Let's bring some theory to the study of Public and Cultural Diplomacy!

FROM: Krushchev and Kennedy sitting on nuclear weapons

TO: President Medvedev and Obama having Hamburgers

Let’s praise Constructivism for explaining change in International Relations. As it is my favourite theory, I will try to highlight its basic arguments in relation to the role of public diplomacy.

International Relations theories could be divided into Rationalist theories (positivist – like Realism, Neo-Realism) and Reflectivist (post-positivist theories – like Constructivism).

Public Diplomacy has emerged in the light of post-positivist views, which sees diplomacy in the new context by considering the importance of values, ethics, socialization, communication, identities etc. Particularly, the existence of identities in International system plays a very important role for the conduct of diplomacy.

Every country has got a particular identity. Alexander Wendt argues that states 'acquire identities relatively stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self' through their interaction with other states (Wendt, 1999:135). The Rationalist assumption is that actors do not change, 'their learning and perspective taking do not change who the actors are or what they want, just their ability to achieve their wants in a given social context, known as 'simple learning' (Wendt,'Social Theory of International Politics',p.333,1999,Cambridge University Press). The Interactionist assumption (where our public diplomacy domena lies) is that learning and socialization can change identities and is described by Wendt as 'complex learning'. What distinguishes constructivist model towards change in identity from other theories is a different conception towards reproduction of identities. Put in simple terms - states can and do change...In this regard, we can use an example of the process of the Cold War coming to an end (a process through engagement, through interaction). The identity of the USSR has been transformed with the help of soft power techniques, through engagement, public and citizen diplomacy initiatives. The interactive process in which Gorbachev and Reagan became to engage in the early 1980s to the middle 1990s resulted in changing the map of the world. The argument is that public diplomacy (what was still in big part but not entirely propaganda sustaining the ideological confrontation) played an incredibly important role in bringing communism to an end and therefore transforming the identity of The Soviet Union. Among influential public diplomacy initiatives were: student exchanges, cultural events, and other activities undertaken by the U.S Information Agency and The Department of State whose role was spreading democratic ideas and values within the Soviet block.

References:

Alexander Wendt, ‘Social Theory of International Politics’, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Emanuel Adler, ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations, p. 348, 1997.

Maja Zehfuss; ‘Constructivism and Identity: A dangerous Liaison’. University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; European Journal of International Relations, vol. 7, number 3, p. 315- 348, 2001.

Nicholas Greenwood Onuf , ‘World of Our Making’, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.

Ted Hopf, ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’, International Security, Vol.23, No.1 (Summer), pp.171 – 200, 1998.