable example of the role of the domestic public was during the 2008 Olympics.

China as the official host clearly saw public diplomacy significance of Olympics and took great

efforts to prepare its domestic public to properly receive the expected crowds of foreign visitors.

The people were described as “the keys to success.”

100 The government distributed a brochure

for protecting the national image and included guidelines on proper manners and dress. One taxi

company responded having its drivers wear yellow shirts, yellow symbolizing hospitality. Such

attention to detail, especially in hosting guests, is a hallmark of relational finesse and exemplary

of the Harmonious lens that values propriety in relations for promoting harmony in the larger

social context. Viewed through the Assertive lens such the attention to detail and compliance

was negatively portrayed by the Western media.101 What is also interesting but indicative of the

Harmonious lens, while public diplomacy focused on the intricate details of proper hosting of

guests (a relational imperative) it appeared at a loss in handling the negative media publicity over



its human rights as the Olympic torch relay made its way through parts of Europe and the United

States. Here a strong Assertive perspective would have given Chinese PD an appreciation of the

need for a public voice and strategy for countering negative publicity in the Western media.

Another example of the inclusion of the domestic public is found in Japanese public

diplomacy. 102 Japan’s public diplomacy initiative in the Middle East not only involves the

domestic public, but illustrates the feature of reciprocity or mutuality in relations. As Tadashi

Ogawa explains, “The Japan Foundation has paid much attention to the idea of mutuality, which

means keeping a balance in flows of information and knowledge between Japan and the Middle

East. Therefore, one of the three pillars of the new Middle East programs is to promote better

understanding of the Middle East among Japanese.”103Another aspect of Japanese public

diplomacy is that rather than amplifying its own voice, it seeks to differentiate itself from

Western public diplomacy, by effectively strengthening the voice of people in the Middle East

through the “healing of traumatized national pride” for war-damaged countries.104

Like the domestic public, the diaspora public is also an important component of public

diplomacy from the harmonious perspective. Former Ambassador M. Humayun Kabir from

Bangladesh to the United States wrote on the importance of the diaspora for his country,

particular in tackling the “invisibility syndrome” of small nations. One of the first lessons he

found was “that public diplomacy worked best when our people understood how and why it

works.”

105

In neighboring India, the diaspora has been integral to public diplomacy. Beyond

growing economic and political power, the Indian diaspora appears to have played a critical role

in boosting India’s image and international standing.

106 With the number of Indians living

overseas are estimated at anywhere between 26-30 million across all continents,107 the Indian

government has been keen to enhance diaspora relations. One sees the relational spheres in

analysis of India’s diaspora diplomacy. The Indian government has worked on human rights

issues for the Indian diaspora in the Gulf countries. Indian diaspora in East Asia play a role in

extending India’s Eastern relations. The Indian diaspora in the United States have played a

strong role in cultivating relations with the U.S. government and public.108 The U.S. State

Department even hosted a function for the Indian-American community prior to President

Obama’s visit to India. The event brought together “high-level U.S. government officials, leaders

of the Indian American diaspora … to highlight the crucial role of Indian Americans in the ever-



strengthening U.S.-India relationship.”109

Another example of the diaspora playing a prominent role comes from Korean public

diplomacy. The Korean diaspora is viewed as relationally linked not only to Korea, but among

themselves. Thus the government public diplomacy efforts not only work to enhance its

relationship to the Korean diapora, but to facilitate and strengthen that interlocking connections

within the diaspora community. Note the relational pattern suggested by Yoo Jae-woong, former

assistant minister of the Korean Overseas Information Service from 2004 to 2008, to describe

the diaspora: “ A network of seven million Korean residents overseas is one of the country's

valuable assets as well.”

Interestingly, compared to its vigorous relational

activities of public diplomacy in the United States, the Indian embassy in Washington issues a

modest, low tech magazine to get its message out about those activities.

110 The inter-relationship link between domestic and diaspora

communities in South Korea’s is articulated even more strongly in the work of the 2009

Presidential Council on Nation Branding. First, the role of Korean communities has been

specifically highlighted. Euh Yoon-dae, the Council’s chair told a gathering of about 450 leaders

of overseas Korean communities during a four-day conference in Seoul that “Korean

associations overseas play a crucial role in raising Korea’s international status.” 111 Second, to

help build that connection, a database and communication network has been established for

overseas Koreans. As Euh explained, the website Korea for all Koreans for “no matter where

they are living, can share information and communicate with each other.” This step represents a

reinforcing networking effect of connecting Koreans globally to each other and back to the

homeland. Euh added, “We are focusing on programs to help young Koreans abroad build

bridges of friendship between Korea and the nations where they reside and work.” Finally, the

plan focuses on Koreans to become “global citizens” by focusing on Koreans’ “attitude to the

world and focus on Korea’s traditional nationalism and anti-Americanism.” Finally, what is

perhaps most noteworthy is that these strategies are not new, but similar to and build onpast

initiatives.112

As a means to understand how the different lenses provide analytical insight in to public

diplomacy, look at the role of the domestic public in national branding.



PART III: Nation Branding

Some public diplomacy scholars view nation branding as separate from public

diplomacy. However, if one considers nation branding as an exercise of a nation communicating

with the international arena, the three lenses offer a revealing perspective. The goal of nation

branding campaigns – enhancing national image or increasing foreign investment or tourism –

suggests that foreign audiences are the target or primary audience. However, if one looks closely

at these campaigns, the sentiments of the domestic public may be the critical linchpin that

determines the success or failure of nation branding campaigns. Being able to see the role of the

domestic public depends on the analytical lens.

Colombia es pasión, (Colombia is passion) is an example of strong domestic stakeholder

engagement.113 Colombia’s export, tourism and investment promotion agency, Proexport,

initiated the program as an internal or national domestic campaign in which different Colombian

sectors, including the Government, worked together to improve the image of the country on a

national and international scale. Soon after its debut, the campaign logo and slogan was readily

adopted by Colombian companies, trade unions, state and local entities, associations and

federations, as well as an airline and even bicycling teams.114 The campaign became a source of

national identity and pride for the country’s citizens, who, in turn, made a personal effort to

improve individual service and attention in their tourism and investment activities with foreign

publics.115 Fiona Gilmore called the “spirit of the people,” the heart of the brand of countries.116

Indonesia’s nation branding initiative is another example of a campaign that has the

domestic public as the first priority. The campaign Visit Indonesia 2008, Celebrating 100 Years

of National Awakening was launched by the Indonesian Ministry of Culture and Tourism in

2008. The intended audience of the campaign in the first year was affluent travelers and native

Indonesians. The title is generic for external publics. The tagline, however, probably carries

little meaning for external audience but has clear political significance for the domestic public.

