Summary Diplomacy makes extensive use of symbols, rituals and ceremonies. This practice is related to the nature of the state and diplomatic representation: (a) states and their intentions can be objectified through symbols, symbolic actions and interactions; and (b) diplomatic agencies and agents symbolically represent the state. Symbolism in diplomacy helps people to capture the meaning of international affairs and socially and individually to experience states and inter-state relations. Symbols, rituals and ceremonies in diplomacy are designed to create a shared sense and also to motivate and regulate the moods of groups and individuals who directly or indirectly participate in or observe diplomatic practice. Linguistics, imagery and ritualistic/ceremonial formats of symbolism exist in diplomatic practice. Each can have communicative, regulative and affective functions. Symbolism is meaningful and instrumental in making sense of states and international politics and in managing and regulating inter-state relations. However, diplomatic symbolism can also be used formally and manipulatively.
The present article analyses the phenomenon of self in diplomacy. The diplomatic self is considered as a holistic conglomerate of individual and state selfhoods. Diplomats, as human individuals, have a strong attachment to the state as a distinctive personhood. The state identity becomes part of the personal identity of diplomats. As a result, any external treatment of the home state affects diplomats' individual selfhood. At the same time, such self-related phenomena as the self-concept, self-perception, selfesteem, self-illusion, self-enhancement, self-deception, and self-presentation of diplomats have a reverse effect on the selfhood of the sending state and the image of the home state in the process of diplomatic representation. The author argues that the selves of diplomats play a significant role in the policy of prestige, diplomatic negotiations, presentation of the state, personal wellbeing and stresses and neuroses among diplomats.
This article analyses international conflicts through defining and discussing narrative practices. We distinguish various sites where clashes of narratives materialise and specific narrative practices are performed: in traditional diplomacy, in public diplomacy and in the media. We reach three conclusions: narratives influence all aspects of diplomatic practice, including strategic negotiations in secret talks and public engagements; state and non-state actors' practices enact narratives and the growing interconnectedness can fosters clashes of narratives; in crafting and performing political narratives, diplomats and non-state actors refer extensively to legal norms and international law exploiting them as elements of narration. At a theoretical level, we incorporate practice theory into narrative analysis and vice versa, building a bridge between the practice turn and the linguistic turn in constructivist thinking. To illustrate, we analyse the Crimean crisis in February and March 2014 that opposed Russia and Ukraine and its Western supporters.
The author argues that the international context provides an apparent environment for the individual experiencing of the state as a distinctive unitary and cohesive actor with its own intentionality and personhood, social relations and coercive resources, manifested not only by actions and force, but also through symbols, figure of speeches and other allusive forms capable of affecting human identity. As a direct personal observation, individual experiencing of states contains an inner, phenomenological plan, though it is not a solipsistic process and depends on people’s shared meanings. Conventional perception of states as anthropomorphic actors regards relations between states as social or interpersonal relations, thus causal attribution and social expectations affect individual experience of states. Being primarily a common-sense phenomenon, individual experiencing of states has a wide-ranging effect on both ‘conventional’ and ‘conceptual’ understanding of international relations. In perception and explanation of international politics, real political developments are often overshadowed by observable, experiential, common-sense causations.
This article examines the role of state actors, organization agencies, and individual agents in diplomatic interactions and negotiations. States as diplomatic actors, organizations as diplomatic agencies, and individuals as diplomatic agents enter into complex and interdependent relationships. Proposing a three‐level analysis of interstate interactions and diplomatic negotiations, I argue that no diplomatic negotiation happens without interactions between parties at the state, organizational, and individual levels. The agency–structure paradigm provides a conceptual framework for understanding behavioral and structural properties of international interactions and their influence on diplomatic negotiations. Diplomatic negotiation employs specific forms of interaction, using a distinct language, protocol norms, symbols, ceremonies, and rituals. The state's “self” (as a social conception of its identity, values, and interests) affects the process of diplomatic negotiation. By managing, organizing, and improving international interactions at the actor, agency, and agent levels, negotiating parties can advance the process and effectiveness of diplomatic negotiation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.