Public diplomacy is a political instrument with analytical boundaries and distinguishing characteristics, but is it an academic field? It is used by states, associations of states, and nonstate actors to understand cultures, attitudes, and behavior; build and manage relationships; and influence opinions and actions to advance interests and values. This article examines scholarship with relevance, usually unintended, to the study of public diplomacy and a body of analytical and policy-related literature derived from the practice of public diplomacy. Ideas, wars, globalism, technologies, political pressures, and professional norms shaped the conduct of public diplomacy and the literature of scholars and practitioners during the hot and cold wars of the twentieth century. In the twenty-first century, thick globalism, network structures, and new technologies are transforming scholarship, governance, and state-based public diplomacy. An achievable consensus on an analytical framework and a substantial scholarly and practical literature hold promise for an emerging academic field.
Understanding, planning, engagement and advocacy are core concepts of public diplomacy. They are not unique to the American experience. There is, however, an American public diplomacy modus operandi with enduring characteristics that are rooted in the nation’s history and political culture. These include episodic resolve correlated with war and surges of zeal, systemic trade-offs in American politics, competitive practitioner communities and powerful civil society actors, and late adoption of communication technologies. This article examines these concepts and characteristics in the context of US President Barack Obama’s strategy of global public engagement. It argues that as US public diplomacy becomes a multi-stakeholder instrument and central to diplomatic practice, its institutions, methods and priorities require transformation rather than adaptation. The article explores three illustrative issues: a culture of understanding; social media; and multiple diplomatic actors. It concludes that the characteristics shaping the US public diplomacy continue to place significant constraints on its capacity for transformational change.
Radical changes in diplomacy's global environment challenge traditional categories in diplomacy's study and practice. The "foreign" and "domestic" divide is blurred beyond easy recognition. Public diplomacy is no longer a separate instrument of diplomacy. The term marginalizes a public dimension that is now central in diplomatic practice. This article examines four boundaries that both separate and connect: (1) a distinction between diplomacy and foreign policy that benefits diplomacy studies and clarifies choices in practice; (2) a framework for diplomacy's public dimension that connects types of diplomatic actors with process variables; (3) a separation between diplomacy and civil society that distinguishes diplomacy from other relationships between groups; and (4) characteristics of diplomacy and governance that explain how they differ from other political and social categories. Diplomatic and governance actors are categorized in trans-governmental and polylateral networks. Civil society and private sector actors are categorized in cosmopolitan and private governance networks.
Public diplomacy is a relatively young concept and a field of study that has produced a deluge of literature since the turn of the century. The learning curve has been considerable. This bibliography is mainly based on the literature since 2010, so as to present cutting-edge knowledge in the field. The worldwide practice of diplomatic engagement with people preceded the integration of its terminology within governments and ministries of foreign affairs. In the present century, public diplomacy efforts have become increasingly mainstreamed. The practice is subject to wider evolutions occurring in international relations, diplomacy, and state-society relations. As such it is considered to be different from traditional government-to-government diplomacy, in the first place because it engages nonstate actors. Many policymakers and scholars associate public diplomacy primarily with “soft power” and there is no one-size-fits-all definition in what is a truly multidisciplinary field of study. The initial normative debate has distracted from deeper issues in the field and public diplomacy’s evolution and significance. Two common conceptual frameworks recur in the early-21st-century literature: “old” (unidirectional government communication) and “new” (network relational multi-actor) public diplomacy. These categories are attempts to make sense of public diplomacy’s concepts and key functions in a fast-changing international environment. More recent scholarship seeks to move beyond these categorizations by emphasizing the integration of old and new as well as public diplomacy’s integration within diplomacy. Some of the latest work on public diplomacy is in response to recent trends in international politics, such as enhanced geopolitical rivalry, the impact of digital technologies and the rise of populism. US writings once dominated the literature, but contributions from Europe have been significant, while academic output from the postcolonial world is growing rapidly and is increasingly important. This article begins with works that offer a General Overview. Following this, selected secondary sources on Soft Power are listed and, in New Century, New Public Diplomacy, works discuss early-21st-century trends in the debate, followed by Beyond the New Public Diplomacy. Works cited under Coming of Age: Diplomacy’s Public Dimension highlight the importance of realizing that public diplomacy accompanies wider developments in diplomatic practice. This section stresses new themes and modes of communicative practice. Literature cited under Public Diplomacy Worldwide focuses on the United States, China, and India as well as the European Union, and the article concludes with Book Series and Journals.
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.