The campaign commemorates 1908 as the beginning of national movement. It is one of the few

national tourism campaigns based on a political theme. The campaign also had a political

message to raise awareness about Indonesia’s growing role as a democracy in the Muslim world.

When Colombia did move to external promotion activities aimed at foreign audience, the country

realized increased tourism and investment benefits from the program much earlier and stronger

than originally anticipated.



Incidentally, the campaign logo has political significance in that it is based on the national coat

of arms.

The “spirit of the people” noted by Gilmore is significant because many countries

highlight their people or domestic public in their nation branding campaigns. While many nation

branding campaigns try to promote their countries a tourist destination highlight natural marvels

or historic treasures. The people are used to represent that national character or some aspect of

the country that the campaign wants to highlight. In 2009, Indonesia highlighted its “natural

treasures and spirit of the people.” The tagline for the Republic of Kosovo was Kosovo, the

Young Europeans, was a play on the idea of that Kosovo was one of the youngest (newest)

countries in the world and also home to one of the youngest population in Europe.117

In addition to domestic audiences, nation branding campaigns also target their diaspora

communities. Amazing Thailand 1998-1999 campaign, for example, was aimed at Thai expats

and foreign visitors and was promoted through international phone cards. The Tourism Authority

of Thailand provided support to the Thai Chamber of Commerce (Thaicham) in the United States

and the Telemed Corporation to produce international phone cards to promote various projects

and activities connected with the campaign.

118

In some national branding initiatives, the domestic audience appears to have taken the

lead in trying to prompt the government to develop a nation branding campaign. Latvia, for

example, has a rich cultural heritage, but like other newly independent countries of the former

Soviet Union, was a relative new comer to the world stage. The Latvian Institute, turned to

outside experts, including Wally Olins and researchers at Oxford University, to help assess

Latvia image and develop a pilot brand identity for Latvia. The goal of the nongovernmental

Institute was to encourage discussion in the government and society on the need for a nation

branding initiative.

119

As the above examples illustrate, domestic public play multiple roles in nation branding

campaigns. First, as the Colombian example shows, the domestic public helps ground the

campaign matching internal image with projected external image, which helps create a viable

and credible campaign message. Second, the domestic public is not only part of the message, but

can help circulate the message. South Africa’s nation branding campaign is interesting in that it

appears to be built on a “messaging chain” that begins with the domestic public and

organizations to foreign visitors to foreign audiences.

120 Finally, as mentioned earlier, a strong



positive domestic role can greatly enhance the potential success of a campaign. Conversely,

weak or absent domestic stakeholder engagement may cause nation branding campaigns to falter.

In 2005, Uganda government launched a campaign that had been funded by the U.S. Agency for

International Development and designed by the U.K.-based public relations firm Hill &

Knowlton.121

Perhaps somewhat ironically, two prominent examples of branding campaigns that failing

because of domestic backlash are from the United States and United Kingdom. Weeks after the

9/11 attacks on the United States, Charlotte Beers took charge of U.S. public diplomacy. Beers, a

40 year veteran of Madison Avenue advertising, promised to conduct one of the first ever

branding campaigns for the United States.

The campaign was aimed at highlighting Uganda’s many natural resources for

foreign audience, hence the tagline Gifted by Nature. The camp failed to resonate with the

domestic public. For them, Uganda was, as Winston Churchill called her, “The pearl of Africa.”

The initiative was abandon in less than a year.

122 After intensive research was conducted on the

targeted audience of the Arab and Islamic world, planners identified “shared values” between the

Americans and Muslims. However, almost as soon as she began assembling the pieces of the

multi-million dollar initiative, Beers was roundly criticized both abroad and – at home. Beers’

extensive background in advertising only seemed to fuel criticism of the campaign rather than

lend it professional legitimacy.123 “You can’t sell Uncle Same like Uncle Ben,” remarked Nancy

Snow, referring to Colin Powell’s initial praise for Beer’s branding skills that got him to buy

Uncle Ben’s rice.124

Another notable branding campaign failure was Cool Britannia launched in the 1990s by

the government of Tony Blair. The campaign was designed to counter foreign perceptions of the

British as stuffy, reserved, and stuck in the past. Although designed to give the British a new

image for foreign audiences – a very clear and clever objective, the domestic public did not buy

their new “cool” image.

The campaign only ran a few months in the winter 2002 and stopped after

Beers abruptly resigned in early 2003. In retrospect, what is interesting is that the foreign public

simply dismissed the branding campaign. Their criticism was much stronger for the television

initiative, Al-Hurra. In contrast, the U.S. domestic reaction (policy makers, media, and analysts)

reacted very strongly to the idea of “branding America” and ultimately only killed the campaign

but prompted Beers’ resignation. U.S. public diplomacy continues to fund Al-Hurra despite the

sentiment of the foreign public.



“The problem was that half of the British population are not ‘into’ cutting-edge fashion, design, music and the arts. Additionally, many industries actually thrive on traditional values such as honor and reliability. The brand Cool Britannia was not inclusive enough and amplified only part of Britain. And as a result, the effort is widely seen to have failed.125

What is interesting, but perhaps not surprising is that both the U.S. and U.K. nation

branding campaigns were high profile campaigns that were conceived and designed to counter

negative perceptions by foreign publics. Both ultimately failed because of domestic opposition.

Why this result is not surprising goes back to the nature of the Assertive lens.

The U.K. and U.S. campaigns illustrate the power of the a lens to focus attention. The

three lenses discussed earlier do not shape or create reality but are lenses for viewing

communication phenomena. They bring into focus certain elements and down play others. The

failure to account or literally to even see the domestic public as part of public diplomacy is one

of the distinct features of Assertive or expressive lens. Public diplomacy viewed through the

Assertive or expressive lens assumes the perspective of the autonomous individual and focuses

on getting the (national) message out to (external) publics. The domestic public was not part of

the public diplomacy equation. While the domestic public is ever present, its role was

overlooked.

