When Everyone and No One Has the Power

Anne Marie Slaughter makes a compelling argument for the advantages of collaborative power, or “power with” rather than “power over.” She defines collaborative power as “the power of many to do together what no one can do alone.” This is an attractive notion that on the surface describes exactly what the new public diplomacy seeks to do. It challenges the traditional paradigm of power in PD, which characterizes PD practitioners as actors sending messages to passive audiences. Even when conceptualizing PD communication through network theory, the tendency is to envision PD actors at the center.

With collaborative power, then, individual actors pursue their own interests. As Ali Fisher puts it, all of the network nodes interact as peers. This might be jarring for policy makers and PD practitioners, especially in the United States where the M.O. is usually to take the lead. It is even somewhat contradictory to the idea that public diplomacy is an attempt to manage the international environment. The word manage implies having power over others, not with them. It’s important to note that as Slaughter describes it, collaborative power does not belong to anyone. Rather, it is a property that can be released under a certain set of circumstances to mobilize, connect, or adapt.  

So, the question must be asked: can facilitative public diplomacy forward foreign policy goals? I think that it can. Fisher says the facilitative approach of public diplomacy gives the appearance that PD organizations are acting beyond national interest and for the betterment of foreign communities. The key here is the appearance of acting beyond national interest. Those two goals aren’t mutually exclusive. To look at the case of the United States, there are many opportunities to practice facilitative public diplomacy that forwards American foreign policy goals. If we consider that spreading the values of democracy, freedom, and social justice abroad are in the U.S.’ national interest, then it is clear that empowerment in these areas benefits both the U.S. and foreign publics. Of course, there are exceptions. The “power with” approach works when PD organizations are targeting potential supporters, not when policies or cultures clash.

The more prevalent challenge to collaborative power is for PD practitioners to maintain legitimacy while supporting grassroots initiatives. Peter Van Ham quotes Daniel Etsy as saying “democratic legitimacy depends on decision makers being seen as acting on behalf of a community.” Legitimacy does not only have to come from the top down. In other words, collaborative power can be an asset for PD practitioners as well. I would argue that the ethic of “power with” leads to a greater legitimacy for PD practitioners because foreign publics are more likely to engage when they are equal partners in the action and narrative, as Fisher explains. Collaborative power, just like hard power and soft power, is only one part of the public diplomacy equation, one more way of conceptualizing influence. Slaughter’s point is well taken. Collaborative power can be a healthy complement to other PD strategies.