But American public diplomacy is far more than using a tool to "produce" something -- it is, at its best (which is not always the case), about building and nurturing human relationships for the good of our country, a task which is far more complicated than working
Let the PD fools, eager to reduce PD to factory-style production, have their PD tools, but as for me, as a former "public diplomat," I would rather have lunch, in my patriotic sort of way, with an interesting person from another land who wants to share ideas about America and the world -- including, of course, his/her own birthplace. Such a civilized exchange, rather than a "tool," is what helps create, on granted all too rare occasions, mutual understanding on our small planet, supposedly the job of a "public diplomat" promoting US national interests.
Granted, again, the US taxpayer, in these hard economic times, wants to know what he/she gets out of a such "civilized exchange". ...
So -- OK, guys and gals -- to justify PD when ordinary Americans worry about getting a decently paying job, let's talk about improving PD's "tools" so it can get "real" and "serious" -- and, of course, "cost-effective," with those doing the "cost-effectiveness" evaluation getting a fat pay-check, all too often at taxpayers' expense.
But such narrow "tool/cost-effective" thinking is like saying we need "better" factories, rather than thinking beyond factories, the beyond where the future is.
Image from
8 comments:
Mr. Brown,
I think your critique of the usage of the word ‘tools’ with respect to public diplomacy is interesting. This year’s installment of Syracuse University’s annual Public Diplomacy Symposium is entitled: Building Bridges: The Tools of Public Diplomacy (http://suapds.wordpress.com/symposium/). The Symposium will feature panel discussions on fine arts, international media, humanitarian aid, and international PR firms as tools of public diplomacy.
In your post you state the following: “But American public diplomacy is far more than using a tool to "produce" something -- it is, at its best (which is not always the case), about building and nurturing human relationships for the good of our country, a task which is far more complicated than working with a screwdriver.”
Remember that hammers build houses. I feel that such tools that will be discussed at our symposium—arts, media, aid, etc—are indeed primarily about building those relationships of which you speak. Indeed, in order to have a conversation—whether intrapersonal or international—there must be something to talk over: a cup of tea, a work of art, a television program. These tools will provide such fodder for discussion and common experience, and will enrich those human relationships we all wish to cultivate in the public diplomacy field.
Indeed, the use of the term ‘tools’ is not belittling the concept of public diplomacy as you suggest, but it makes much more concrete the often abstract ideas and ideals of public diplomacy. Tools of public diplomacy allow us in the discipline to operationalize public diplomacy, which I hope we all can agree is very much needed.
Thanks for your comment.
I can only say: Anyone who uses the verb "operationalize" has got a serious problem with the English language -- if not with human relationships, which is what PD is, at its best, all about.
Best, John
Operationalization is an important concept regarding the quantification of variables which do not necessarily lend themselves easily to quantification. I can’t speak to whether the Bard would have used the word himself.
I quite doubt, Mr. Suto, that the Bard would not have used the word "operationalize." But then I am not a Shakespeare scholar, only an admirer of the English language at its best.
Meanwhile, and with all due respect, your sentence "Operationalization is an important concept regarding the quantification of variables which do not necessarily lend themselves easily to quantification" is, quite simply, utter nonsense, or, to use the well-known word, gobbledygook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobbledygook
Best, John
Mr. Suto, Pardon the oversight in the following: "I quite doubt, Mr. Suto, that the Bard would not have used the word 'operationalize.'"
It should read: "I quite doubt, Mr. Suto, that the Bard would have used the word 'operationalize'."
Apologies for this mistake. Meanwhile, I hope that our dialogue will continue, without my silly erratum!
Best, John
It’s a fantastic article! The word “Tool” is indeed just a metaphor, but I agree that the choice of those metaphors in a public discourses defines the main objectives and beliefs of the society. I support your idea that if we use more “human” language we can achieve better understanding across cultures! For example I would have a really hard time to translate “tools of public diplomacy” into a Russian language “инструменты дипломатии” – hmm sounds very unfriendly indeed :))
Keep at it, John. Those who would apply a horrid mix of military- and MBA-think to a fabric of relationships leavened by real content would do us the worst kind of harm: the pitter-patter of hollowness. Lunch?
Post a Comment