So, the conclusions of this week's presenters seem to be the logical extension of the State Department's embrace of Public Diplomacy 2.0—you could even call it "3.0." Yet, while it's important to recognize that any American who travels abroad takes on the unofficial role of representative for his or her country, I worry that in elevating everyone to "diplomat" status, we risk ceding too much control over the message to "unofficial diplomats" (hat tip to Joanne Huskey for the phrase). This sort of cession by default risks devaluing public diplomacy in the public mind, and in turn puts already at-risk PD funding in further danger. It remains essential for official representatives of the United States to maintain the primary leadership role when it comes to message-shaping and dissemination. It's true that PD is happening these days in government agencies (like the Department of Defense) in which it traditionally had no place; however, rather than over-extend the concept, we ought to carefully rethink the structure of our PD operations government-wide.
Public Diplomacy 3.0?
While I don't want to jump the gun on the public diplomacy lecture in a couple weeks, I thought this week's group presentation on PD took an interesting tack: that we are all, in a sense, engaging in it. In his speech to the New America Foundation in December 2008, Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy James Glassman discusses the so-called Public Diplomacy 2.0 recognition that, in the Internet age, messengers can no longer exert complete control over the message. Social media gives voice to many, and Glassman argues that the open competition of ideas that springs from this inclusiveness will give the United States an advantage over oppressive regimes whose message requires tight control and insulation from criticism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments
Post a Comment