Social Media & Communication Flows of Public Diplomacy

Despite assumptions regarding social media as a space meant for the proliferation of pointless quips and equally pointless content, the mere fact that civil society now has the ability to interact on these platforms without the control or approval of the state provides an entirely subversive aspect to state-controlled public diplomacy, an area of both national and international importance.

As author Peter Van Ham notes in Social Power in International Politics, the public diplomacy environment formerly mediated much at the hands of state actors is now being altered into a more multi-directional scene where the state, NGOs, international orgs, individuals and other actors can produce and consume information directly, thereby weakening state control. Often this process plays out in social media technologies where actors can take messages into their own hands.

However, the state should not be discounted in the social media realm. In fact, the state or other actors can take on a mediator role in all three typologies of public diplomacy, as outlined by Cowan and Arsenault in Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: Three Layers of Public Diplomacy. This is because the three typologies are based upon communication strategies that can be easily employed by any entity engaging with a foreign public. I’ll describe how each typology can engage publics with social media: 

Monological 

Although monological or one-way communication where one entity transmits a message to an audience may seem to contradict the very nature of social media it actually can be an effective way of engaging with foreign publics. Making the choice to participate in social media platforms does not automatically open up the way for dialogical or collaborative forms of public diplomacy. An actor can create an account on a social media platform such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr or Pinterest and solely utilize that platform to amass a following and promote information carefully crafted in tune with their particular interest.

Monological communication on social media is advantageous because actors can target audiences according to these particular interests and goals, gain heightened visibility fast and reach a wide swath of active users. Although there can be commentary or feedback given to the actor by its community, the actor has control over the choice to reciprocate or not.

The downside to monological communication is that the information promoted isn’t able to be contained within the confines of the group. Social media is meant to be shared and users can/will disseminate messages further to estranged groups that may not have the desired reaction. A way the actor can assuage a hostile reaction to their public diplomacy effort is to ensure prior to sending out the initial communication many various viewpoints and perspectives are considered. An actor can also provide carefully crafted responses back to users, but this would break the monologic aspect of the public diplomacy effort. 

Dialogical 

Dialogical public diplomacy works well with social media because of the necessity to create a conversation between the actor and audience. Social media features like commenting, re-tweeting, ‘liking’, instant messaging and texting can help actors gauge public opinion surrounding their perspective as well as the importance foreign publics weigh on certain topics. This could be a good method for an actor to get ideas flowing for a project or a way to foster intercultural exchange. Again, this is advantageous to actors because dialogical communications can be targeted to interested groups where the actor can initiate and steer the dialogue in certain directions.

The negative aspect of dialogical public diplomacy is that, again, the communications can be driven away from the control of the actor and may veer off in a separate direction than originally intended. There are also competing dialogical conversations that are started within many other contexts that may tangentially or directly influence or challenge the goals and perspectives of an actor.


Collaborative 

Certain types of social media outlets are uniquely appropriate for collaborative public diplomacy. Because the goal in this effort is to produce a product from the contributions of many, open-source projects like the Linux operating system or the Drupal content management system are particularly relevant. In these, any users who are interested are encouraged to assist in the creation and maintenance of the product. The public diplomacy goal that results from collaboration is a sense of common ground and shared loyalty/experience to a goal by all members despite observed differences.

Easy ways to utilize collaborative public diplomacy is in working with wikis, file-sharing systems like Google Docs and mass-multiplayer role-playing games like Second Life or World of Warcraft. Each of these allow for users to personally take on responsibilities and contribute to the building or maintenance of a greater initiative. The potential downside to collaborative public diplomacy is that users must be involved from the ground floor or else they will not establish the necessary trust and social capital needed to foster the bond. Ensuring the collaborative project forces cross-cultural groups to view issues in a different light is particularly challenging, but if done correctly and assist in such areas as conflict resolution.

I think it is imperative to understand that social media is not a magic bullet for public diplomacy. Social media is the next innovation following other revolutionary technologies such as radio, television and the Internet. Although it has brought all actors in society closer together at an unprecedented rate, it is best to realize these capabilities are only as effective as the actors that use them. As Van Ham notes, technological progression must be met with human agency and the correct political economy to flourish.

Propaganda or Public Diplomacy? An Analysis of Critical Factors

In the realm of public diplomacy, the battle over foreign hearts and minds can all too often seem akin to the familiar tactics of the advertising and marketing agencies that inundate American culture. There are advocates of traditional diplomacy that warn the practices of public diplomacy and the “new public diplomacy” fall too heavily on the side of propaganda, which has a much more contentious connotation.

However, when juxtaposing Semantics and Ethics of Propaganda, a piece by Jay Black, with the public diplomacy contributions of Melissen, Gilboa, and Cull, the fine lines that separate the two fields become a bit clearer. Black articulates historical conceptions of propaganda, noting that it has always been associated with negative aspects of power. This is now extended to the process of introducing ideas and information to a group with the intent to have them react the same way both psychologically and in their actions. It is here that propaganda may be confused with public diplomacy, where information and ideas are being introduced to foreign publics with the intent to ultimately provide a favorable view of the of the state.

To combat this perception, there are a few clear differences to note. First, in propaganda the style of communication tends to be one-way from a sender to a receiver. Public diplomacy directly contradicts this notion, as the method by which publics are being engaged is via two-way communications, most notably by emerging and participatory media or information communication technologies. Melissen, a proponent of this concept, noted that a major tenet of public diplomacy is how this builds a relationship between two states where there is mutual gain. Cull compounds this notion by listing ‘Listening’ as the most crucial concept of public diplomacy in the UK. In light of this, we can draw yet another difference: propaganda focuses on identifying conflicts or competition on its audience while public diplomacy strives for cooperation and exchange.

Intention of the message is also a topic of discussion. In propaganda, there is often a clearly defined and easily identifiable goal of the communication, and this goal can be moral or immoral with whatever values laden within it. Public diplomacy also must have a clearly communicated intent or goal, but goals are often not easily attained or identifiable, as international relations is a complex and muddled field that is affected by many other influences such as economic or political conditions. Moreover, Gilboa stated that these conditions are never fixed, as they can be in propaganda.

This leads to the next point, which is the conception of time between the two. Black asserted that propaganda is solely concerned on the implementation of information and persuasion in an immediate or short time frame, while public diplomacy is assumed to be focused on multiple time frames, with short, medium and long term goals in mind.

Despite all of these observed differences, I believe there is a process of unification with the recent developments in communication technology. As was stated, the realms of public diplomacy and public relations are melding, as attractiveness and reputation are becoming the new markers of power in the world. Both Melissen and Black each point out that public diplomacy and propaganda have undergone a critical change with the dawn of the information age in their own field, but I assert these should be thought of together. Propaganda and public diplomacy are now being both produced and consumed not only by states, but by a host of actors, including individuals themselves. It harkens Melissen’s polylateralism, where all entities now have the power to influence foreign publics. We can create our own ad or information campaigns and, depending upon the platform, time, and spread of the information, they can greatly affect international relations or conceptions. I believe this is happening to public relations/advertising and public diplomacy simultaneously, and I think it further complicates the ways in which the two can be separated – who is to say an ad campaign that positively affects a foreign public is not a form of public diplomacy or vice versa?

This will need further analysis as more cases come out, but I wanted to raise the initial question.