Kjis015 02 06

Bridging the Theoretical Gap between
Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy
Hwajung Kim
As public diplomacy has undergone a paradigm shift in the information age, cul-
tural diplomacy remains loosely defined as a strand of public diplomacy, yet there
has been little explanation as to why this was so. Rather, cultural diplomacy has
been underestimated in recent diplomatic activities. The combination of new public
diplomacy and soft power has become the formula for how international cultur-
al exchanges and programs work in contemporary diplomatic activities and has
brought a new perspective on arts and culture as a means of soft power. The
present study aims to uncover the missing pieces in cultural diplomacy as a subset
of new public diplomacy and delves into what complicates the definition of cultural
diplomacy. The study concludes that new cultural diplomacy should be considered
as an intersectional concept of new public diplomacy and international cultural
relations.
Key Words: public diplomacy, soft power, cultural diplomacy, international cultural
relations
S ince the 9/11 terrorist attacks, public diplomacy has become a strong foreign
policy tool for mutual understanding through two-way communications.
Public diplomacy addresses foreign publics and thereby increases the soft power
of a state. Despite public diplomacy having distinct origins in the United States,
many countries have started paying enormous attention to public diplomacy as a
key part of diplomatic practices to strengthen their own soft power. Thus, public
diplomacy has spread throughout the world from Latin America to Eastern
Europe and Asia as a means of capturing the hearts and minds of foreign
*Hwajung Kim(hwajungkim@ewha.ac.kr) is a lecturer on public diplomacy at the Graduate

School of International Studies at Ewha Womans University. She received her Ph.D. from Ewha
Womans University in 2016, receiving the best doctoral thesis prize from the university. Her research
interests include soft power and cultural governance as well as public and cultural diplomacies. This
paper reorganizes and rewrites the second chapter of her doctoral dissertation, “Effective Public-Pri-
vate Partnerships in Cultural Diplomacy: A Case Study of Germany and South Korea.”
The Korean Journal of International Studies Vol.15, No.2 (August 2017), 293-326
http://dx.doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2017.08.15.2.293
Ⓒ 2017 The Korean Journal of International Studies
The Korean Journal of International Studies 15-2 | 294
publics. Furthermore, as public opinion has started to have an impact on foreign

policy decision-making, publics have been gaining interest in foreign affairs
and diplomacy. There has been an emergence of a broader literature in the field
of foreign policy and more generalized insights from practitioners and about
publics. Today, public diplomacy is hotly contested not only by scholars and
practitioners but also by diverse actors from the general public.
The term ‘public diplomacy’ has been widely used since the First World
War, and it has been referred to as publicly-brokered peace covenants or
the propaganda of the Cold War. Education, arts and cultural exchange
programs and international broadcasting were the main tools for conducting
public diplomacy, and individual governments spent large amounts of money
particularly on education and cultural exchange programs up through the end of
the Cold War. In the post-9/11 era, definitions of public diplomacy—the so-called
‘new’ public diplomacy—have expressed a strong foreign policy orientation
towards mutual understanding, which is reflected in terms such as ‘engagement,’
‘relationship building’ or ‘two-way communications’ (Melissen 2005). Cultural
diplomacy has become a linchpin of public diplomacy with the rise of concern
for soft power as globalization—in the sense of connectivity in economic and
cultural life around the world—has been growing for several decades (Kim
2011). There is no doubt about the positive contribution of cultural diplomacy to
national image, branding, and social cohesion; thus, cultural diplomacy has been
regarded as a subset of public diplomacy by many public diplomacy scholars.
However, currently there is no compelling research explaining why this
is so. Rather, different views on cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy,
and the relationship between the two, complicate our precise understanding
of what cultural diplomacy means. For example, ‘engagement diplomacy’
embraces neither public diplomacy nor cultural diplomacy, while ‘contemporary
diplomacy’ puts them in different domains. From other perspectives, cultural
diplomacy is regarded as either the core of public diplomacy or as a subset
of public diplomacy, as previously mentioned. This confusion—at least four
different views on the linkages of cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy—
comes from the lack of theoretical research, and widens the gap between cultural
diplomacy in academia and practice. It blurs where to draw the line between
‘culture for the purpose of flourishing cultural assets, values and identities’
and ‘culture as a means of foreign policy and diplomatic activities.’ Given these
circumstances, it is imperative to create a proper conceptualization of cultural
diplomacy, which requires more in-depth analysis.
This study aims to define this relationship, bridging the gap between public
diplomacy and cultural diplomacy by contesting cultural diplomacy as a subset
Bridging the Theoretical Gap between Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy | 295
of public diplomacy, thus contributing to the theorizing on cultural diplomacy

