In the debate over whether public diplomacy, as a practice, should essentially function as a governmental action or a non-governmental action, I tend to favor the latter, and appreciate the following definitions from Manuel Castells' (2008) article "The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance"*:
"The implicit project behind the idea of public diplomacy is not to assert the power of a state or of a social actor in the form of 'soft power.' It is, instead, to harness the dialogue between different social collectives and their cultures in the hope of sharing meaning and understanding. The aim of the practice of public diplomacy is not to convince but to communicate, not to declare but to listen."
"The goal of public diplomacy, in constrast to government diplomacy, is not to assert power or to negotiate a rearrangment of power relationships. It is to induce a communication space in which a new, common language could emerge as a precondition for diplomacy, so that when the time for diplomacy comes, it reflects not only interests and power making but also meaning and sharing."
*The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78-93.
No comments:
Post a Comment