iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
John Brown

John Brown

GET UPDATES FROM John Brown

Public Diplomacy as a Linguistic Phenomenon

Posted: 04/24/11 07:35 PM ET

Public Diplomacy -- according to the US State Department, "engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences" -- was coined in the mid-1960s by Dean Edmund Gullion of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy as a term meant to be more acceptable than propaganda.

Public diplomacy continues to undergo interesting linguistic evolutions, as few persons can agree on what it actually means. Take, as a recent example of the opacity of the term, the headline of a front-page article (print version; also available online) in The Washington Post piece by Annys Shin, with the following headline: "DC Water chief turns on the public diplomacy to make tap hip again."


You may not think of George Hawkins when you flush your toilet, but Hawkins wants you to know that when you do, he's thinking of you.


Hawkins is the endlessly upbeat head of DC Water, the agency that many District residents still associate with leaded tap water, ineffectual fire hydrants and chronic water main breaks. For 18 months, Hawkins, 50, has been trying to persuade the District's residents to forget all that and get excited about the future. He wants to clean up the Anacostia River and cover the city with "green" roofs. And he wants D.C. residents to pay more to do it. A lot more -- without getting angry.

To that end, he has shelved the bureaucratic sounding "D.C. Water and Sewer Authority" for the more Evian-worthy name "DC Water Is Life." He has footage of himself on YouTube doing the robot at an office holiday party. And he's trekked to every ward in the city, handing out bags of fresh popcorn and free water bottles while he regales his audience with the wonders of sewage treatment and the complexities of water distribution.


While The Post article focuses on Hawkins's domestic "public diplomacy" (Ms. Shin is evidently unaware of the little-known 1948 Smith-Mundt Act, which, while not using the term, legislates that public diplomacy is a foreign, rather than domestic, USG activity) it does include a photograph with the following caption: "DC Water's general manager, George Hawkins, right, points out features of the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant to a delegation from China."


And in USA Today, we have an article by Richard Wolf and David Jackson about White House Easter egg roll keeps getting bigger, noting that President Obama


has a $14.3 trillion national debt, an 8.8% unemployment rate, two wars and a re-election campaign to worry about. Even so, President Obama is making time Monday to have 30,000 people over for eggs. Not just any eggs: Easter eggs. ... Why all the fuss? ...


Public diplomacy. Over the years, its [the egg roll] popularity has grown, creating a backlog of disappointed children who didn't make the cut. This year, 205,739 tickets were requested through an online lottery.


"The term 'public diplomacy,'" US International Broadcasting guru Kim Andrew Elliott wisely noted, "is now attributed to so many activities that it has lost useful meaning."

If everything is public diplomacy, then nothing is public diplomacy. But that in itself may be an interesting subject of discussion, an intellectual pursuit on the essence of things that medieval monks and American academics, both concerned, in different historical periods, with how many angels can dance on a pin, share in common.

Yet in some ways, the below bluntness of Richard Holbrooke, who was a practicing diplomat, regarding public diplomacy -- a comment which, while lacking in subtlety and nuance, and somewhat oblivious to our new so-called "networked" world, where everyone is supposedly "interactive" and centrally-controlled messages don't really count anymore -- is actually quite refreshing (like an icy shower), especially after one has endured yet another DC thinktank/university discussion on the infinite varieties of PD, each suited to the "turfs" of various agencies/NGOs eager to increase their budgets through federal funding:


Call it public diplomacy, or public affairs, or psychological warfare, or -- if you really want to be blunt -- propaganda.

A comforting (after it's over) icy shower, but, I would agree, ultimately misleading. The world is indeed more complex than ever -- a world where any kind of "definition" is actually an anachronism, as "defining" anything anymore in our multilayered societies has become increasingly impossible.


So no wonder the cottage industry of "what is PD" is thriving, not necessarily for the worst (or the best), in our age of uncertainty.

Yes, USG PD doesn't quite know what it's doing (is that just as well?), despite its so-called roadmap and the money we, the US taxpayer, spend on it.  Quite ironically a country challenging US hegemony -- China -- is, to assert itself on the changing global stage, using the US Cold War model of public diplomacy, at the very time that some in the US (including in the current administration) are abandoning such a oh-so-twentieth century activity as too "top-down." Take, as an  example, the very words of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Judith McHale (November 11, 2010):


I think that the more we can have people having direct conversations with each other -- and through those conversations and initiatives, through history of cultures we can learn about each other and if we do that, at the people-to-people level, that will provide us with a path to a more peaceful and prosperous future. So it's a key part of what we're trying to do, to really have people engage with each other, to learn about each other. So it's not public diplomacy, it's not messaging, it's not just a marketing campaign [my highlight]. It's really fostering an environment where you can strengthen relationships between people.