with the emergence of globalization and the informational age. Fundamental
questions have arisen as to what the historical and contemporary aspects of
cultural activities were in international relations in conjunction with a state’s
foreign policies and diplomacy, and how the growing attention on soft power
has contributed to redefining cultural diplomacy in a contemporary context.
Public diplomacy has its roots in international relations (IR), starting with
the ‘power and diplomacy’ of realist thought, and further developing into the
‘complex interdependence’ and ‘new institutionalism’ of neoliberalism, and
the issues of culture and identity dealt with in constructivism. Yet ironically,
cultural diplomacy has not been rigorously studied by IR scholars since the end
of the Cold War. In addition, recent scholars in the field of cultural diplomacy
are multidisciplinary and have quite scattered views on the subject, rather than
drawing from traditional IR theories. This study finds that the most profound
research has been conducted by international historians, whose studies have
affected scholars in a variety of different fields. Therefore, it is worthwhile
to explore historians’ points of view on cultural diplomacy, followed by an
exploration of perceptions of IR scholars and cultural diplomacy scholars,
consecutively. This study does not employ a comparative approach, but attempts
to embrace various fields of study to explain why and in what ways cultural
diplomacy has been considered as a subset of public diplomacy over time
without sufficient theoretical groundings.
In exploring these issues, this study begins by examining paradigm shifts in
public diplomacy in relation to the theoretical development of public diplomacy,
and further explores how soft power and ‘new’ public diplomacy are interrelated.
Secondly, this study investigates perspectives on cultural diplomacy from
international historians, international relations scholars and cultural diplomacy
experts to reveal inconsistencies in cultural diplomacy scholarship as a subset
of new public diplomacy. Lastly, this study delves into how soft power can
be incorporated into public and cultural diplomacies to conceptually and
theoretically explain cultural diplomacy in a contemporary context.
PARADIGM SHIFT IN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT IN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Public diplomacy’s multidisciplinary conceptualization has been explored in the
fields of communications and international public relations, marketing, foreign
policy analysis, and diplomatic studies (Gilboa 2008; Gregory 2008; Melissen
2013; Sharp 2013). Despite the vast amount of literature on public diplomacy
from diverse disciplines, public diplomacy is also criticized for its lack of a
theoretical infrastructure (Entman 2008). The multidisciplinary approaches
to public diplomacy all tend to focus on public opinion, which results in
communicative dimensions of diplomacy. As Melissen states, “Diplomacy has
never been able to neglect public opinion” (Sharp 2013, 194).
For this reason, British communication and public relations scholars in the
1950s and 1960s tried to include propaganda under the overarching concept
of public relations, which was called “bad apples” by public relations scholars
who were insisting that public relations was a form of diplomacy (L’Etang 2009,
609). In line with this scholarly debate, Tuch (1990) argued that public relations
should be defined and considered in the context of globalization, and Signitzer
and Coombs (1992) further develop the linkage between public relations and
public diplomacy. Subsequently, scholars in communication studies contributed
to the development of public diplomacy by applying the lens of communication
to public diplomacy theory and practices (Leonard 2002; Jönsson and Hall
2003; van Ham 2008; Rasmussen 2009; Pamment 2011; Hayden 2013), or by
incorporating national branding concepts using marketing points of view (Potter
2009). In recent studies, with the rise of private actors, a need for public-private
partnerships has been strongly recommended as well (Pigman and Deos 2008;
Cowan and Arsenault 2008). These scholarly efforts resulted in diverse public
diplomacy models from Leonard (2002)1, Gilboa (2008), and Ordeix-Rigo and
Duarte (2009). The concept of power in public diplomacy has been explored in
Rasmussen’s (2009) discursive influence model of normative power, although
the normative expectations used have been criticized (Pamment 2011). In order
to keep pace with advancing technology and global communications, the practice
of public diplomacy has never been more integral to diplomatic initiatives
(Melissen 2013).
By comparison, this study puts more weight on the perspectives of U.S.
practitioners of U.S. foreign policy and public diplomacy, which brought a
number of disciples to the field of public diplomacy studies, such as Joseph Nye2
and Christopher Ross.3 Against the backdrop of the end of the Cold War, with
the United States as a unipolar power and anti-Americanism finding greater
1
Leonard’s model caught the attention of international relations scholars, particularly after
Nye (2004) adopted it into his analysis of soft power.
2
Nye coined the term “soft power” in 1990 and served in the U.S. government during the late
1970s and the 1990s.
3
Ross, who addressed strategic public diplomacy in U.S. foreign policy, was a former U.S. dip-
lomat and served as ambassador in Algeria and Syria in the 1990s.
expression around the world (Sanders 2011), practitioners predicted the demise
of America as a superpower (Bryce 1889; Russell 1967). After noticing their
neglect of public information with the abolishment of the U.S. Information
Agency (USIA) and substantial budget cuts on cultural activities, American
leaders turned to a more strategic foreign policy tool—public diplomacy (Nye
1990). Public diplomacy included what the United States should consider
important to achieving foreign policy goals: a concern for foreign public
opinion, interaction with private actors and interests, and communication
through intercultural communications. Public diplomacy became a substitute
for American foreign policy propaganda (Roberts 2006; Cull 2009; Gregory
2008). Public diplomacy then regained its practicality in U.S. foreign policy. In
particular, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the decline of the United States’ image
internationally stimulated practitioners and think tanks in the United States
to transform the country’s approach to diplomacy (Gregory 2008), as well as
employing new forms of diplomatic dialogue and collaboration (Fitzpatrick
2011).
America had to reevaluate its use of public diplomacy in a post-Cold War,
globalized world; while European countries were successfully using public
diplomacy for a number of endeavors, the United States was seeing huge gaps
in its initiatives (Gregory 2008). Particularly, European scholars such as Jan
Melissen, Rhiannon Vickers, and James Pamment contributed to the theoretical
development of public diplomacy by looking at unprecedented shifts in
diplomatic practices, many mainly characterized by engaging non-government
actors and private individuals, and changing diplomatic operations systems
during the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) revolution at a
time of rapid globalization. This standpoint stimulated various academic fields
like social studies, cultural studies, and diplomatic studies, as well as inspiring
public diplomacy scholars to have an even broader sense of public diplomacy.
Noticeably, recent studies by European public diplomacy scholars have tended
to consider the concept of public diplomacy as a government vis-à-vis the
European Union, which is in line with considerations of European scholars on
the role of diplomacy in the process of European integration (Cross and Melissen
2013). Despite public diplomacy being rooted in the American tradition, it can
be argued that individual members of the European Union have conducted
public diplomacy to cope with negative perceptions of the process of integration
in foreign countries and have integrated public diplomacy as part of their foreign
policies (Melissen 2005). This implies that public diplomacy should not be
treated as merely one technique in an arsenal of foreign policy tools, but rather it
should be taken as a paradigm shift in diplomacy.
Although public diplomacy has become multidisciplinary, particularly in its

theoretical development, it is imperative to know that the actual practice of
public diplomacy is limited to information and cultural activities in the context
of foreign affairs. As such, Tuch (1990) criticized then-U.S. public diplomacy
as no different from traditional diplomacy and that its broad definition created
unneeded complexity. He emphasizes the importance of learning experience and
two-way communications in public diplomacy by considering public opinion and
perceptions as integral elements of foreign policy. Tuch’s argument about public
diplomacy was solidified by the concept of soft power. Nye (2004) described
public diplomacy as the ability of a state to make other states strive for common
goals. This was done by helping states to see the positive aspects of a potential
outcome and was very similar to the idea of soft power. Melissen (2005),
however, saw public diplomacy as a tool for building soft power. Furthermore,
Hocking (2005) believed that to connect soft power and public diplomacy was
contradictory, as public diplomacy would be unnecessary if simple attraction
using soft power was successful. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that soft power
helped to develop public diplomacy in theory and practice.
SOFT POWER AND NEW PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