The power of the Assertive lens and inability of U.S. and U.K. public diplomacy to see

the role of domestic public may account for one of the greatest public diplomacy ironies over the

past few years. At the same time period that both countries launched very aggressive campaigns

targeted at gaining positive sentiment from publics in the Islamic world, the U.S. and U.K.

domestic publics grew increasing negative toward Islam. The repercussions of “Islamophobia”

by the domestic public are effectively erasing any gains made by public diplomacy to win over

foreign publics.

This brings us back to Kathy Fitzpatrick and her observations, which on the surface sends

a powerful message to public diplomacy for all nations and scholars and specifically for U.S.

public diplomacy and its scholars.

The continued neglect of the domestic dimensions of U.S. public diplomacy holds significant consequences of the future of public diplomacy itself. Most importantly, the lack of attention to American publics means that public diplomacy will continue to operate without a [U.S.] domestic constituency to support its work.126



In so much as public diplomacy continues be defined by U.S. public diplomacy, the role of the

domestic and diaspora public will be overlooked in scholarships if not practice. (I inserted

“U.S.” in the last sentence to qualify public diplomacy from the Assertive lens.) Nations that

view public diplomacy through an Associative and Harmonious lens appear to be very conscious

of the role of domestic constituency, both positively and negatively. Countries are making an

effort to incorporate the positive role of the domestic and diaspora publics to reinforce public

diplomacy goals. Conversely one sees efforts to control, disassociate, or isolate the negative role

of the domestic and diapora publics when they have the potential to undermine public diplomacy

goals.

Conclusion

This paper has explored the role of the domestic public in public diplomacy. While public

diplomacy is a global phenomenon, it is strongly influenced by the U.S. (and U.K.) public

diplomacy experience and practice. The U.S. view of public diplomacy appears to rest on the

assumption of an autonomous individual that is separate and distinct from other autonomous

individuals and society. The assumption of the autonomous individual has created a uniquely

U.S. view of communication and by extension, public diplomacy that tends to focus on foreign

audiences assumes exclusion of domestic public. As the global survey showed, the intellectual

heritages of many if not most of the nations around the world do not view individuals as the basis

of society, but rather view “human in society” or “human-society.” This relational assumption

that all entities are somehow connected suggests other views of communication and public

diplomacy.

The paper presented three lenses: assertive, associative and harmonious. All three lenses

contain basic the basic elements of individual, other, and society. They differ in terms of

emphasis or what is accentuated in communication. These different emphases correspond to

different levels of analysis. The Assertive lens assumes an individual-level analysis that focuses

primarily on the actions of a principal entity. By extension, public diplomacy focuses on the

attributes and actions of the autonomous entity’s effort to communicate with external entities



(foreign publics). The Associative or relational dimension assumes a relational-level analysis that

focuses primarily on the relationship between principal entities. The Harmonious contextual

dimension assumes a global-level analysis that focuses on the interrelationships among multiple

entities and the larger social context. Both the Associative and Harmonious lens view the

domestic and diaspora publics as key and even privileged components in a nation’s public

diplomacy.

The nation branding examples were used to view public diplomacy through the three

lenses. Because each lens represents a single perspective or mono-cultural view of public

diplomacy, each has its own limitations in trying to communicate in a multi-cultural world with

culturally diverse publics. The paper raises the importance of developing a multi-cultural

perspective of public diplomacy.



Endnotes

1 Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers / Brill Academic, 2009), 95. 2 E. Gilboa, “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616, no. 1 (2008): 55-77. 3Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers / Brill Academic, 2009), 85. 4 Jan Melissen, Public Diplomacy between Theory and Practice, The Present and Future of Public Diplomacy: A European Perspective. The 2006 Madrid Conference on Public Diplomacy (WP), 30 November 2006. http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/documentos/276.asp 5 Bruce Gregory, “Book Review,” Hague Journal of Diplomacy 5 (2010): 300. 6 Joshua Kurlantzick, Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World. (Yale University Press, 2007); Ingrid d’Hooghe, “The Rise of China’s Public Diplomacy,” Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael, July 2007; Sheng Ding, The Dragon’s Hidden Wings: How China Rises with its Soft Power (Lexington Books, 2008); Mingjiang Li, Soft Power: China’s Emerging Strategy in International Politics, (Lexington Books, 2009); Jian Wang, Soft Power in China: Public Diplomacy through Communication (Palgrave 2010), Sook Jong Lee and Jan Melissen, Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia (forthcoming, 2011). 7 See, Stanley Hoffmann “An American Social Science: International Relations,” Daedalus 106, (1977), pp. 41-60; Ole Wæver, “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations,” International Organization 52 (1998), pp. 687-727, and Arjan van den Assem and Peter Volten, “Political Culture and International Relations: American Hegemony and the European Challenge,” EpsNet Plenary Conference, Budapest, June 16-17, 2006. As Smith stated: “My main conclusions will be that the discipline is still dominated by positivism; that this is far more the case in the US than in the rest of the world; that, this comment notwithstanding, the discipline of IR remains an American social science” p.374. Steve Smith, “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?” British Journal of Political and International Relations, 2 (2000), 374-402. 8 Ole Wæver: Many scholars, however, argue that there is no such thing as national perspectives on international relations. Distribution among competing theories or 'paradigms' is more important than national distinctions. If more Americans are participating in the networks of our globalized discipline, this is of no relevance to the content of theorizing. I this article I show that an American hegemony exists and that it influences the theoretical profile of the discipline and I explain where it comes from…” p.688. Ole Weaver, “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations,” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 688. 9 Arjan van den Assem and Peter Volten, “Political Culture and International Relations: American Hegemony and the European Challenge,” EpsNet Plenary Conference, Budapest, June 16-17, 2006, p. 7. 10 For discussion, see, Stephen W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss, Theories of Human Communication 8/e (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005), 3-4. 11 See Christopher Simpson, Science of Coercion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). 12 Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, “Notes on the History of Intercultural Communication: The Foreign Service Institute and the Mandate for Intercultural Training.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76(1990): 262-281; and Rogers, E. M., Hart, W. B., & Miike, Y. “Edward T. Hall and the History of Intercultural Communication: The United States and Japan.” Keio Communication Review, 24 (2002), 3-26 13 Hart, W. B. (1999). Interdisciplinary influences in the study of intercultural relations: a citation analysis of the International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, (1999), 575-589. 14 Speaking specifically about the field of public relations, Krishnamurthy Sriramesh (co-authored the Global Public Relations Handbook), noted despite the emergence of recent studies from different regions of the world, “much of the literature and scholarship in our area continues to be ethnocentric with a predominantly American, and to a lesser extent British and Western European, bias.” Krishnamurthy Sriramesh, (2009). The Relationship between Culture and Public Relations,” in Krishnamurthy Sriramesh and Dejan Verčič (Eds.) The Global Public Relations Handbook: Theory, Research and Practice Routeledge, 2008. 15 P.R. Monge, “Communication theory for a globalizing world,” in J.S. Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st Century (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1998), pp. 3-7. 16 Yiwei Wang, Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2008, 616, 257-273, p. 260.


