Cultural Diplomacy: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?
On its surface, the definition of cultural diplomacy seems straightforward, but it’s something that almost no diplomacy scholars agree on and yet seems to be everywhere. Once you start observing nations using culture to advance their interests or coming up against international foreign policy and diplomatic issues because of cultural products, examples are abundant. Whether it’s France’s extensive network of Alliance Française cultural centers (nearly 1,000 around the world) or the increasing censorship in Hong Kong of artistic exports from abroad, cultural diplomatic issues are common and often high-stakes, both diplomatically and economically. It’s also a particularly fascinating area to dig into because it feels under examined. As as an element of soft power, it doesn’t get the same serious focus as military diplomacy or economic sanctions. And yet there’s so much opportunity when states get cultural diplomacy right and potential pitfalls when they don’t.
And on a personal note, it combines two areas of my interest and experience, both academically and professionally. As a writer for film, television, and theater I’ve seen how those media can both influence international politics and international relations and be influenced by them, whether it’s by government censorship of films that espouse certain ideals or refusing to grant visas to artists from a particular place. As I studied for a graduate diploma in International Relations through the LSE and a master’s degree in Global Diplomacy through SOAS, I found myself drawn to questions of practicality — which instruments actually work for states to improve their position in the international community and international community for everyone? I’m confident that cultural diplomacy is one of those.
One of the challenges is that once you start to unpack the term, it can cover so much ground — from cultural exchange programs to artwork loans to even the very concept of people from different cultures working together for the improvement of general cultural relations — that it’s easy to feel that it doesn’t really mean anything at all. In this article I want to explore the meaning of cultural diplomacy and define an area that is broad enough to allow for change and growth, but not so broad that it becomes essentially meaningless. And because cultural diplomacy in concept and practice sits within a web of other diplomatic terms and ideas. Let’s start with those.
Soft Power
Soft Power is the ability for states to get what they want through attraction rather than coercion, often bolstered by national culture, political ideals, and the appeal of institutions like universities. The most recognized writer on the concept of soft power is Joseph Nye, Jr., who coined the term and has written about it extensively. Soft power stands in contrast to hard power, which uses inducements or threats through military or economic means. Since the term “soft power” was introduced, it has become well entrenched in the world of international relations and has spawned further concepts such as smart power, “which combines hard and soft power to better describe how most states use all the tools available to them.” But soft power’s wide scope, its somewhat indirect way of working, and the often long time periods over which it works have been reasons for skepticism about soft power. It has attracted critiques, particularly among neorealist writers who dismiss it as ineffectual or even a distraction from issues that need to be addressed by hard power. Soft power is also an overall term that encompasses a number of other concepts, beginning with public diplomacy.
Public Diplomacy
As its name suggests, public diplomacy stands in contrast to traditional state-to-state or diplomat-to-diplomat interactions. Nicholas Cull, director of the University of Southern California’s public diplomacy program, calls it a attempt to “manage the international environment through engagement with a foreign public.” The Voice of America broadcasting network is one of the best-known examples, created during World War II to deliver news and entertainment to listeners around the world, bringing American culture and current-events perspective into the homes of civilians around the world. This approach assumes that there are foreign policy benefits to be achieved by targeting a message at the civilian population of a foreign state who can, then, presumably influence their own state’s policies.
Nation Branding
Closely related to public diplomacy is the concept of nation branding, which borrows heavily from corporate marketing to create a unified image of a state, primarily to attract investment and tourism. Much of this work relies less on traditional diplomats or diplomatic activities, and more on commercial branding experts and consultants. Studies of the effects of nation branding have been particularly focused on the impact of major events such as the Olympics and the World Cup on the “brand” of the host country. While overt branding efforts such as the “Cool Britannia” campaign in the 1990s have fallen out of favor, states still often find it useful to convey a unified image that they hope will resonate with potential diplomatic and economic partners and visitors alike. But Yian Fan (2006), one of the primary scholars of nation branding, points out that the practice is not a panacea, and that image problems often result from more serious issues. There’s only so far that a positive brand image campaign can go when the international perception of a state is more heavily influenced by political unrest, human rights violations, or other issues.