The concept of soft power was developed on the basis of what Peter Bachrach
and Morton Baratz (1962) considered the second face of power.4 This concept
differs from the traditional idea of hard power (military and economic power)
in that soft power is wielded through attraction, persuasion, and cooperation. In
today’s globalized world, Nye argued that soft power was becoming increasingly
more important than hard power. A major factor in the use of soft power is a
state’s ability to access large channels and amounts of information. Two other
important factors in the growth of soft power include the closeness of the state’s
ideological culture to global norms and values, such as pluralism and liberalism.
The closer a state’s dominant ideology to global norms, the more soft power it
should have. Secondly, as the credibility of a state increases, so should its soft
power (Nye 2002).
However, public diplomacy without attractive contents of a nation’s culture,
values, and policies may generate a negative impact on the country (Nye 2008).
Nye (2011) puts emphasis on the structural changes of dealing with information
in the age of the Internet, where power is being diffused from states to non-
states actors, consequently making public diplomacy more complicated.
4
Nye first coined the term “soft power” in his 1990 book, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature
of American Power.
Melissen (2005) successfully adopted communications into public diplomacy by

stressing its importance as a revolution in international relations. It was enough
to fill the gaps in Rhiannon Vikers’ (2004) blurry distinction between traditional
diplomacy and ‘new’ public diplomacy. Since then, communicative aspects
of public diplomacy have become important parts of the discourse among IR
scholars and have been integrated into conceptualizations of the new public
diplomacy. Gregory explicitly refers to public diplomacy as “a communication
instrument used in governance broadly defined” (2008, 276).
In describing the characteristics of new public diplomacy, Fitzpatrick
(2011) emphasizes that, due to increasing globalization, states are losing their
traditional control over some aspects of politics and government; however, non-
state actors are gaining more control over world affairs (Batora 2005; Melissen
2005; Cull 2009). This creates a new dynamic where states must have two-way
dialogues with foreign publics instead of one-way monologues. States must also
consider their communications with domestic publics in order to create uniform
initiatives (Zaharna 2010). The importance of including domestic publics in
public diplomacy actions cannot be understated, as globalization and worldwide
communication make the boundaries between foreign and domestic publics less
clear (Melissen 2013).
Another issue for IR scholars to consider is the fundamental change that
happens within diplomatic practices or diplomatic operations structures, per se.
Melissen (2013, 196) insists that the societal dimension of diplomacy, meaning
the “issues affecting citizens’ daily lives that are far removed from classical
diplomacy have moved upward on the agenda of foreign ministries and their
diplomats.” Rather than looking at traditional diplomacy and public diplomacy
as entirely different practices, it is better to consider the two as inseparable.
Traditional diplomatic techniques will always have an effect on public opinion,
so public diplomacy must be incorporated into all diplomacy measures. In this
respect, both ‘communication to’ and ‘communication with’ approaches are
mandatory in contemporary diplomacy.
According to Gregory (2008), public diplomacy is the use of various strategic
activities by governments and citizens, with the goal of creating increased
awareness and understanding of attitudes and cultures. He further defines
public diplomacy as the engagement in dialogue among people, institutions, and
political leaders, after which the public opinions of policy decisions are taken
into account. Public diplomacy also uses communication and action to influence
behavior and attitudes. Arguing from a constructivist perspective, Peter van Ham
(2008) suggests that the process of place branding—with its emphasis on the
importance of values and ideas—should also be considered relevant, even vital,
when considering public diplomacy. Sharp (2005, 106), using an instrumentalist

approach, describes the process of public diplomacy as pursuing “direct relations
with the people in a country” in order to “advance the interests and extend the
values of those being represented.” In yet another definition, Michael McClellan
(2004, 234) emphasizes the strategic nature of “informational, cultural, and
educational programming” in public diplomacy. The use of these programs,
he explains, is to influence public opinion in a target country in order for its
political leaders to more easily adopt policies and make decisions based on the
advocate country’s objectives.
This study argues that there has been a paradigm shift in public diplomacy
after its American heritage; one which underpinned the significance of
information and public opinion and turned it into an instrument of foreign
policy primarily dealing with two-way communications in pursuit of soft power.
Furthermore, that paradigmatic shift saw an evolution towards normative
foreign policy goals and objectives by embracing most of the soft power
resources while also looking beyond soft power. Figure 1 illustrates the nodal
point of this paradigm shift in public diplomacy—from ‘old’ to ‘new’—that is
associated with the concept of soft power because soft power successfully bridged
the gap between traditional diplomatic activities of ‘old’ public diplomacy (public
information and cultural relations) in the formation and execution of foreign
policy and ‘new’ public diplomacy (shared goals to cultivate credibility) with
strategies for effectiveness (two-way communications to shape public opinion
and reputation) in a contemporary context (the information age). In this nodal
point of paradigm shift, this study discovered that the link between information
and foreign policy brought scholarly attention to the field of communications
and public relations, which extends to diplomatic functions, structures, actors,
and drives the convergence of these modes of communication into public
diplomacy.
Since this initiative on soft power, public diplomacy scholars and practitioners
widely associate the term with their arguments concerning ‘new’ public
diplomacy (Hocking 2005; Melissen 2005; Batora 2005; Potter 2009; Snow and
Taylor 2008; d’Hooghe 2011; Fizpatrick 2011; Servaes 2012). In contrast, the
notion of soft power in conjunction with public diplomacy has been criticized
because soft power exhibited a fundamental contradiction between the concepts
of new public diplomacy and influence (Nossel 2004; van Ham 2008; Hayden
2012; 2013; Pamment 2012). Meanwhile, a revised conceptualization of soft
power resulted in various new and differentiated concepts of power: integrated
power , meaning leading alliances and converging such divisions as defense,
homeland security, diplomacy, energy, and foreign aid (Gilboa 2008); smart
power, the combination of, or the balance between, hard and soft power
(Gilboa 2008; Nye 2009; Kounalakis and Simonyi 2011; Litvinsky 2011); social
power, the capacity to establish norms and rules where actors’ actions interact
(van Ham 2010; Melissen 2013). Other concepts include normative power
(Manners 2002; Rasmussen 2009), which indicates specific mechanisms for
normative diffusion, and civilian power (Kamminga 2013), which refers to the
combination of development cooperation and public diplomacy efforts. Figure
2 visualizes how scholars have incorporated soft power and its sources into our
understanding of new public diplomacy and further developed other concepts of
power.
Figure 1. Nodal Point of Paradigm Shift in Public Diplomacy
Value
Culture
Policies
Foreign Policy
Public Diplomacy = Government Soft Power
Information + Cultural Relations
Institutions
Hard Power
From an international relations standpoint, this study defines six