http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/documentos/276.asp�


17 Yiwei Wang, Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2008, 616, 257-273, p. 259 18 Yiwei Wang, Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2008, 616, 257-273, p. 262. 19 Y. Ito, “Mass Communication Theories in Japan and the United States,” pp. 249-87 in W.B. Gudykunst (ed.) Communication in Japan and the United States. Albany, NY : SUNY Press, 1993), 250. 20 Wimal Dissanayake, “The desire to excavate Asian theories of communication: one strand of the history,” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4, no. 1 (2009): 7-27; Y. Ito, “Mass Communication Theories from a Japanese Perspective,” Media, Culture & Society 12 (1990): 423-464; S. Ishii, “Complementing contemporary intercultural communication research with East Asian sociocultural perspectives and practices,” China Media Research 2, no. 1 (2006): 13–20; S. A. Gunaratne, “De-Westernizing communication/social science research: opportunities and limitations,” Media, Culture & Society 32, no. 3 (2010): 473-500; Y. Miike, “Asian contributions to communication theory: An introduction,” China Media Research 3, no. 4 (2007): 1–6. 21 Min-sun Kim, Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implicaitons for Theory and Practice. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2002). 22 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, translated by Goerge Lawrence (NY: Doubleday, 1969). 23 Robert N. Bellah, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987), 124. 24 Larry Samovar, Richard Porter, and Nemi Jain, Understanding Intercultural Communication (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1981), p. 65. 25 Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes: America Against the World: How We Are Different and Why We Are Disliked New York: Holt, 2007. 26 Individual attributes include ethos, credibility, charisma, etc. Individual behaviors would include verbal and nonverbal skills, competencies, styles, etc. Because the communication weight falls on the message, research has concentrated on message design and dissemination. Theories of persuasion and information processing, for example, have greatly advanced message framing strategies. Similarly, communication technologies, first the mass media and now social media, accord multiple modes and platforms for message dissemination. However, the underlying premise of the autonomous individuals remains fundamental to U.S. conceptions of communication. 27 G. Cowan and N. J. Cull, “Public Diplomacy in a Changing World,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616, no. 1 (2008): 6-8. 28 This research is derived from a book-length manuscript exploring the cultural underbelly of public diplomacy. I am very aware of its limitations (particularly Eastern Europe, and Latin America) and very much welcome insights and sources. 29 In addition to Dejan Verčič and Betteke van Ruler work cited below, see, Chiara Valentini and Giorgia Nesti, Public Communication in the European Union: History, Perspectives and Challenges, New edition. (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010). 30 John Lendingham, one of the leading U.S. scholars on relationship management is very clear about the separation of relationship and communication: “With relationships – not communication – as the domain of public relations, the overarching principles of public relations must be derived not from communication theory but relationships.” He views relationships as central and tied to management. Communication is a tool: “… relationship management theory shifts the central focus of public relations from communication to relationships, with communication acting as a tool in the initiation, nurturing, and maintenance of organizational-public relationships.” J. A. Ledingham, “Relationship Management: A General Theory of Public Relations,” in C. Botan and V. Hazelton (eds), Public Relations Theory II, (Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006), pp.466, and 469. 31 Dejan Verčič and Betteke van Ruler (2004) “Overview of public relations and communication management in Europe,” in Betteke van Ruler, Betteke and Dejan Verčič, (Eds.) Public Relations and Communication Management in Europe. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004) 3-4. 32 Jan Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice,” in Jan Melissen (ed), The New Public Diplomacy (London: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2005), 22. 33 Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (The MIT Press, 1991). 34 Dejan Verčič, Betteke van Ruler, Gerhard Butschi, and Bertil Flodin, On the definition of public relations: a European view.(Report on European Public Relations Body of Knowledge) Public Relations Review 27 (2001), 373-387



