Transnational non-state actors as “alt agents” of public diplomacy: Putin’s Russia versus Open Russia

What happens when a country bleeds soft power? Conceptualising ‘Negative Watch’: towards an epistemology for negative and adversarial place branding

“…To that end, this theory also links directly to emerging work in public diplomacy theorising about the role of adversarial non-state actors (Popkova 2020;Pamment 2022) in enacting target-based and issues-based disruption enacted by non-state actors (Pamment 2021). Deployed as a form of ideological power (Lukes 2005), Negative Watch is equally useful for offensive and defensive reputational strategies.…”

“…A 2018 RAND corporation report has extensively documented Russia's regional and international deployment of social media to discredit western powers (Bodine-Baron et al 2018). Within the digital infosphere, the emergence of non-state actors serving as 'alt agents' of public diplomacy aiming to connect with foreign constituencies (Popkova 2020) represents an irreversible trend. This theory provides a framework for understanding and documenting the communication strategies employed by such alt agents.…”

Threats, truths and strategies: The overlooked relationship between protests, nation branding and public diplomacy

“…In recent decades, works on nations and nationalism have emphasised how individuals and organisations draw on competing discourses about the supposed ‘nature’ or ‘essence’ of a nation in order to justify diametrically opposed causes (Aron, 2019; Beissinger, 2002; Fox & Miller‐Idriss, 2008). Transnational corporations, supranational bodies, ranking agencies, NGOs, the media, migrants and many other individuals and organisations express their agendas and objectives in national terms, sometimes questioning or undermining the role of the state as the sole or main representative of the nation (Popkova, 2020; Saunders, 2015). As Beissinger (2002) observes, ‘nationalism is not simply about imagined communities; it is much more fundamentally about a struggle for control over defining communities, and in particular, for control over the imagination about community’ (p. 18).…”

“…Instrumental and even critical approaches perpetuate a focus on the state, either by advocating attempts to control the mediation of nationhood or by warning against the dangers involved in such control. Non‐state and overseas actors conversely not only challenge the state but also construct and communicate equally valid versions of national identity, as researchers proposing a much more nuanced understanding of nation promotion identify (Hutchings, 2022; Popkova, 2020; Saunders, 2015; Zaharna & Uysal, 2016). Mediated protests should therefore be approached as communicative episodes that may attract the attention of overseas audiences, disrupting official discourses, proposing alternative versions of the nation and potentially gaining control over the mediation of nationhood (Figure 2).…”

“…Debates on nation promotion consequently overlook that individuals and organisations outside both the state and national boundaries can be equally important in the construction and communication of national images (Fox & Miller‐Idriss, 2008; Hutchings, 2022; Orgad, 2012). Furthermore, they gloss over how the interests and aims of governments, non‐state actors and inhabitants of a nation do not always align and that clashes and adversarial relationships may also happen (Hutchings, 2022; Popkova, 2020; Yun, 2022; Zaharna & Uysal, 2016).…”