characteristics of the new public diplomacy: (1) new public diplomacy is
more than a technique of foreign policy, instead pursuing soft power; (2) new
public diplomacy is primarily concerned with the international credibility of
the nation-state; (3) new public diplomacy manages two-way and symmetric
communications in the information age; (4) new public diplomacy pursues
collaboration to achieve common goals; (5) new public diplomacy engages
non-state actors and relates to multi-stakeholders and partnerships; and (6)
new public diplomacy can cultivate a favorable diplomatic environment for
a nation-state in world politics. This study defines new public diplomacy as

a government’s concerted efforts to achieve credibility, trust, and mutuality
through two-way, symmetric communications to deal with public opinion
between that government and foreign or global publics by engaging non-state
actors and fostering partnerships as a means of embedding foreign policies with
soft power.
Figure 2. New Public Diplomacy
Integrated
Value Power
Smart
Power
Culture
Social
Power
New Public Soft
Diplomacy Power
Policies Normative
Foreign Policy Power
Institutions Civilian
Hard Power
Power
UNCOVERING THE MISSING PIECES OF CULTURAL

DIPLOMACY AS A SUBSET OF NEW PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
There are four different views on the linkages between cultural diplomacy and
public diplomacy, all of which vary from an academic standpoint. First, when
defining ‘engagement diplomacy,’ Alan K. Henrikson (2005) omits concepts of
public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy. Second, the ‘contemporary diplomacy’
of Zicheng and Qingmin (2013) deals with them in different domains. Third,
Ordeix-Rigo and Duarte (2009) insist that cultural diplomacy can be regarded
as grassroots public diplomacy, meaning cultural diplomacy is at the core of
public diplomacy. Lastly, in explaining soft power, Nye (1990) mentioned
cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy as tools for foreign policy to enhance
soft power. He insists that, with the rise of globalization, cultural cohesion and
cultural globalization mitigates the traditional meaning of cultural diplomacy
because countries do not necessarily disseminate national identity through their
promotion of cultural assets. As new public diplomacy has assumed a broader
definition, cultural diplomacy has become a part of public diplomacy.
These different and conflicting conceptions of cultural diplomacy are often
attributed to its lack of theoretical grounding (Arndt 2005; Entman 2008;
Hudson 2007; Glade 2009). However, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the
significance of the role of culture has been widely discussed by scholars as well
as practitioners (Hudson 2007; Kennedy 2003; Kitsou 2013). This divergence
raises the questions of how to define cultural diplomacy, what distinguishes
cultural diplomacy from international cultural relations, and how to relate
cultural diplomacy to public diplomacy. Since there are insufficient theoretical
developments in the major schools of thought in IR, this study delves into three
academic groups rather than taking a comparative approach: international
historians, who provide fundamental research on culture in international affairs;
IR perspectives, which explore the role of culture in world politics; and cultural
diplomacy scholars, who fill the gaps between universalistic principles and
limitations in practice.
PERSPECTIVES OF INTERNATIONAL HISTORIANS

A cultural approach to international history views culture as a dynamic process
where people in similar cultures understand the world and form their perception
in similar ways, which results in mutually understandable values (Costigliola
2004). The roles of culture in international affairs, especially those associated
with cultural projection or cultural representation, can be found in the world
exhibitions of the 19th century. Eckart Conze (2003, 199) particularly underlines
the “functional” role of culture because those nation-states that participated in
the world exhibitions sought to achieve international and foreign policy goals;
subsequently, the connection between states, power, foreign policy, and culture
became significant as governments “instrumentalized” culture for the purposes
of spreading culturally-shaped images and enhancing “stability, security or
even hegemony.” Likewise, Wolfram Kaiser (2003) upholds the notion of
instrumentalization of culture during the world exhibitions as a creation of a
global public space where states strategically developed cultural representations
by making images and messages that reached out internationally and competed
with the images and messages of other countries.
According to Kaiser, the 19th century world exhibitions can be considered
the birth of contemporary cultural diplomacy. National image promotion can
be an important tool for states that do not have strong diplomatic connections
or are outside of the status quo. France held the Paris exhibitions for years to
create a more favorable image of the country and create competition between
itself and Britain and Germany. Americans were more inept at this national
image projection due to a lack of strategy as well as geographic isolation. France
and Czarist Russia went to war in 1914 in part because of their ideological
differences; however, their cultural representations also allowed future leaders
to evaluate and make legitimate decisions based on these experiences in the
international community. These international events provided opportunities for
contesting foreign economics, social economics, and political economics, as well
as social practices such as the French protective policy (Kaiser 2003).
On the other hand, Frank Costigliola (2004), taking culture as the production
and exchange of meanings between members of a society or a group, signifies
cultural affinities and throws open the door to cooperation, as shown in U.S.
relations with Germany and France after the two world wars. Cultural beliefs
playes a role in German verses French relations with the United States. Germany
and America had similar attitudes on certain subjects, while France and America
perceived the other to be dirty, ignorant, and disorganized. These relations had
an effect on Germany’s willingness to accept American guidance over the French.
Meanwhile, Guido Muller (2003) emphasized that culture helped to establish
international networks among like countries, connect various actors involved
in those networks, and to promote collaboration throughout two world wars.
In addition, he suggested that culture was a subfield of European integration
from approximately 1948 to the 1970s. Between the two world wars, a number
of transnational organizations increased their international social and cultural
relations. Two nongovernmental organizations were responsible for playing a
role in Franco-German relations after 1918. Nongovernment workers strived to
create networks for the reconstruction of Europe, forming relationships between
France and Germany. These groups worked to exchange information and attain
common goals, while hoping to influence the governments and political leaders
of the time as well as to create a sense of European identity. From 1948 to
the 1970s, the development of Europe had little influence from culture. Thus,
historical cultural initiatives from before World War II were forgotten, but
economic policies from that time were still readily available.
PERSPECTIVES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SCHOLARS