US PD: Paradox? Oxymoron? Rip-off? Investment? An Act of Faith? Winning Hearts and Minds? Information War (as Hillary Clinton at one point suggested)? Mutual Understanding? Propaganda? Hit 'em Hard Through Our Message? Engagement? A Conversation? That monster of military terminology, "Strategic Communication"?

Maybe only She, God, knows the answer.

 

Follow John Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivante

Public Diplomacy -- according to the US State Department, "engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences" -- was coined in the mid-1960s by Dean Edmund Gullion of the Fletcher ...
Public Diplomacy -- according to the US State Department, "engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences" -- was coined in the mid-1960s by Dean Edmund Gullion of the Fletcher ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Smithn
~ 13.7 Billion Years:::: i am not. BANG! I am.
05:42 PM on 04/25/2011
FYI: Charlie Rose is hosting a new series: The Secretaries: Conversations on Diplomacy with Hillary Clinton--from the State Dept. in DC. The first was with Kissenger. It's on PBS; so, you can see the first one there. It was very informative. The series will eventually cover all living Secretaries.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlanBannacheck
President of the Deep Thoughts Association (DTA)
05:16 PM on 04/25/2011
The paradox of the English Language! The problem with words (phrases) such as "Public Diplomacy" is they indeed have many meanings. This is due to the "context" in which they are written. Certain words also have many connotations that vary from person to person. It is impossible to know how a person perceives any given sentence at any given time.
11:51 AM on 04/25/2011
The purpose of public diplomacy at its most critical is to manage tensions while preventing bloodshed. Diplomacy has morphed from this into misguided blind tolerance and acceptance of the intolerable as merely examples of diversity and multiculturalism while presuming all cultures are relative. Nowhere has this had a more deleterious effect than with the embracing of Islam without critical analysis of fundamentalist beliefs, which demand strict adherence to the Qu'ran and is "radical Islam." The beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg have been wrongfully identified as acts done by a few who "hijacked" a religion. Instead of vilifying Rev. Jones who burned the Qu'ran, one should examine why Christians must accept the Crucifix in a vat of urine and the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung, while Islamists, the fundamentalists, who issue fatwas of death against cartoonist who draw the face of Muhammad, and murder film makers as happened to Theo van Gogh who made a short film critical of how Muslim women are treated under shariah law, are given license to do these acts with no condemnation? Our good heartedness and proclivity toward secularization should not turn diplomacy into capitulation when the other side has no intention of compromising.
09:35 AM on 04/25/2011
QUOTE:"I think that the more we can have people having direct conversations with each other -- and through those conversations and initiatives, through history of cultures we can learn about each other and if we do that, at the people-to-people level, that will provide us with a path to a more peaceful and prosperous future." This is just about as naive a statement I have ever read on diplomacy. Diplomacy's most important meaning is to manage tensions while preventing bloodshed. Diplomacy has dangerously morphed into political correctness and has turned into tolerating the intolerable in the spirit of diversity and the embracing of cultural relativism. No where is this more evident than the issue of radical Islam, while Islamists behead people like Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, murder Theo Van Gogh and there is no outrage from us, Pastor Terry Jones is excoriated for burning the Qu'ran. I am glad he highlighted the issue of the double standard. Christians have to "put up with" the crucifix in urine, the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung (we are told it's art), while Dutch cartoonists had a fatwa of death for merely drawing Muhammad's face. Why is diplomacy with Islam one sided?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Obama cares about all of U.S.
09:29 AM on 04/25/2011
"much ado about nothing" Shakespeare

"We are the ones we have been waiting for." Alice Walker
photo
lightist
light as a photon, heavy as tungsten.
01:33 AM on 04/25/2011
The more people realize that the dumbing down is clearly at societal insanity levels, the more that intelligent and sensitive people will need to communicate as clearly as possible with each other. The more that happens the higher the 'bar' gets raised throughout the general means of communing. Purposefully ignorant or unconsciously ignorant minds will be behooven (new word) inspired to shine brighter of drop away. This is already becoming more prevalent slowly but surely.
"Public diplomacy" should be for the public to decide. Without strong societal need to define it for ourselves, it will be decided for us.
10:18 AM on 04/25/2011
A new word is a "neologism." Beyond that your comment didn't make sense and says nothing. Who's judge and jury to determine who is "purposely" ignorant? Wouldn't two people of antipodal views be able to believe that of the other, and thus create an impasse? The fact is, at the end of the day, failing to have engaged in critical thinking prior to subjecting any issue to diplomacy will result in merely circumlocution at it's best, and result in fatal consequences, at it's worst.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlanBannacheck
President of the Deep Thoughts Association (DTA)
05:25 PM on 04/25/2011
True, is ignorance really decided by a person's environment? Cognitive dissonance is also a very powerful human trait, but not necessarily malevolent. Sure, there's logical fallacies in place to prove yourself wrong, but there also exists the negative feedback loop.

The endless war of critical versus irrational thinking will never be won. Thus, a sort of balancing act ensues.