35 There is a large body of public relations scholarship on “organization-public relationship” (OPR). Only recently have contextual aspects emerged, most notably from Asian students studying in the United States. E. J Ki and J. H Shin, “The status of organization-public relationship research in public relations: analysis of published articles between 1985 and 2004” (2005); K. Moloney, “Trust and public relations: Center and edge,” Public Relations Review 31, no. 4 (2005): 550–555; G. M Broom, S. Casey, and J. Ritchey, “Toward a concept and theory of organization-public relationships,” Journal of Public Relations Research 9, no. 2 (1997): 83–98. 36 Donna Marie Oglesby, Spectacle in Copenhagen: Public Diplomacy on Parade, CPD Perspectives, 2010, 8. 37 Manuel Castells, “The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance,” ANNALS 616 (2008): 78. Cited in Oglesby (2010), 8. 38 Felipe Korzenny and Betty Ann Korzenny, Hispanic Marketing: A Cultural Perspective (New York: Elsevier, 2005), 196. 39 Anne-Marie Slaughter, “America's Edge,” Foreign Affairs 88 (February 2009): 111. 40 Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History (F. Rosenthal, Trans., and N. J. Dawood, Ed.), (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967). 41 Halim Barakat, The Arab World. (University of California Press, 1993) 23. 42 Kenton Keith. “The last three feet’: Making the personal connection.” In W. A. Rugh (Ed.), Engaging the Arab & Islamic worlds through public diplomacy (pp. 11–21). Washington, DC: Public Diplomacy Council, 2004), 15. 43 R. S. Zaharna, “An Associative Approach to Intercultural Communication Competence in the Arab World,” in Darla Deardorff (Ed.) Sage Handbook on Intercultural Communication Competence (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009), 179-195. 44 James Grunig and L.A.Grunig, “Public Relations in the United States: A Generation of Maturation,"Krishnamurthy Sriramesh and Dejan Verčič (Eds.) The Global Public Relations Handbook: Theory, Research and Practice Routeledge, 2008, 323-256. 45 Robert Cunningham and Yasin Sarayrah, Wasta: The Hidden Force in Middle Eastern Society (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993). 46 Kate Hutchings and David Weir, “Understanding networking in China and the Arab World; Lessons for international managers.” Journal of European Industrial Training, 30 (2006), 272-290. 47 Lina Khatib, “Public Diplomacy in the Middle East: Dynamics of Success and Failure, “ in Ali Fisher and Scott Lucas, Trials of Engagement: The Future of US Public Diplomacy (Martinus Nijhoff, 2010), 133-159; Paul Rockower, “Qatar's Public Diplomacy” (USC, Center for Public Diplomacy, PubD 599, December 12, 2008), http://mysite.verizon.net/SJRockower/PSR/QatarPDv4.pdf. 48 Peter Ogom Nwosu Nwosu p. 169 49 Antjiehi Krog. '...if it means he gets his humanity back...': The Worldview Underpinning the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 3(2008), 207. 50,Antjiehi Krog. '...if it means he gets his humanity back...': The Worldview Underpinning the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 3(2008)), 212. 51 Peter Ogom Nwosu, “Understanding Africans’ Conceptualizations of Intercultural Competence.”In Darla Deardorff, The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence. pp. 158-178 (Los Angeles: Sage,2009), 169. 52 Antjiehi Krog. '...if it means he gets his humanity back...': The Worldview Underpinning the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 3(2008), 208. 53 Antjiehi Krog. '...if it means he gets his humanity back...': The Worldview Underpinning the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 3(2008), 207. 54 Scholars have noted that collectivist societies make a stark distinction between “in-group” and “out-group” and express loyalty to the in-group and resist interactions with the out-group. Individualist societies, which tend not to make such distinctions, have a more fluid view of the (group-level) boundaries and thus move readily between in-groups and out-group relations. One might reason that whereas individuals from collectivist societies may pay closer attention to the boundaries between groups and find the need to define relational boundaries at the group level, individuals in from individualist societies, because of their concern for autonomy, may pay less attention to relational boundaries at the group level, but considerable attention at the individual level. 55 Kevin C. Dunn and Timothy M. Shaw, Africa's Challenge To International Relations Theory (Palgrave Macmillan, 2001); Siba N. Grovogui, “Regimes of Sovereignty: Rethinking International Morality and the African Condition,” European Journal of International Relations 8, no. 3 (September 2002): 315-338. 56 Kenya Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mfa.go.ke/index accessed: December 14, 2009.



57 Githua Kihara, “Databank to woo Kenyans in the diaspora established,” Business Daily Africa, August 5, 2009 http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/-/539552/634938/-/56v5ik/-/ 58As Indian scholar D. Sinha pointed argued back in 1965: “Long before the advent of scientific psychology in the West, India, like most countries of the developing world, had its own religious and metaphysical systems that contained elaborate theories about human nature, actions, personalities, and interrelationships in the world …”cited in Jai B. P. Sinha, “Factors Facilitating and Impeding Growth of Psychology in South Asia with Special Reference to India,” International Journal of Psychology 30, no. 6 (1995): 695. 59 Nirmala Mani Adhikary, “The Sadharanikaran Model and Aristotle's Model of Communication: A Comparative Study.” Bodhi 2 (2008): 268-289. http://sadharanikarantheory.blogspot.com/2008/12/sadharanikaran-model-and-aristotles.html 60 Wimal Dissanayake," Buddhist Communication Theory." Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. 2009. SAGE Publications. 14 May. 2010. http://www.sage-ereference.com/communicationtheory/Article_n35.html; R.D. K. Jayawardena, Communication theory: the Buddhist viewpoint. AMIC-Thammasat University Symposium on Mass Communication Theory: the Asian Perspective, Bangkok, Oct 15-17, 1985. Chuang and G-M Chen, Buddhist perspectives and human communication. Intercultural Communication Studies vol. 12 no. (4) (2003), 65–80. 61 Dilnawaz Siddiqui, “Narrative Analysis of the Islamic and the Western Models of News Production and the Ethics of Dissemination,” Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Association of Media and Communication Research, Nanyang Technical University, Singapore, July 2000; Djajusman Tanudikusumah, “Communication theory: The Islamic perspective,” AMIC-Thammasat University Symposium on Mass Communication Theory : the Asian Perspective, Bangkok, Oct 15-17, 1985; Mohd Yusof Hussain, “Islamization of communication theory,” Conference Paper, AMIC-Thammasat University Symposium on Mass Communication Theory : the Asian Perspective, Bangkok, Oct 15-17, 1985; Gholam Khiabany, 'Is there an Islamic Communication? The persistence of tradition and the lure of modernity', Critical Arts 21(2) (2007); Hamid Mowlana, Foundation of Communication in Islamic Societies, in Jolyon P. Mitchell and Sophia Marriage (Eds.) Mediating Religion: Conversations in Media, Religion and Culture (New York: T & T Clark, 2003), 305-328; Dilnawaz Siddiqui, “Narrative Analysis of the Islamic and the Western Models of News Production and the Ethics of Dissemination,” Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Association of Media and Communication Research, Nanyang Technical University, Singapore, July 2000; .Muhammad I. Ayish, “Beyond Western-Oriented Communicaiton Theories: A Normative Arab-Islamic Perspective.” The Public 10 (2003), 79-92. 62 Uichol Kim, “Psychology, Science and Culture: Cross-Cultural Analysis of National Psychologies,” International Journal of Psychology 30, no. 6 (1995): 670. 63 Shelton Gunaratne, “Public Diplomacy, global communication and World Order: An Analysis based on Theory of Living Systems.,” Current Sociology 53, no. 5 (2005): 755. 64 Qin offers an vivid image that captures China’s relational sphere: “If you stand on top of the hill in the Imperial Garden behind the Forbidden City, you see a square-shaped complex of buildings surrounded by a larger square surrounded by an even larger square … This is the Chinese understanding of the world, which is infinite in space and time with the Chinese emperor’s palace at the center. It was a complete whole where no dichotomous opposite existed.”Yaqing Qin, “Why is there no Chinese International Relations Theory,” in Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia, Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan (eds.) (New York: Routledge, 2010), 36. 65 Zhao Tingyang: “Western habit of taking entities like “individuals” and “nations/states” as the decisive units of consideration. By contrast, in Chinese philosophy the basic unit of consideration is a relational structure, such as family and tian xia. A philosophy based on “relationships” instead of “individuals” thus provides “the view from everywhere” rather than “the view from somewhere.”Zhao Tingyang “The System of Tian xia: an Introduction to a philosophy of the world institution,” cited in Tong Shijun, “Chinese Thought and Dialogical Universalism” Chinese Thought and Dialogical Universalism, November 17, 2005, Shanghai. www.escsass.org.cn/adm/UploadFiles/200611693147377.doc 66 Edward Stewart, in one of the most comprehensive analysis of US cultural patterns, observed, “The American stress on the individual as a concrete point of reference begins at a very early age when the American child is encouraged to be autonomous …the American is not expected to bow to the wishes of authority, be it vested in family, tradition or some organizations.” Edward C. Stewart, American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Chicago: Intercultural Press, 1972), 70. 67 Shi-xu, “Reconstructing Eastern paradigms of discourse studies,” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4, no. 1 (2009): 29-48; Ron Scollon and Suzie Wong Scollon, “face parameters in east-west discourse,” in The Challenge of Facework in Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.) (New York: State University of New York Press, 1994), 133-151; Satoshi