The historians’ notion of the instrumentalization of culture fails to explain the
relationship between power and culture, as Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht (2004,
276) criticizes their conceptualization for having a “limitation of political
influence” because historians developed culture as an “all-inclusive category

replacing the terms and the meaning of ideology.” This limited their research
on culture in international affairs. Through the lens of international relations,
culture is more concerned with the “independent power of culture—the power
of cultural preferences and conditions in the context of international relations,”
“globalization and multiculturalism,” various actors encompassing private
groups, businessmen, and artists, as well as ideas, products, and cultural
confrontation in the context of the 9/11 attacks (Gienow-Hecht 2004, 276-278).
In particular, cultural internationalism, a subfield of cosmopolitan
constructivism, contributes to theoretical development by reshaping the
world order after the end of the Cold War. Akira Iriye (1997, 2004) takes this
position and further develops the concept of cultural relations as opposed to the
geopolitical approach—a Hobbesian formula of power and culture. Iriye insists
that cultural communication in the context of a multicultural world enables the
obtainment of mutual cultural understanding and “cross-cultural cooperation to
deal with such global issues as environmental degradation, human rights, and
demographic explosion,” and defines culture as “structures of meaning,” which
include “memory, ideology, emotions, life styles, scholarly and artistic works,
and other symbols” (Iriye 1997, 3). Iriye uses the term culture in the study of
international relations as “the sharing and transmitting of consciousness within
and across national boundaries” (2004, 215). The definition of cultural relations
is “interactions, both direct and indirect, among two or more cultures. Direct
interactions include physical encounters with people and objects of another
culture. Indirect relations are more subtle, involving such things as a person’s
ideas and prejudices about another people, or cross-national influences in
philosophy, literature, music, art, and fashion” (Iriye 2004, 242).
International relations can be seen as ‘inter-cultural relations’ in that every
nation-state has its own culture. Nation-states and their inhabitants interact
with other states in a number ways beyond their political or economic relations.
It is still widely disputed as to whether these cultural dealings with one another
helped to create interdependence or led to fragmentation on a global level
(Iriye 2004). After World War I, international relations gained a cultural aspect
as mutual understanding was promoted by nongovernment workers. Instead
of wars and intimidation, states would exchange information on the arts and
intellectual endeavors. Although these ideas were slightly premature, many
nation-states have not lost sight of this vision in creating venues for international
cooperation and communications among different cultures. The hope from these
proponents was for a future where all nation-states followed these principles and
promoted the creation of an international order (Iriye 2004).
Picking up Iriye’s notion of culture, Gienow-Hecht suggests that “culture

affects nations and global systems as much as, if not more than, power and
economic interests” (2003, 6) and underpins the concept of ‘cultural transfer’ as
it associates culture with political influence (2004, 276). During the 1960s and
1970s, some scholars believed that American culture was too prominent in other
countries. However, this idea of cultural imperialism has been muted, as cultural
interactions can be used to pursue a number of goals in cultural diplomacy.
These beliefs changed in the 1980s (Gienow-Hecht 2004).
Oliver Schmidt, taking a constructivist’s perspective, insisted there was a
cultural dimension to foreign policy in that culture could be regarded as ‘a tool
of diplomacy’ because it could be “instrumentalized to achieve a state’s goals
through the foreign policy process” (2003, 177). Culture in diplomacy can be
used as a tool for foreign policy, incorporating aspects from literature, films,
music, and other cultural products. Culture in this sense is just part of a state’s
overarching foreign policy goals. Cultural imperialism, or forcing one’s culture
on another, is debatable as the history of the United States after 1945 shows
some believe that the United States put effort into spreading American culture
to secure influence in Europe. Conversely, a constructionist approach to the idea
of cultural diplomacy is quite different. Since culture is seen as the underlying
order that guides behaviors and beliefs, it is not merely a piece of diplomacy
but the actual reason or cause of foreign policy. By using this broad definition
of culture, Schmidt suggests that we can better understand and evaluate how
diplomacy is influenced by culture.
In addition, César Villanueva Rivas specifies the notion of cosmopolitan
constructivism in analyzing cultural and public diplomacy and succinctly defines
it as “people, cultures and states matter, and cultural and public diplomacies
collaborate in the inter-subjective construction of ideas, norms and identities
towards cooperation, welfare and understanding” (2010, 48). Organizations and
individual citizens can foster understanding and appreciation of other cultures,
in a form of cosmopolitan constructivism. This shows the recognition that
sustainable, friendly relations between states are the most important goals of
diplomacy. These types of programs focus foreign policy resources on creating
peace and promoting international education among countries, investing in
infrastructure and independent foreign institutions for friendly exchanges, and
establishing communications channels with foreign publics.
Although the study of the cultural approach to international relations has
flourished under constructivists, there was a limit in that constructivists offered
universalistic principles and it was rare to find those in the practices of cultural
and public diplomacies worldwide. Valerie M. Hudson (2007), on the other
hand, provides a different approach to the role of culture in international

relations. By utilizing perspectives of foreign policy analysis, Hudson probes
the strong linkage between culture and international relations where scholarly
debate on culture has been neglected mainly because of power politics. Culture
plays an interesting role in foreign policy as it is often used to describe what
cannot be easily explained or to describe and predict future political action. This
creates the need to study culture as a political tool and to understand culture in
order to make decisions and foresee the effects of diplomatic strategies.
PERSPECTIVES OF CULTURAL DIPLOMACY SCHOLARS