Cultural Diplomacy
Which brings us to cultural diplomacy, the soft-power term that may be the most difficult to define. The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy provides a particularly diffuse definition in which anyone who interacts with another state or the people or “culture” from that state could be considered a cultural diplomat. A further definition from the same source doesn’t provide much more clarity: “a course of actions, which are based on and utilize the exchange of ideas, values, traditions, and other aspects of culture or identity, whether to strengthen relationships, enhance sociocultural cooperation, promote national interests and beyond.” Yudhishthir Raj Isar, professor emeritus at the American University of Paris agrees that these definitions aren’t especially useful, expressing unease with the expansion of the term “cultural diplomacy” to any project, whether the actor in question is a state or a non-state entity, and conceptually mixed up with cross-border cultural relations in a wider sense¹.
It seems the most useful way to think about the culture part of cultural diplomacy is as the body of human endeavor that includes music, visual arts, dance, and other specific cultural expressions. This creates a distinct, clear area for thinking about the subject while still leaving ample room for discussions about methods, actors, and results. It also allows for a more focused discussion of cultural diplomacy that keeps it from being about almost anything.
Next, looking at the primary actors in cultural diplomacy can help focus the definition further. Although “cultural diplomacy” is frequently used to refer to activities by non-state entities (and some writers identify them as the main actors in cultural diplomatic activities) acting “in the name of a nation, people or larger ethical question,”² that wide net seems to encompass all culture which, by its very nature and purpose, acts in the name of a larger ethical question. Isar agrees and expresses unease “with the ways in which [cultural diplomacy’s] deployment has been extended from state to non-state actors and conflated with the broader notion of international cultural relations.”¹ By the broadest definition, every international tourist is a cultural diplomat and any musician who gives a concert outside their home country is practicing cultural diplomacy. It’s an idea that feels good, but when everything is cultural diplomacy, it’s impossible to set it apart as a concept that can be examined in any meaningful way.
It seems important to differentiate between efforts that are governmental and non-governmental in origin and direction. To that end, the most useful distinction may be that cultural diplomacy “takes a promotion and advocacy approach” and uses cultural products as foreign policy tools in the interest of promoting state priorities. On the other hand, cultural relations are external to governments, and work with the purpose of “building mutual trust and understanding and generating amity and influence in the process.” A worthy goal, but including it under the umbrella of diplomacy dilutes the ability to think meaningfully about either concept. Richard T. Arndt, in his book The first Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century points out that “cultural diplomacy can only be said to take place when formal diplomats, serving national governments, try to shape and channel this natural flow to advance national interests.”
This view of cultural diplomacy may seem cynical. It is appealing to think of culture — either the more narrow definition referring to the arts and similar cultural products or the broader concept of culture as the traditions and practices of a group of people — as indifferent to politics and national interests. However, the border between culture and the environment in which it exists is porous, almost to the point of nonexistence. If culture can be about politics then surely politics can be about culture.
Belaboring the definition is not just an academic exercise. A report prepared for the British Council takes the view that cultural diplomacy can be a valuable item in the toolbox of states when it comes to pursuing foreign policy objectives, particularly through building closer ties with other states. There are also valuable opportunities for states that may not have the military or economic resources to compete with large states. In essence, a strong cultural diplomacy focus can allow smaller states outsized influence. France — despite having only the third largest GDP in Europe and ranking only 22nd in the world by population — is a prime example with its extensive network of cultural centers and intra-governmental cultural projects like the Louvre Abu Dhabi.
Any governmental use of culture for state goals can be controversial, maybe even an existential conflict with the nature of art and culture itself. Keeping an influence buffer between governments and those who create, study, and disseminate culture would seem to be in the best interest of maintaining what is fundamental to cultural activity, although it may come into conflict with what is in the best interest of diplomacy. And that is one of the fundamental issues with all of cultural diplomacy, especially as the definition stretches to include cultural relations — how much are cultural diplomacy projects actually doing in service of diplomacy? But that question is also what makes the topic exciting and dynamic.
The hope is that cultural diplomacy is a useful way to engage the general public more deeply in diplomatic issues in general — we all have experience with culture, after all — but also to convince state governments and professional diplomats to recognize and embrace the value of their national cultural products in securing their diplomatic goals for a voice on the world stage and enhancement of state-to-state international relations for everyone.
This piece is adapted in part from the author’s own work: ‘Desert and Light’: The Crossroads of Foreign Policy and Cultural Diplomacy through the Louvre Abu Dhabi completed as part of a degree in of M.A. Global Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London)
¹ Isar, Y.R. (2010). ‘Cultural diplomacy: an overplayed hand?’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, Winter 2010, pp. 29–44.
² Gienow-Hecht, J.C.E. (2010). ‘What are we searching for? Culture, diplomacy, agents and the state’, in Searching for a cultural diplomacy. New York: Berghan, pp. 3–12.
