American Public Diplomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation

Abstract

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.

Scope, mechanism, and outcome: arguing soft power in the context of public diplomacy

“…As mentioned previously, the US public diplomacy engagement has moved towards a facilitative stance -the provision of communication capacity and the empowerment of foreign publics for development (Gregory 2011). This is evident in programmes such as the 'TechCamp' development events designed to bring together technologists with civil society actors to solve problems in developing countries, as well as in the attempts to leverage Twitter, YouTube and Facebook in order to convene 'real-time' engagement with crucial publics (Seib 2012).…”

“…The US public diplomacy scholar Gregory (2011) describes public diplomacy as having evolved from 'state-based instruments […] to engage and persuade foreign publics' to a broader mandate for international actors 'to understand cultures, attitudes and behavior; to build and manage relationships; and to influence thoughts and mobilise actions to advance their interests and values' (353). Gregory's definition suggests that public diplomacy as a practice manifests crucial assumptions inherent in the soft power concept.…”

Media Influence, Ontological Transformation, and Social Change: Conceptual Overlaps BetweenDevelopment CommunicationandPublic Diplomacy

“…The term soft power , referring to the power of attraction emanating from a wide range of institutions, has been used in tandem with PD since the early 1990s to conceptualize the potential to exert influence through ideas and values (Nye, ). Consequently, definitions of PD have moved from the narrow idea of influencing public opinion toward the efforts of a variety of transnational actors “to understand cultures, attitudes and behavior; to build and manage relationships; and to influence thoughts and mobilize actions to advance their interests and values” (Gregory, , p. 353). In difference to Devcomm, PD almost exclusively retains a governance perspective, placing national or organizational interests and objectives at its core.…”

Diaspora as a Communicating Actor in Public Diplomacy Compared to Public Government Diplomacy in the Case of Kosovo

“…Today, with the new media, especially those on the internet all accountability is done differently. Therefore, as Bruce Gregory says that today, by public diplomacy we understand the instrument used by the states, the societies of states and some inter-governmental and non-governmental actors in order to understand the culture, stances and attitudes in order to create and manage relationships and influence opinions as well as mobilize actions in order to forward their interests and values (Gregory, 2011). In the meantime the new media have given great opportunities for smaller countries who wish to develop public diplomacy.…”