As previously mentioned in Villanueva’s conceptualization, recent IR scholars
tend to link cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy. Indeed, cultural
diplomacy, which frequently overlaps with public diplomacy, has been taking
place for as long as traditional diplomacy though it has not always been seen to
be as important. There always has been an exchange of ideas, art, religion, and
cultural products during diplomatic transactions (Arndt 2005). This is because
the spread of culture can facilitate economic activity, as well as value exchanges,
leading to greater cooperation between states. However, a simple cultural
exchange does not mean that cultural diplomacy is taking place. It must happen
as part of a specific strategy. Nevertheless, the unpredictability of a common
cultural exchange, though it may bring about positive outcomes for the country,
makes it difficult to measure the results of such activities (Andreasen 2008).
These ambiguities of cultural diplomacy drew scholarly attention to its history,
definitions, activities, models, and so forth; eventually, the concept of cultural
diplomacy was developed and theorized by only a few prominent cultural
diplomacy scholars.
Anthony Haigh (1974) explained that international cultural relations were
mostly carried out by private initiatives along with government support, such
as in the case of Christopher Columbus’s exploration of the Americas, but
government-led initiatives, such as Captain Cook’s explorations or Napoleon’s
expedition to Egypt, were rarer. Since it is a recent phenomenon for governments
to approach culture for the purposes of commercial or political advantage,
Haigh loosely defines cultural diplomacy as “the activities or governments in
the sphere—traditionally left to private enterprise—of international cultural
relations” and, therefore, it is “a technique which can be used for good purposes
or bad” (1974, 28.). In this respect, he implies that although there are pejorative
connotations to cultural propaganda in the period encompassing the two world
wars, it is merely the first phase of cultural diplomacy—the singular—and argues
that there are subsequent phases—dual (bilateral cultural diplomacy) and plural
(multilateral or collective cultural diplomacy). In comparison, Paschalidis

(2009) outlines four phases in the historical development processes of cultural
diplomacy: (1) cultural nationalism (1870-1914), when the global presence
of cultural institutions such as the French, Italian, Goethe Institute, or the
British Council arose; (2) cultural propaganda (1914-1945), the mobilization of
intellectuals and artists in the service of official propaganda during World War
I; (3) cultural diplomacy (1945-1989), the inter-war and the post-war phases as
an extended period of cultural propaganda during the Cold War; and (4) cultural
capitalism (1989-present), the demise of U.S. cultural relations abroad, unlike
the EU’s engagement with the cultural dimensions of the European integration
process. At the beginning of the 21st century, such economic powers as Japan,
China, and India developed them for different purposes, such as cultivating soft
power.
As to the beginning of cultural diplomacy, Haigh traces it back to the 17th
and 18th centuries in France when cultural diplomacy was dedicated to “the
satisfaction of the Odysseus-motif of the learned men of France” towards non-
French territories, the so-called “Napoleonic experiment” (1974, 31). During the
19th century, most European countries saw an increase in private institutions
playing the lead role in their cultural influence abroad. Schools, churches,
and cultural institutions were built in foreign countries with large expatriate
populations. The French and Germans, however, were the first to understand
and take advantage of the fact that these institutions could enhance cultural
prestige abroad.
The difference between cultural relations and cultural diplomacy is more
thoroughly outlined by Richard T. Arndt (2006). He distinguishes cultural
relations, defined as those that “grow naturally and organically, without
government intervention—the transactions of trade and tourism, student flows,
communications, book circulation, migration, media access, intermarriage—
millions of daily across-cultural encounters,” from cultural diplomacy, that
“take place when formal diplomats, serving national governments, try to shape
and channel this natural flow to advance national interests” (Arndt 2006, xviii).
He insists that cultural diplomacy started in the Bronze Age, since diplomacy
in the 3rd millennium B.C. was advanced enough to allow for cooperation
between communities, rather than all interactions involving the use of physical
force. This allowed planning, cooperation, and reflection among a number
of individuals, groups and, most importantly, cultures. Communication via
messages, adapting to new technologies, and information proliferation allowed
more open civilizations to maximize learning and cooperation. By the second
half of the 17th century, France had set up semi-independent cultural units such
as the foreign academy and an informal cultural adjunct to the embassy. French
artists were trained at the foreign academy in Rome under Louis XIV in 1677.
This academy was created to fill the void that was left after the death of Nicolas
Poussin (1594-1665), who spent much of his life in the Roman embassy working
to expand cultural and artistic knowledge. Not long after, foreign academies
were established in countries around the world by a number of states.
Along with Haigh’s historical tradition, Arndt not only focuses on how
cultural diplomacy has been historically institutionalized by governments
when defining cultural diplomacy, but he also emphasizes power and culture
relations in his analysis. Gupta and Ferguson (1997, 17) provide the backbone
for this notion, stating that “cultural distinctiveness” is produced “within a field
of power relations” because otherness in politics is inevitable; for instance, the
restriction of immigration shows how the disempowered are kept away in a
spatially interconnected world. Cultural globalization can either be looked at as
“a homogenizing process that takes away some aspects of identity from cultures”
or as “a sharing process that allows certain dominant aspects of cultures to be
taken in and transformed, to help cultures better link to the greater world” (Gupta
and Ferguson 1997, 17). In this respect, Gupta and Ferguson argue that culture
can additionally be created and transformed through political processes. Instead
of simply being shared values and common interests, culture in this sense is
understood through differences and contestations in its political domain. This
notion can be closely linked to Hudson’s notion of power as an element of culture
and strong linkages between cultural analysis and power politics analysis.
WHAT COMPLICATES THE DEFINITION OF CULTURAL DIPLOMACY?
CULTURAL DIPLOMACY ROOTED IN WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

