2008-03-19
Cultural Diplomacy and the national interest. In Search of a 21st-Century Perspective
Interest in public and cultural diplomacy, after a long post-Cold War decline, has surged in the last few years. This new focus inside and outside government has two causes: first, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the perception that the U.S. is losing a war of culture against Islamic extremists; and second, the documented global collapse of positive public sentiment toward the U.S. But the task facing policy leaders translating interest into action must accommodate the reality that government cultural work has been diminished in scope even as trade in cultural products and Internet communication has increased the complexity and informal character of cross-cultural communication.
The current state of U.S. cultural and public diplomacy has been reviewed by numerous special commissions and elite bodies, ranging from the 9/11 Commission to the RAND Corporation, from Congresss Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) to the Council on Foreign Relations. Resulting recommendations have emphasized increased funding, better coordination, increased State Department programming, and more private-sector partnership to support programming that the State Department and governmental broadcasting outlets are already producing.
However, because cultural work constitutes a long-term, diffuse, and largely immeasurable solution to a pressing problem in an age of quick fixes, the larger concept of cultural diplomacy defined most broadly as the propagation of American culture and ideals around the world tends to get short shrift in these presentations. In addition, the lions share of American cultural content is conveyed by private-sector film, recording, and broadcasting industries, functioning beyond the realm of official policy objectives. Yet any meaningful, real-world cultural-diplomacy policy ought to take into account the considerable impact of private-sector cultural products such as movies, music, and television on international sentiments toward the U.S.
Traditionally, the conventional definition of cultural diplomacy encompasses government- sponsored broadcasting, educational exchanges, cultural programming, and information or knowledge flow. In contrast, this report, grounded in a broad definition of cultural diplomacy, steps back to consider all the ways that images and symbols of U.S. culture and ideals are transmitted abroad. Accordingly, this report takes into account U.S. private-sector cultural exports which today dwarf government-funded or agency implemented cultural work as well as the efforts mounted by some corporations and non-governmental organizations in an attempt to influence the way the U.S. and its culture and values are perceived in the world.
Since 9/11, it is true that U.S. channels of cultural communication have received increased funding and attention. Nevertheless, problems remain: lack of coordination, limited funding, absence of expertise. There exists no public diplomacy hierarchy capable of exerting control over the dozens of government entities that engage in public diplomacy-like activities; some, like the Defense Department, are virtually immune from outside interference. Public diplomacy media, including publications, too often lack marketing expertise and familiarity with the cultures of their highest-priority targets in non-elite populations in the Arab and Muslim worlds. As a result, many expensive, highly-touted media campaigns have fallen flat, at times inadvertently conveying conflicting messages that seem to cancel each other out.
Given the pressure for immediate, measurable results on specific policy issues, any policy of cultural exchange burdened by assumptions of give-and-take, mutual learning, and creative processes that rarely register in exit polling stands at a significant disadvantage in the constant struggle for government attention and funding. Our government remains most comfortable with short-term, transactional exchanges and has not embraced the long-term goal of mutual trust conveyed by the European concept of mutuality. Yet in each area official, business, non-governmental it appears that diplomatic initiatives produce better results when they showcase culture, touch on culture, or at least take it into account. And to be effective as this report will discuss cultural diplomacy appears to require patience and a long view.
Despite obvious obstacles, conditions for a vibrant cultural diplomacy effort are in place: a cultural establishment that is outward-looking, future focused, and eager to make art that is engaged with, not estranged from, the wider world; a wide variety of public and private institutions active in public diplomacy capable of accommodating expanded cultural offerings; and a wide variety of active or potential funders. The diverse and democratic character of Americas expressive life makes it a legitimate asset in advancing our national reputation. Further, Americas entertainment industries possess global business models and technologies capable of reaching even the most remote societies. Together, Americas many government, NGO, and private-sector cultural organizations constitute a multifaceted, decentralized, de facto ministry of culture. With appropriate policy direction and effective coordination, this wide array of capable cultural ambassadors can define for themselves, and for us, the key components of a U.S. cultural message. They can then proceed to offer programming to the institutions scrambling for public diplomacy content.
