Social bonding in diplomacy

Abstract

It is widely recognized among state leaders and diplomats that personal relations play an important role in international politics. Recent work at the intersection of psychology, neuroscience, and sociology has highlighted the critical importance of face-to-face interactions in generating intention understanding and building trust. Yet, a key question remains as to why some leaders are able to ‘hit it off,’ generating a positive social bond, while other interactions ‘fall flat,’ or worse, are mired in negativity. To answer, we turn to micro-sociology – the study of everyday human interactions at the smallest scales – an approach that has theorized this question in other domains. Drawing directly from US sociologist Randall Collins, and related empirical studies on the determinants of social bonding, we develop a model of diplomatic social bonding that privileges interaction elements rather than the dispositional characteristics of the actors involved or the material environment in which the interaction takes place. We conclude with a discussion of how the study of interpersonal dyadic bonding interaction may move forward.

The Synthetic Situation in Diplomacy: Scopic Media and the Digital Mediation of Estrangement

“…Others investigate the dark sides of digital diplomacy (e.g., Bjola and Pamment 2018 ). Others, drawing on the sociology of Collins and Goffman, question whether “social bonding” can happen between diplomats in cyberspace, lacking “subtle facial expressions, micro-expressions, and other expressive clues that may reveal mental states” ( Holmes and Wheeler 2020 , 157). Scholars such as Constance Duncombe (2017 ) have analyzed digital practices in foreign policy and diplomatic life, highlighting how digitalization changes “the space within which diplomacy unfolds” ( Duncombe 2017 , 547) and Heidi Ray Cooley (2004 ) has shown how screen-based technology such as mobile phones materializes the visual, connecting screen and body.…”

A ritual approach to deterrence: I am, therefore I deter

“…The literatures on security communities, global governance and foreign policy analysis could find interactive ritual theory an inspiring template for advancing their respective debates (e.g. Holmes and Wheeler, 2020). Future research could explore the interaction ritual chains in various security communities, between assorted global actors and spheres of foreign policy making, ranging from diplomacy to trade and international law.…”

One-upmanship and putdowns: the aggressive use of interaction rituals in face-to-face diplomacy

“…First, Holmes (2013, 2018) argues that the physical co-presence of leaders enables the simulation of intentions in the mirror system of their brains. Second, after Collins (2004), Holmes and Wheeler (2020, 144) suggest that face-to-face diplomacy allows leaders (although not always) to bond because it presents ‘four conditions for the creation of positive emotional energy: bodily co-presence, mutual focus of attention, shared mood, and barriers to outsiders’. These conditions would be hard to recreate through other impersonal modalities of communication (Holmes and Wheeler 2020, 156–57; Collins 2004, 53–64; Turner 2002, 1).…”

“…In his study of international exchange programs, Pacher (2018) asserts that the interaction rituals between participants and the ‘public diplomats’ of host countries constitute the ‘political mechanisms’ that bind ‘human collectives together’ (894). Holmes and Wheeler (2020) employ Collins to shed light on why leaders are sometimes able to ‘hit it off’ in person while other interactions ‘fall flat’ (133).…”

“… 54 Holmes and Wheeler (2020, 142) have called such ‘focus on normatively desirable outcomes of intention-understanding and trust-building’ a sign of the literature's ‘positivity bias’.…”