http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/-/539552/634938/-/56v5ik/-/�

http://sadharanikarantheory.blogspot.com/2008/12/sadharanikaran-model-and-aristotles.html�

http://sadharanikarantheory.blogspot.com/2008/12/sadharanikaran-model-and-aristotles.html�

http://www.sage-ereference.com/communicationtheory/Article_n35.html�

http://www.escsass.org.cn/adm/UploadFiles/200611693147377.doc�


Ishii, “Enryo-sasshi Communication: A Key to Understanding Japanese Interpersonal Relations,” Cross Currents 11, no. 1 (n.d.): 49-58. 68 D. Sinha’s idea of ‘human in society’ may well capture the idea of being imbedded in society, which is closer to the descriptions suggested by the intellectual heritage of Latin American and the Middle East. Durganand Sinha, “Changing Perspectives in Social Psychology in India: A Journey Towards Indigenization,” Asian Journal of Social Psychology 1, no. 1 (1998): 19. 69 Gou-ming Chen, “A Harmony Theory of Chinese Communication,” in Virginia H. Milhouse, Molefi Kete Asante, and Peter O. Nwosu (eds), Transcultural Realities: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Relations, 1st ed. (Sage Publications, Inc, 2001). 70 Researchers found that in independent cultural the term “unique” whereas in interdependent the term ‘conformity” has positive connotations of connectedness and harmony in East Asian cultural contexts Kim and Markus (1999), cited in Sun-min Kim, 2001, 36. 71 Hui Leng, A Study of Intercultural Discourse between Mainland Chinese Speakers of English and Anglo-Australians (Liaoning Normal University Press: Liaoning Normal University Press, 2007); Gou-ming Chen, “Toward an I Ching Model of Communication,” China Media research 5, no. 3 (2009): 72-81; Wenzhong Hu, Aspections of Intercultural Communication, Proceedings of China's 2nd Conference on Intercultural Communication (Shanghai: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1999); Steve Kulich and Michael Prosser, Intercultural Perspective on Chinese Communication (Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2007). 72 (君子和而不同小人同而不和), junzi he er bu tong xiaoren tong er bu he, Analects XIII:23 73 Robert Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, (Princeton University Press, 1984). 74 Yaqing Qin, “Why is there no Chinese International Relations Theory,” p.15 75 Shi-xu, “Reconstructing Eastern paradigms of discourse studies,” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4, no. 1 (2009), 36. 76 As van Dinh noted: “a diplomat always tries to convey to his/her interlocutor and/or the public of the country he/she is accredited to, an image of his/her country and governments’ stability, tranquility and harmony.” Tran van Dinh, Communication and Diplomacy in a Changing World (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1987), 7. 77 Tadashi Ogawa, “Origin and Development of Japan's Public Diplomacy,” in Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy in N. Snow and P. Taylor (eds.) (New York: Routledge, 2009), 276, http://stopnwo.com/docs3/routledge_handbook_of_public_diplomacy.pdf. 78 In 2005, at the United Nations’ 60th anniversary summit China’s president, Hu Jintao defined the concept of “harmonious world” as a combination of multilateralism, cooperation and “a spirit of inclusiveness where all civilizations coexist harmoniously and accommodate each other”. 79 Samsup Jo and Yungwook Kim, “Media or Personal Relations? Exploring Media Relations Dimensions in South Korea,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 81, no. 2 (Summer): 294. 80 Akira Miyahara brings attention to the English language that reflects the mode of personal control and mastery as the causal agent in environmental change, including human relations. Miyahara, A. “Toward Theorizing Japanese Interpersonal Communication Competence from a Non-Western Perspective.” American Communication Journal 3, no. 1 (2006). http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/isse/spec1/Miyahara.html. 81 Harmony does not imply absence of conflict. There are numerous relational strategies for negotiating conflict in non-confrontational ways. See, Ron Scollon and Suzie Wong Scollon, “Face parameters inEeast-West discourse.”; Hui-ching Chang and G. Richard Holt, “More than Relationship: Chinese Interaction and the Principle of Kuan-Hsi,” Communication Quarterly 39, no. 3 (1991): 251-271; Chien Chiao, “Chinese Strategic Behavior: Some General Principles,” in The Content of Culture: Constants and Variants, Studies in Honor of John M. Roberts, Ralph Bolton (ed.) (New Haven, CT: HRAF, 1989), 525-537; Chien Chiao, “Strategic Behavior of Chinese Political Elites” (Working Papers 2, Department of Anthropology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1995). 82 H. C Chang and G. R Holt, “More than relationship: Chinese interaction and the principle of kuan-hsi,” Communication Quarterly 39, no. 3 (1991): 256. 83 L.C. Sebastian and I.G. Lanti, “Perceiving Indonesian Approaches to International Relations Theory,” in Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia, A. Acharya and B. Buzan (eds.) (New York: Routledge, 2010), 168. 84 Zhongwei Lu, “The Strategic and Cultural Connotation of ‘the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence’and Its Realistic Significance,” (sponsor: Academy of International Studies and Department of International Relations, Nankai University), n.d., http://www.irchina.org/en/xueren/china/view.asp?id=819.


