The Mediatization of Diplomacy
In: The Hague Journal of DiplomacySearch for other papers by James Pamment in
Current site
Google Scholar
Practitioners and scholars are increasingly aware that an array of new actors, communication technologies, agendas and expectations are changing the institution of diplomacy. How diplomatic actors are known and experienced through their representation assumes an increasingly important, and uncertain, role. This article argues that these changes to the field should be considered in terms of the shifting ontological and epistemological conditions for representing and experiencing diplomatic identities. In support of this, the article investigates the influence of mediated communication upon the production of knowledge and the ability to experience others through use of the term ‘mediatization’. Mediatization refers to the ways in which communication technologies have become so integrated into everyday activities that our knowledge and experience of the world is significantly altered, often in ways that appear banal and taken for granted. In the diplomatic context, mediatization involves placing pressure on actors to negotiate issues and identity salience in new ways; to coordinate and negotiate over codes and norms for representation within different mediated environments; and to strategically manage identities, messages and representational modalities within objective-led campaigns. This analysis is used to question further the relationship linking communication, diplomacy and public diplomacy, with the conclusion that public diplomacy can no longer be considered as entirely external communicative activities attached to the diplomatic world, since these are — in an age of mediatization — necessarily part of diplomacy proper. Rather, public diplomacy makes most sense in that coordinating role, as a form of semiotic and normative coalition-building within organizations and among connected stakeholders.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
1
Paul Sharp, ‘For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations’, International Studies Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (spring 1999), pp. 33-57, at p. 33.
-
2
Paul Sharp, Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 100; and James Der Derian, On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987).
-
6
Sharp, ‘For Diplomacy’, p. 49. See also Mai’a Davis Cross and Jan Melissen (eds), European Public Diplomacy: Soft Power at Work (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); Peter van Ham, Social Power in International Politics (Abingdon: Routledge 2010); Brian Hocking, ‘Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Forms, Functions, and Frustrations’, in Kurbalija and Katrandjiev, Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities (Malta and Geneva: DiploFoundation, 2006), pp. 13-29); Stuart Murray, ‘Consolidating the Gains Made in Diplomacy Studies: A Taxonomy’, International Studies Perspectives, no. 9, 2008, pp. 22-39; Michael Vlahos, ‘Public Diplomacy as a Loss of World Authority’, in Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor (eds), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (London and New York, ny: Routledge, 2009), pp. 24-38; Andrew F. Cooper, Celebrity Diplomacy (Boulder, co: Paradigm, 2007); Ivo D. Duchacek, Daniel Latouche and Garth Stevenson, Perforated Sovereignties and International Relations: Trans-Sovereign Contacts of Subnational Governments (New York, ny: Greenwood Press, 1988); and Noé Cornago, ‘On the Normalization of Sub-State Diplomacy’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 5, nos. 1-2, 2010, pp. 11-36.
-
7
Bruce Gregory, ‘American Public Diplomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 6, nos. 3-4, 2011, pp. 351-372 at p. 353; Sharp, ‘For Diplomacy’, p. 55; Jan Melissen (ed.), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2005); James Pamment, New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013); Craig Hayden, The Rhetoric of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy in Global Context (Lanham, md: Lexington Books, 2012); Amelia Arsenault, ‘Public Diplomacy 2.0’, in Philip Seib (ed.), Toward a New Public Diplomacy: Redirecting us Foreign Policy (New York, ny: Palgrave MacMillan, 2009); and Juergen Kleiner, ‘The Inertia of Diplomacy’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol. 19, no. 2, 2008, pp. 321-349.
-
9
Jarol Manheim, Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy: The Evolution of Influence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Eytan Gilboa, ‘Diplomacy in the Media Age: Three Models of Uses and Effects’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol. 12, no. 2, 2001, pp. 1-28; Robert M. Entman, ‘Theorizing Mediated Public Diplomacy: The us Case’, Press/Politics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 87-102; and Craig Hayden, ‘Social Media at State: Power, Practice, and Conceptual Limits for us Public Diplomacy’, Global Media Journal, fall 2012.