The Western European model of cultural diplomacy has been extensively
researched by Haigh (1974). France is the forerunner of cultural diplomacy,
but this model only reaches the second phase of cultural diplomacy—
bilateral cultural cooperation—in terms of governance and practice, up until
the outbreak of World War II in 1939. In particular, the French government
created a commission for French action and information abroad in 1936.
This was attached to the Prime Minister’s Office and coordinated with other
ministries, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and led to nineteen cultural
conventions with thirteen foreign governments between 1919 and 1938.
The starting point can be traced back to late 18th century private initiatives.
Similarly, the government of Germany created the Archaeological Institute in
Rome in the 1870s, when private initiatives were in decline, and established a
section for Arts and Science in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1896, and a
Schools Section in 1906. Italian schools and the Dante Alighieri Society were
created after the 1880s, but they did not receive any government support until
the 1960s. Italian cultural institutes operated only during the Mussolini regime,
when the Institute for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries (IRCE) was
created in 1938, but it was not merged into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs even
under the fascist regime. The Goethe Institute was created in 1929 to promote
German language in foreign countries, and the Nazis utilized cultural diplomacy
in a subordinate role for disseminating ideological propaganda. Fascism, by
combining political and cultural propaganda, spurred the British government
to set up a committee for education purposes in 1920. A British Committee
for Relations with Other Countries was established in 1934, and one year later
it changed its name to the British Council. This council conducted the most
successful “multilateral or collective cultural diplomacy,” reaching Haigh’s third
phase (plural), due to its “two-way traffic” features, enabling it to collaborate
with UNESCO in 1945 (Haigh 1974, 46-47).
Interest in creating positive, peaceful global relations after World War I saw
cultural diplomacy being sought after and managed through educational and
scientific collaborations and exchanges. America did this mostly through private
institutions until the aggressive cultural diplomacy initiatives of Germany, the
Soviet Union, and Japan began in the 1930s (Gregory 2008). This caused the
United States to combine past private initiatives with new government-funded
programs. After World War I, the United States, Soviet Union, and European
countries were increasing their influence abroad through media and private
cultural foundations. While the United States was just starting to link the
areas of politics and communications, the Soviet Union had been using these
connections for a number of years to enhance its national image abroad (Fox
2012).
In particular, the Soviet threat brought dramatic changes to cultural
diplomacy. Michael David Fox (2012) stated that Soviet cultural diplomacy was
bigger than either its culture or its diplomacy; rather, it was “the entire complex
of missions the Soviet Union directed at the foreigners classified as members of
the intelligentsia, both inside and outside the USSR” to be intensively associated
with “propaganda, political-ideological leverage, and scientific technological
development” (2012, 17). Against this backdrop, British propaganda was
organized. After World War I, the British government saw cultural diplomacy as
a tool for increasing the country’s prestige in the Middle East. Using initiatives
such as exchange programs, book distributions, and a prominent film industry,
British influence grew and became even more significant after World War II,
when the war-torn country wanted to continue projecting a strong national
image (Vaughan 2005).
U.S. CULTURAL DIPLOMACY

The United States was not concerned with managing information and cultural
exports until the creation of the State Department’s Division of Cultural
Affairs in 1938 (Fox 2012). There were two reasons behind this. First,
private philanthropic and educational organizations took a significant role
in disseminating ideas about the ‘American way’ in the early 20th century
(Ninkovich 1981). Second, the Committee on Public Information, established
in 1917, managed cultural experts who had skills and experiences and who were
able to “publicize the Wilsonian dream of a world made safe for democracy”;
consequently, the Committee provided a foundation for the government’s
political and cultural propaganda throughout World War II, even though it was
abolished in 1919 (Pells 1997, 8).
After World War II, the U.S. administration and media highlighted the
country’s ‘greatness’; America’s dominance during this time brought with
its international responsibilities and the United States portrayed this in its
diplomacy (Fousek 2000). From the 1950s to the 1970s, at the peak of U.S.
cultural diplomacy, the U.S. government sent hundreds of entertainers, including
actors, musicians, and artists, to perform in other countries (Schneider 2003).
Cultural diplomacy and the rise of everything from music to movies, Fulbright
fellowships to Voice of America broadcasts, sports diplomacy to interfaith
dialogues, collectively “moved the meter” in terms of overseas understanding of
American foreign policy (Sonenshine 2015, 16).
When the United States became a global power during the Cold War, cultural
diplomacy became an important strategic tool of the USIA. Cultural initiatives
overseas were covertly supported by the CIA well into the 1950s. By the end of
the Cold War, however, much of the previous cultural diplomacy strategies were
seen as unnecessary in the new era of mass electronic communications and
technology. Most of the country’s public diplomacy initiatives were cut. Even
today, the budget for American culture-related activities is considered seriously
underfunded (Finn 2003).
CULTURAL DIPLOMACY LABLED AS A MEANS OF NEW PUBLIC

DIPLOMACY
Gienow-Hecht and Donfried (2010) raise questions about the confusion of
using cultural diplomacy mixed with public diplomacy, cultural exchange, and
propaganda. They categorize five perspectives: (1) cultural diplomacy associated

