Intermap

by Craig Hayden

Many thanks to James Glassman for his thoughtful response to my comments about his exchange with Marc Lynch over the strategic implications of “PD 2.0.” I’d like to respond and address some of his arguments about the relationship between a “Grand Conversation” and a “War of Ideas.”

On the problems of using facilitative programs to “inject” the U.S. message, Glassman writes:

“Yes, we risk contaminating the conversation so that it won’t be listened to. But I do see the conversation as being a message-bearing methodology. It does not have to bear a message, but it can. Certainly, conversation as valuable for its own sake: when bad arguments are exposed to the light of day, they lose their power.”

Agreed, and I did admit that employing a message-strategy isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Surely, leveraging facilitation to insert U.S. messages can be construed as advocacy – and that might rub against the “Open Source” mentality suggested by Ali Fisher. But, the point of facilitation is to recast the credibility of the actor through the communication practice – not necessarily the message. continue reading…

Let me begin by saying that I deeply respect Patricia Kushlis’s thoughts on public diplomacy, and have been a long-time reader of her blog. Kushlis’s recent dismissive remarks about the academic study of public diplomacy, however, are thought-provoking and prompted me to write some kind of response. Kushlis follows what appears to be a recent trend of theory-bashing in international relations – and argues about the irrelevance of academic contributions to the practice of PD. Her statements sound as if the so-called scholars of PD have little place in construction of new and viable practices.

Consider the following statement:

…in the newly minted “field” of public diplomacy – a hybrid “discipline” that draws upon the social sciences, journalism, foreign language and cultural expertise. Public diplomacy is foremost a skill, like it or not, that is most effectively learned from practitioners and best acquired on the job.

continue reading…

by Craig Hayden

After a long semester and some writing projects finished, I’ve finally had time to revisit the news on public diplomacy. The recent exchange between James Glassman and Marc Lynch over the purpose of public diplomacy (and PD 2.0) are indicative – at least to me – that much of the discussion over U.S. public diplomacy’s strategic direction hinges on its relationship to broader strategic goals for foreign policy. What remains to be seen are examples of policies that push the implications of what Glassman is arguing for.

Glassman’s recent comments are worth reviewing. Speaking to an audience at last month’s InfoWarCon (amazingly not a science fiction convention), Glassman clarifies the real purpose PD 2.0: it is about de-legitimating Islamic extremist movements. He argued that PD is not about persuading people to like U.S. policies, but about fostering disincentives to see radicalization and violence as a desirable course of action. There are many things that Glassman says that are incisive assessments, recognizing both the complex landscape of media consumption and the pre-existing biases against attempts to persuade. Basically, the U.S. cannot simply explain itself. Attitudes toward media, news, and the U.S. in critical regions preclude straightforward advocacy as a viable PD strategy.
continue reading…