-
11
Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall, ‘Communication: An Essential Aspect of Diplomacy’, International Studies Perspectives, no. 4, 2003, pp. 195-210 at pp. 206-207; Torbjørn L. Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2nd edition 1997); and Hamilton and Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy, p. 234.
-
15
Vladimir V. Putin, ‘A Plea for Caution from Russia: What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria’, The New York Times, 11 September 2013.
-
18
Justin Elliott, ‘From Russia with PR’, ProPublica, 12 September 2013, available online at http://www.propublica.org/article/from-russia-with-pr-ketchum-cnbc, courtesy of http://pdnetworks.wordpress.com/.
-
19
Winfried Schulz, ‘Reconsidering Mediatization as an Analytical Concept’, European Journal of Communication, vol. 19, no. 1, 2004, pp. 87-101 at pp. 88-90.
-
20
Gianpietro Mazzoleni and Winfried Schulz, ‘“Mediatization” of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy?’, Political Communication, vol. 16, no. 3, 1999, pp. 247-261 at pp. 249-250.
-
25
See, for example, Jeremy Black, A History of Diplomacy (London: Reaktion Books, 2010); Hamilton and Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy, pp. 136-139; Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory; and Jönsson and Hall, ‘Communication’.
-
26
Ralph Negrine, The Transformation of Political Communication: Continuities and Changes in Media and Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); Vincent Mosco, The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace (Cambridge, ma: mit Press, 2005); and Pamment, New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century.
-
27
Craig Hayden, ‘Logics of Narrative and Networks in US Public Diplomacy: Communication Power and US Strategic Engagement’, Journal of International Communication, 2013, p. 6; Hayden, ‘Social Media at State’; and us Department of State, ‘21st Century Statecraft’, available online at http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/index.htm.
-
29
Schulz, ‘Reconsidering Mediatization as an Analytical Concept’, pp. 88-89; Murray, ‘Consolidating the Gains Made in Diplomacy Studies’, p. 26; and Gilboa, ‘Diplomacy in the Media Age’.
-
32
Van Ham, Social Power in International Politics, p. 91; and Schulz, ‘Reconsidering Mediatization as an Analytical Concept’, p. 89.
-
43
Edward Comor and Hamilton Bean, ‘America’s “Engagement” Delusion: Critiquing a Public Diplomacy Consensus’, International Communication Gazette, no. 74, 2012, p. 203; see Hocking, Melissen, Riordan and Sharp, Futures for Diplomacy, pp. 26-31 and p. 72.
-
45
Sharp, ‘For Diplomacy’, p. 48; and Brian Hocking, ‘Beyond “Newness” and “Decline”: The Development of Catalytic Diplomacy’, paper presented at the ‘Pan-European Conference in International Relations’, Paris, 1995.
-
46
Strömbäck, ‘Four Phases of Mediatization’, p. 236; and Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (London: Routledge, 1964).
-
48
Alisher Faizullaev, ‘Diplomacy and Symbolism’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 8, no. 2, 2013, pp. 91-114.
-
50
Strömbäck, ‘Four Phases of Mediatization’, p. 237. ‘Intertextuality’ refers to deliberate references between texts that are used to shape meaning.
-
54
Sharp, Diplomatic Theory of International Relations, pp. 76-79; Hocking, ‘Beyond “Newness” and “Decline”’; Der Derian, On Diplomacy; and M.K. Davis Cross, ‘Rethinking Epistemic Communities Twenty Years Later’, Review of International Studies, vol. 39, no. 1, 2013, pp. 137-160.
-
55
Manuel Castells, ‘The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, no. 616, 2008, pp. 78-93.
-
56
Matt Cartmell, ‘Foreign and Commonwealth Office Axes Director Post Amid Cutbacks’, PR Week, 21 November 2011.
-
61
Michele Acuto, ‘Diplomats in Crisis’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol. 22, no. 3, 2011; Cristina Archetti, ‘People, Processes and Practices: Agency, Communication and the Construction of International Relations’, paper presented at the International Studies Association (isa) Annual Convention, 3-6 April 2013; Manheim, Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy; Schulz, ‘Reconsidering Mediatization as an Analytical Concept’; and Strömbäck, ‘Four Phases of Mediatization’.
