Bridging the Theoretical Gap between Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy

Abstract

As public diplomacy has undergone a paradigm shift in the information age, cultural diplomacy remains loosely defined as a strand of public diplomacy, yet there has been little explanation as to why this was so. Rather, cultural diplomacy has been underestimated in recent diplomatic activities. The combination of new public diplomacy and soft power has become the formula for how international cultural exchanges and programs work in contemporary diplomatic activities and has brought a new perspective on arts and culture as a means of soft power. The present study aims to uncover the missing pieces in cultural diplomacy as a subset of new public diplomacy and delves into what complicates the definition of cultural diplomacy. The study concludes that new cultural diplomacy should be considered as an intersectional concept of new public diplomacy and international cultural relations.

Beijing’s cultural diplomacy efforts in Pakistan: Building soft image through internet sources

“…Once an under-explored area (Kim 2017), cultural diplomacy has redeemed its stature (Hartig 2014) and today, it is a part of the mainstream IR discourse (Isar and Triandafyllidou 2020). Sharp (2005, 106) describes, "Public diplomacy [is] defined as a process by which direct relations with people in a country are pursued to advance the interests and extend the values of those being represented".…”

The library as soft-power actor: A review

“…Public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy are both foreign policy tools and an instrumental means for states to increase their soft power (Kim, 2017: 293; Melissen, 2005). Public diplomacy is focused on information and cultural activities in the context of foreign affairs (Kim, 2017: 298). Nye (2008: 101–102) defines it through three dimensions.…”

“…Cultural diplomacy brings art and culture into soft-power discourse (Kim, 2017: 294). The Australian government, for example, claims that ‘creative excellence’ is not only a cultural export, but also a tool for advancing ‘Australia’s interests, soft power and influence’ through its promotion to international audiences and cultural collaboration (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, n.d.).…”

“…As distinctions between cultural and information activities blur, cultural diplomacy also extends to ‘communicating a country’s thinking, research, journalism, and national debate’ (Lending, 2000, quoted in Melissen, 2005: 22). It is often considered a type or subset of public diplomacy, though the precise relationship between the two is contested as International Relations paradigms shift and the term is regarded with interdisciplinary interest (Kim, 2017; Melissen, 2005). This article adopts Maack’s definition of cultural diplomacy asthat aspect of diplomacy that involves a government’s efforts to transmit its national culture to foreign publics with the goal of bringing about an understanding for national ideals and institutions as part of a larger attempt to build support for political and economic goals.…”

Bridging the Theorist-Practitioner Gap in IR: What are the Risks and Benefits?

“…The issue of retaining pragmatic research positions, pertaining to eidos and praxis, as opposed to the possibility of synthesis consistently raised the conundrum of "bridging the gap" or "eliminating the gap" time and time again (George 1993;Nye Jr. 2008). Not only has "bridging the gap" in international relations pedagogy been an issue for the "theorist" and the "practitioner", but other gaps have also come into contention in order to intersect various disciplines (Onuf 1989;Hollis and Smith 1990;Wendt 1991;Egeberg 1994;Thomson 1995;Hyndman 2004;Jackson 2004;Lantis 2009;Jentleson and Ratner 2011;and Kim 2017). This conundrum straightforwardly identifies a significant existing problem of blurred lines between respective professional methodologies that traditionally partitioned the two domains in research approaches (Jackson 2017).…”