http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/isse/spec1/Miyahara.html�


85 Jian Wang, “Managing National Reputation and International Relations in the Global era: Public Diplomacy Revisited,” Public Relations Review, 32 (2006), 94. 86 This diagram is adapted from a visual created by Yoshio Nakano to illustrate different views of relationships between Japanese and US managers described by Chie Nakane, Tekioo no Jooken (Conditions for Adjustment) (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1972). The figure on the left represents the value of independence by US managers, the one on the right represents oneness or wholeness of Japanese relationships. ce of management communication styles of Japanese scholar Yoshio Nakano, ‘Problem-Solving vs. Relations-Building: Frame Analysis of Negotiation between Americans and Japanese,’ in Hu Wenzhong (ed), Aspects of Intercultural Communication, Proceedings of China’s 2nd Conference on Intercultural Communication (China, 1999), 438. 87 The use of the infinity sign stems from intercultural communication scholar Muneo Jay Yushikawa’s idea of a “double-swing model” as a ‘dialogical mode’ of intercultural encounters. As he explains, if one sees the two circles as two entities, while they are “separate and independent, they are simultaneously interdependent … the emphasis is on wholeness, mutuality, and the dynamic meeting .. even in their union, each maintains a separate identity.” Muneo Jay Yoshikawa, ‘The Double-Swing Model of Intercultural Communication between the East and West,’ in D. Lawrence Kincaid (ed), Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives (New York: Academic Press, 1987), 322. 88 Ramin Asgard, “U.S.-Iran Cultural Diplomacy Report”, July 16, 2009, 1, http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/July/20090716172735xjsnommis0.8587109.html. / published Al-Nakhlah (Fletcher School Online Journal), Spring 2010. 89 It is perhaps noteworthy to point out that Arndt argued this distinction because other nations do not make such distinctions. As Arndt noted (p. xv), the French introduced the term “cultural relations” in 1923 when they launched their cultural centers. This observation echoes the observation earlier in this paper in the opening of the global survey that found U.S. public relations practitioners distinguish between using “communication” and “relationships,” while European practitioners tend to use them interchangeably. 90 Richard T. Arndt, Cultural Diplomacy: The First Resort of Kings, American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century (Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2005), xvi. Cited by Asgard, 1. 91 Cited by Asgard. Original: Abbas Maleki, “New Concepts in Cultural Diplomacy,” Iran Diplomacy, March 22, 2008, http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/index.php?Lang=en&Page=21&TypeId=&ArticleId=1674&Action=ArticleBodyView. 92 Nadia Von Maltzahn, “The Case of Iranian Cultural Diplomacy in Syria,” Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 2, no. 1 (2009): 49. 93 Hui-ching Chang, “Interface between Chinese Relational Domains and Language Issues: A Critical Survey and Analysis,” in Intercultural Perspectives on Chinese Communication, Steve J. Kulich and Michael H. Prosser (eds.). (Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2007), 105. 94 Mandala, from Sanskrit word “circle,” used for spiritual mediation in Hinduism and Buddhism. This mandala from Right sign on the facade of the Mausoleum of Ak-Astana-baba (Surkhandarya viloyat, Uzbekistan). Featured on Uzbekistan Prof. Shamsiddin Kamoliddin(Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences, Tashkent) "On the Religion of the Samanid Ancestors," Transoxiana, Journal Libre de Estudios. Orientales, July 2006. http://www.transoxiana.org/11/kamoliddin-samanids.html 95 Public Diplomacy Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “Public Diplomacy in the Information Age,” (Background), New Delhi, India, December 10-11, 2010. http://publicdiplomacy2010.in/about.php 96 Y. Wang, “Public Diplomacy and the Rise of Chinese Soft Power,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616, no. 1 (2008): 259. 97 Xinhaunet, “Yang Jiechi on "economic diplomacy" and "public diplomacy" 2008年03月12日12:03 来源：新华

网 (in Chinese), news.xinhuanet.com/misc/2008-03/12/content_7772542.htm. 98 It is interesting to note the personal, relational tone of public diplomacy pieces from Asia. Early writings on public diplomacy distinguish between “traditional diplomacy” government-to-government diplomacy and public diplomacy as “government-to-public diplomacy.” This is a somewhat official, impersonal tone with focus on message transmission from one entity (government) to another (foreign public). In the journal that Wang’s piece appeared, The ANNALS, most of the contributors focused on actions of the government. In Chinese literature on public diplomacy the government seems focused on the activities and contributions of the people. 99 Oriental Outlook: China Pushing Public Diplomacy, April 5, 2004. Wang Xin. www.people.com.cn/GB/shizheng/1026/2429716.html