-
62
Gilboa, ‘Diplomacy in the Media Age’, p. 3; Wilson P. Dizard, Digital Diplomacy: US Foreign Policy in the Information Age (Westport, ct: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001); Philip Seib, Real-Time Diplomacy: Politics and Power in the Social Media Era (New York, ny: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); Robert M. Entman, ‘Theorizing Mediated Public Diplomacy: The US Case’, Press/Politics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 87-102 at p. 88; and Sheafer and Gabay, ‘Mediated Public Diplomacy’, pp. 447-467.
-
63
Nadia Kaneva, ‘Nation Branding: Toward an Agenda for Critical Research’, International Journal of Communication, no. 5, 2011, pp. 117-141; Gyorgy Szondi, Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Conceptual Similarities and Differences, Discussion Papers in Diplomacy (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, 2008); Mark Leonard, Britain™: Renewing Our Identity (London: Demos, 1997); Simon Anholt, ‘Nation Brands of the Twenty-first Century’, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 5, no. 6, July 1998, pp. 395-406; Simon Anholt, Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); and Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, The Future of US Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010).
-
64
Aaron Beacom, International Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); Stuart Murray, ‘The Two Halves of Sports Diplomacy’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol. 23, no. 3, 2012, pp. 576-592; R. Levermore and A. Budd (eds), Sport and International Relations: An Emerging Relationship (London: Routledge, 2004); and D. Dunn (ed.), Diplomacy at the Highest Level (London: Macmillan, 1996).
-
69
James Pamment, ‘“Putting the GREAT Back into Britain”: National Identity, Public-Private Collaboration and Transfers of Brand Equity in 2012’s Global Promotional Campaign’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations (forthcoming 2014); and Nadia Kaneva (ed.), Branding Post-Communist Nations: Marketizing National Identities in the ‘New’ Europe (London: Routledge, 2012). The meme argument is often put forward by Nick Cull.
-
73
Hayden, ‘Social Media at State’; Ali Fisher, ‘Music for the Jilted Generation: Open-Source Public Diplomacy’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 3, no. 2, 2008, pp. 129-152; and R.S. Zaharna, Ali Fisher and Amelia Arsenault, Relational, Networking and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy: The Connective Mindshift (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2013).
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 2460 | 509 | 54 |
| Full Text Views | 573 | 69 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 499 | 139 | 14 |
The Mediatization of Diplomacy
In: The Hague Journal of DiplomacySearch for other papers by James Pamment in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Practitioners and scholars are increasingly aware that an array of new actors, communication technologies, agendas and expectations are changing the institution of diplomacy. How diplomatic actors are known and experienced through their representation assumes an increasingly important, and uncertain, role. This article argues that these changes to the field should be considered in terms of the shifting ontological and epistemological conditions for representing and experiencing diplomatic identities. In support of this, the article investigates the influence of mediated communication upon the production of knowledge and the ability to experience others through use of the term ‘mediatization’. Mediatization refers to the ways in which communication technologies have become so integrated into everyday activities that our knowledge and experience of the world is significantly altered, often in ways that appear banal and taken for granted. In the diplomatic context, mediatization involves placing pressure on actors to negotiate issues and identity salience in new ways; to coordinate and negotiate over codes and norms for representation within different mediated environments; and to strategically manage identities, messages and representational modalities within objective-led campaigns. This analysis is used to question further the relationship linking communication, diplomacy and public diplomacy, with the conclusion that public diplomacy can no longer be considered as entirely external communicative activities attached to the diplomatic world, since these are — in an age of mediatization — necessarily part of diplomacy proper. Rather, public diplomacy makes most sense in that coordinating role, as a form of semiotic and normative coalition-building within organizations and among connected stakeholders.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 2460 | 509 | 54 |
| Full Text Views | 573 | 69 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 499 | 139 | 14 |