How does Black's extensive exploration of propaganda help us understand its distinction - if any - from public diplomacy?
In the post-Cold War era, the word ‘propaganda’ still casts a long, dark shadow in the English language. As Black highlights in his article, “Semantics and Ethics of Propaganda,” the term often brings to mind a practice that is sinister and unethical, despite its origins as a moral duty in the Roman Catholic Church. Propaganda—as it is understood in the aftermath of the Cold War—is seemingly inseparable from “manipulation and control, if not outright coercion,” and an unfair “power imbalance…between propagandists and propagandees” (121).
By exploring “how people perceive the world and how they subsequently communicate their perceptions or misperceptions,” Black’s analysis identifies more commonalities than differences between propaganda and public diplomacy (130). Black’s exploration of propaganda underscores how difficult it is to disentangle the two terms, since both practices are nuanced, varied, and dependent on individual orientations and belief systems.
In considering whether or not public diplomacy is distinct from propaganda, I conclude that it depends on the number of the aforementioned factors. The most primary factors are: (1) The intention of the information communicator(s) and (2) The belief systems of information receiver(s). How does the information communicator package information? Do they attempt to package it in a non-propagandistic manner? In turn, how do information receivers seek and process their information? Do they seek varied sources of information (as Rokeach’s open-minded individual would) and question what they learn? Or do they seek a monochromatic source of information and accept what they learn without question?
Ultimately, in U.S. democratic society, public diplomacy programs—be they U.S. or foreign—are recognizable competitors and contributors to the pluralist marketplace of ideas. They embody forms of “propagandas that challenge all of us—producers and consumers—to wisely sift and sort through them” (135). This is not likely the case in a closed society, such as Iran or North Korea. Therefore, the term ‘propaganda’ has a wide spectrum of nuanced significance, striking positive, negative, and all connotations between.
While Black concludes that propaganda is characterized by at least six specific characteristics, I believe whether or not public diplomacy fits the definition of propaganda depends entirely on how an individual, organization, or country elects to execute its public diplomacy program. If a public diplomacy program does possess all of the six characteristics, then it certainly seems heavily propagandistic. However, if a public diplomacy program such as the U.S. Embassy of Vietnam’s public diplomacy program—which elects to not emphasize the catastrophes of the Vietnam War—upholds a “time perspective characterized by an overemphasis or under-emphasis on the past, present, or future as disconnected periods rather than a demonstrated consciousness of time flow”—is it not also a bit propagandistic?
Perhaps, as Black suggests, an overemphasis or underemphasis on history may be intentional. It may also be unconscious, rooted in a certain view of the world, particular belief systems, “their personal and institutional loyalties, and their semantic behaviors” which may have propagandistic tendencies (135). Propaganda and public diplomacy cannot be understood in binary terms. Instead, they are very much nuanced, varied, and dependent on the orientations and tendencies of information senders and receivers in each unique communication exchange.
I think you highlight the often poorly understood ethical dimension of PD practice. On the one hand, PD is ultimately serving parochial interests. An actor seeks to influence, in some way or form, another actor that might not otherwise do so. But does this influence attempt amount to coercion or manipulation? Does presenting one-sided argument constitute good rhetorical practice or deceptive communication. The lines, as you've noticed are a bit hazy.
ReplyDelete