http://www.transoxiana.org/11/kamoliddin-samanids.html�

http://publicdiplomacy2010.in/about.php�

http://www.people.com.cn/GB/shizheng/1026/2429716.html�


100 China Radio International (online, Chinese), “Public Diplomacy” is one of the keys to success in the 08 Olympics,” (in Chinese), July 24, 2007. gb.cri.cn/14714/2007/07/24/[email protected] 101 Jill Drew, “Beijing Cabbies Ordered Into Uniforms for Games,” The Washington Post, August 2, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103028.html. 102 Similar to China, some of the subtles and intentions of Japan’s public diplomacy has been lost. Some observers have been perplex by Japan’s seeming wealth of “soft power cultural resources,” but very limited public diplomacy impact. Japan’s lack of public voice may be a sign of weakness from the Assertive lens. However, Japan’s emphasis on relations is indicative of its harmonious lens. Douglas McGray, “Japan’s Gross National Cool” Foreign Policy, May/June 2002; Glen S. Fukushima, “Japan’s Soft Power” Japan Foreign Trade Council (JFTC) News, July/August 2006, 1-2. http://www.jftc.or.jp/english/news/116.pdf 103 Tadashi Ogawa, “Origin and Development of Japan's Public Diplomacy,” in N. Snow and P. Taylor, Handbook of Public Diplomacy (Routledge, 2009), 280. 104 Ogawa gives the example of Japan’s work with Iraqi soccer athletes and coaches. “In cooperation with MOFA, the Japan Foundation gave agrant to cover travel expenses for the Japan Football Association (JFA) to invite the Iraqi national soccer team to Japan. With this assistance, the JFA organizaed a match between Japan and Iraq in 2004. The game was broadcast worldwide because this was the first international game for the Iraqi soccer team since the Iraqi War began. MOFA worked with the Iraqi government to provide intensive training for the national athletes and coaches. The Iraqi people applauded their [team’s] good performances in international games such as the Athens Olympics while healing their traumatized national pride.” Tadashi Ogawa, “Origin and Development of Japan's Public Diplomacy,” in N. Snow and P. Taylor, Handbook of Public Diplomacy (Routledge, 2009), 280 105 M. Humayun Kabir, “Public Diplomacy at Bangladesh’s Missions Abroad: A Practitioner’s View,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 3 (2008), p. 302. 106 Parag Khanna, “Bollystan: India’s Diasporic Diplomacy,” December 3, 2004, http://www.theglobalist.com/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=4279 Rohee Dasgupta, “The Character and Growth of Indian Diplomacy,” School of Politics, International Relations and the Environment, Keele University, Staffordshire, U.K., 2005; Kishan S. Rana, “India’s Diaspora Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 4 (2009), 361-372. 107 Madhurjya, The Diaspora in Public Diplomacy – Indian and Chinese, August 4, 2009. http://www.publicdiplomacyblog.com/2009/08/diaspora-in-public-diplomacy-indian.html 108 Amit Gupta, The indidan Diasporaʼ s Political Efforts in the United States, September 2004, http://www.observerindia.com/cms/export/orfonline/modules/occasionalpaper/attachments/op040918_1163398084234.pdf. 109 US State Department, “U.S.-India People to People Conference: Building the Foundation for a Strong Partnership,” Notice to the Press, Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC, October 27, 2010 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/10/150075.htm 110 Jae-woong Yoo, “South Korea - Public Diplomacy,” Korea Times, 2009, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/01/198_37889.html. Jeong-ju Na, “Overseas Koreans Lauded as Civic Ambassadors,” Korea Times, June 24, 2009, http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/09/116_47387.html. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. Most of the projects cited may not appear new to most Koreans, because many of them already exist or were undertaken in the past. 113 http://www.colombiaespasion.com/VBeContent/home.asp 114 The campaign slogan, however, did not resonate as well with some non-Colombians, see, Simon Jenkins, “Passion Alone Won’t Rescue Colombia from its Narco-Economy Stigma,” The Guardian, February 2, 2007; and Matt Moffett, “Colombia Wants the World to Recognize Its Passion: Latin American Nation Trots Out a New Slogan, Seeking to Rehabilitate Its Brand After Years of Violence and Corruption,” Wall Street Journal , October 27, 2008. 114 Silvia Marquine, “Nation Branding Campaigns in Latin America,’ Unpublished Masters Capstone Project, 115 Silvia Marquine, “Nation Branding Campaigns in Latin America,’ Unpublished Masters Capstone Project, American University, May 2009; and Margarita Arango, “Colombian Nation Branding Campaign: Colombia is Passion,” Unpublished Masters Capstone Project, American University, May 2008. 116 Fiona Gilmore, “A Country – can it be repositioned? Spain – the success story of country branding,” Journal of Brand Management, 9 (April 2002), p. 286. 117 Kosovo, The Young Europeans, http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/the-kosovo-nation-branding-campaign


mailto:gb.cri.cn/14714/2007/07/24/[email protected]�

http://www.jftc.or.jp/english/news/116.pdf�

http://www.theglobalist.com/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=4279�

http://www.publicdiplomacyblog.com/2009/08/diaspora-in-public-diplomacy-indian.html�

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/10/150075.htm�

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/01/198_37889.html�

http://www.colombiaespasion.com/VBeContent/home.asp�

http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/the-kosovo-nation-branding-campaign�


118 TAT Promotes Amazing Thailand Campaign 1998-1999 Through International Phonecards, ขาว ทั่วไป PRESS RELEASE LOCAL 14 Jul 1997 12:50:00 http://www.ryt9.com/general/ ; Bangkok--July 14—TAT, http://www.ryt9.com/es/prg/1690 119 Spencer Frasher, Michael Hall, Jeremy Hildreth, and Mia Sorgi, “A Brand for the Nation of Latvia,” Oxford Said Business School, Commissioned by the Latvian Institute, 2003. http://www.politika.lv/en/topics/quality_in_politics/15754/ 120 Sherry Kennedy, “The South Africa Welcome! Campaign: an Examination of the Strategies behind a Domestic Nation Branding Campaign,” MA capstone, May 2008. 121 “Tourism Promoters Reject Uganda's "Gifted By Nature" Brand.” All Africa.com, March 17, 2009, (http://www.eturbonews.com); Western PR Company to Sell Uganda, BBC News, May 19, 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4563909.stm) 122 For extensive discussion, including cultural missteps, see, R.S. Zaharna, Battles to Bridges: U.S. Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy after 9/11 (Palgrave, 2010). 123 See, for example, Victoria de Grazia, “The Selling of America, Bush Style,” New York Times, August 25, 2002., Naomi Klein, “Brand America: America’s attempt to Market Itself Abroad Using Advertising Principles is Destined to Fail,” Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002. 124 Nancy Snow, “US Public Diplomacy: Tale of Two Who Jumped the Ship at State,” Foreign Policy in Focus, May 27, 2004; http://www.fpif.org/papers/0405taleoftwo_body.html. 125 Michael Morley, The Global Corporate Brand Book (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 79. 126 Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy, 15.


http://www.ryt9.com/general/�

http://www.ryt9.com/es/prg/1690�

http://www.politika.lv/en/topics/quality_in_politics/15754/�

http://www.eturbonews.com/�

http://www.fpif.org/papers/0405taleoftwo_body.html�

zaharna-isa pd relational spheres 2011

Documents