This report begins by redefining cultural diplomacy in light of current events, and then reviews the history and current state of cultural diplomacy efforts. Our report concludes by identifying key challenges, possible initiatives, and essential questions that, if engaged, can enable cultural institutions, government agencies, arts industries, policy makers, and private sector leaders to harness the global movement of our expressive life to advance our national goals.
More information: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/curbcenter/culturaldiplomacy
However, because cultural work constitutes a long-term, diffuse, and largely immeasurable solution to a pressing problem in an age of quick fixes, the larger concept of cultural diplomacy defined most broadly as the propagation of American culture and ideals around the world tends to get short shrift in these presentations. In addition, the lions share of American cultural content is conveyed by private-sector film, recording, and broadcasting industries, functioning beyond the realm of official policy objectives. Yet any meaningful, real-world cultural-diplomacy policy ought to take into account the considerable impact of private-sector cultural products such as movies, music, and television on international sentiments toward the U.S.
Traditionally, the conventional definition of cultural diplomacy encompasses government- sponsored broadcasting, educational exchanges, cultural programming, and information or knowledge flow. In contrast, this report, grounded in a broad definition of cultural diplomacy, steps back to consider all the ways that images and symbols of U.S. culture and ideals are transmitted abroad. Accordingly, this report takes into account U.S. private-sector cultural exports which today dwarf government-funded or agency implemented cultural work as well as the efforts mounted by some corporations and non-governmental organizations in an attempt to influence the way the U.S. and its culture and values are perceived in the world.
Since 9/11, it is true that U.S. channels of cultural communication have received increased funding and attention. Nevertheless, problems remain: lack of coordination, limited funding, absence of expertise. There exists no public diplomacy hierarchy capable of exerting control over the dozens of government entities that engage in public diplomacy-like activities; some, like the Defense Department, are virtually immune from outside interference. Public diplomacy media, including publications, too often lack marketing expertise and familiarity with the cultures of their highest-priority targets in non-elite populations in the Arab and Muslim worlds. As a result, many expensive, highly-touted media campaigns have fallen flat, at times inadvertently conveying conflicting messages that seem to cancel each other out.
Given the pressure for immediate, measurable results on specific policy issues, any policy of cultural exchange burdened by assumptions of give-and-take, mutual learning, and creative processes that rarely register in exit polling stands at a significant disadvantage in the constant struggle for government attention and funding. Our government remains most comfortable with short-term, transactional exchanges and has not embraced the long-term goal of mutual trust conveyed by the European concept of mutuality. Yet in each area official, business, non-governmental it appears that diplomatic initiatives produce better results when they showcase culture, touch on culture, or at least take it into account. And to be effective as this report will discuss cultural diplomacy appears to require patience and a long view.
Despite obvious obstacles, conditions for a vibrant cultural diplomacy effort are in place: a cultural establishment that is outward-looking, future focused, and eager to make art that is engaged with, not estranged from, the wider world; a wide variety of public and private institutions active in public diplomacy capable of accommodating expanded cultural offerings; and a wide variety of active or potential funders. The diverse and democratic character of Americas expressive life makes it a legitimate asset in advancing our national reputation. Further, Americas entertainment industries possess global business models and technologies capable of reaching even the most remote societies. Together, Americas many government, NGO, and private-sector cultural organizations constitute a multifaceted, decentralized, de facto ministry of culture. With appropriate policy direction and effective coordination, this wide array of capable cultural ambassadors can define for themselves, and for us, the key components of a U.S. cultural message. They can then proceed to offer programming to the institutions scrambling for public diplomacy content.
This report begins by redefining cultural diplomacy in light of current events, and then reviews the history and current state of cultural diplomacy efforts. Our report concludes by identifying key challenges, possible initiatives, and essential questions that, if engaged, can enable cultural institutions, government agencies, arts industries, policy makers, and private sector leaders to harness the global movement of our expressive life to advance our national goals.
More information: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/curbcenter/culturaldiplomacy
The Curb Center for Art, Enterprise and Public Policy, Arts Industries Policy Forum, Vanderbilt University
There are no comments for this content yet.
similar content