with the Cold War; (2) distinction between cultural relations and cultural
diplomacy; (3) cultural diplomacy as it differs from public diplomacy; (4)
cultural diplomacy as a subset of public diplomacy; and (5) cultural diplomacy
qualified as a state interest. In a broader sense, they reorganize these into three
categories: first, cultural diplomacy as the tension between propaganda and
diplomacy with limited participation from private actors; second, the use of
cultural diplomacy as an instrument to work at the exclusion of politics; and
third, cultural diplomacy beyond the realm of the state. This categorization
shows how limited cultural diplomacy can be or how far it can be extended, but
it fails to explain how to solve the confusion of the mixed usage of the term. As
discussed in the previous section, public diplomacy scholars from both the fields
of public relations and international relations tended to put cultural diplomacy in
the category of public diplomacy activities. In contrast, Jorrit Kamminga (2013)
argues that most of the public diplomacy practices in reality fall within cultural
diplomacy because public diplomacy mainly deals with the use of cultural assets
to support foreign policy and foster mutual understanding through such cultural
exchanges as sports, literature, music, or science. Since public diplomacy has an
American heritage, it is worthwhile to look at how both terms have intermingled
in a U.S. context.
As noted, U.S. cultural diplomacy was rooted in the Committee on Public
Information in 1917, including political and cultural propaganda, which was
severely criticized by domestic politicians and the public even though it was
abolished within only a few years. However, the tradition of U.S. cultural
diplomacy can be found in the programs of the Committee, indicating that
U.S.’s cultural diplomacy was attached as a subset of the Information Bureau,
which conducted propagandistic missions funded by the CIA. However, in the
1930s, the United States had to conduct diplomatic actions against aggressive
cultural diplomacy by Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan, keeping them
separate from the aforementioned civil society initiatives of philanthropic and
educational organizations. Because of the need for government funds, as well as
the effort for greater coordination, the voluntarily civil society initiatives yielded
(Gregory 2008). The activities continued into the 1950s within the USIA and
then the public diplomacy section of the State Department after the abolishment
of the USIA in 1999 (Nye 2008).
Therefore, cultural diplomacy and ‘old’ public diplomacy went through the
same traumatic events, and eventually both gained pejorative connotations of
being propaganda in U.S. foreign policy. As mentioned, the tradition of public
diplomacy in the United States dealt with information, on the one hand, and
with cultural engagement on the other; in that context, soft power provided
common ground for both public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy creating a
soft landing in the field of diplomacy. Because of this historical path, U.S. public
diplomacy scholars were likely to place cultural diplomacy within the concept of
public diplomacy, with more focus on communications.
Although public diplomacy is deeply rooted in American foreign policy, the
term ‘new’ public diplomacy emerged from European scholars who emphasized
the normative aspects of public diplomacy to address the inconsistences
between what the United States said and what it did, as well as to facilitate the
EU integration process. This study contemplates the idea that the new public
diplomacy was enough to satisfy the then-future direction of U.S. foreign policy
with appropriate rationale, while enhancing U.S. soft power abroad. This notion
of conducting public diplomacy to gain soft power also informs the foreign policy
initiatives of other countries. This implies that the link between soft power and
new public diplomacy is a mélange of different aspirations for explaining and
predicting the context of diplomatic operations affected by globalization and the
ICT revolution, as well as prescribing the future direction of foreign policy in this
increasingly interconnected world.
In the meantime, Western European (French, German, British, and Italian)
cultural diplomacy took a different historical path as it was integrated into
public diplomacy. In the beginning, Western European cultural diplomacy
was facilitated under ministries of foreign affairs coordination to supplement
the decline of private initiatives in the field of culture and education and to be
against ideological opponents. As such, independent cultural institutions were
set up under various ministries of foreign affairs. Over time, these institutions
gained more autonomy while stepping away from foreign and domestic politics.
Eventually, most of the cultural diplomacy activities in these countries evolved
into the concept of international cultural relations and, thus, their cases have
been regarded as successful cultural diplomacy because they reached the final
phase of cultural diplomacy—multilateral as defined by Haigh (1974). Therefore,
there was no need to put a new name to cultural diplomacy. Rather, Western
European countries developed cultural diplomacy by creating new governance
structures—independent cultural institutions—in order to coordinate cultural
relations programs and activities abroad more effectively by engaging various
non-state and private actors.
In this respect, this study argues that this new governance encouraged
cultural agents in those institutions to take on similar roles as were requested of
diplomats for new public diplomacy, engaging diverse non-state cultural actors
both at home and abroad, building relationships and networks through two-
way communication with foreign publics, and fostering mutual understanding

and collaboration through partnerships. In considering the success of the British
Council (Haigh 1974), this study found that the greater degree of autonomy the
institution granted to its cultural agents, such as more responsibilities and the
ability to act beyond national interests in international cultural relations, the
more it generated a good image of the nation-state because of the distance from
the government. Thus, genuine dialogue between home and foreign publics
could be realized.
In short, the intricacies of the mixture of using those terms rely on two
paradoxes. First, cultural diplomacy of those Western European countries
has grown into a far broader concept within international cultural relations;
whereas, the scope of cultural diplomacy in U.S. foreign policy diminished as
it focused on information functions and ended up being integrated into public
diplomacy within the State Department. Second, the European concept of new
public diplomacy puts more weight on normative aspects with a far broader
conceptualization than ‘old’ public diplomacy in the United States; meanwhile,
the concept of soft power has helped to regain the importance of culture in
foreign policy in conjunction with public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy.
Simon Mark (2009) defines cultural diplomacy as a subset of public diplomacy
by distinguishing it from international cultural relations. Although both are
considered elements of soft power, public diplomacy covers a wider range of
diplomatic activities including government media management, public relations,
and other activities aimed at foreign publics. He conceptualizes international
cultural diplomacy in terms of similar practices to public diplomacy; however,
international cultural diplomacy does not necessarily involve the government
in activities that may contribute to foreign policy goals. This argument enables
cultural diplomacy to be differentiated from propaganda. Rather, he emphasizes
that cultural diplomacy contributes to supporting foreign policy and enhancing
domestic cohesion aimed at promoting national domestic goals. In this regard,
he also points out its contribution to state identity because the pursuit of cultural
diplomacy can be defined in conjunction with national image or in pursuit of
domestic objectives; thus, private actors, government involvement, objectives,
activities, and audiences are mentioned as the core elements of cultural
diplomacy in his argument (Mark 2010). Consequently, as distinguished from
international cultural relations, cultural diplomacy has become a subset of new
public diplomacy.
In an integrative manner, Mark explains how and why cultural diplomacy
has become regarded as a subset of public diplomacy, but there still were some
contradictions in his arguments. First, the discrepancy between international
cultural relations and international cultural diplomacy was not clear because
he argued that not all international cultural diplomacy involves a government.
How then can we distinguish international cultural diplomacy from diplomacy
without government involvement? Second, the meaning of diplomacy is
distorted in his argument about cultural diplomacy’s contribution to domestic
social cohesion. Nevertheless, his definition of cultural diplomacy makes clear
why and how new public diplomacy deals with cultural diplomacy.
HOW TO DEFINE CULTURAL DIPLOMACY?

After exploring the heyday of cultural diplomacy in the 17th and 18th centuries,
expansionism from the 19th century until prior to World War I, and during and
after the Cold War in the 20th century, the evidence shows that it is probable
that cultural diplomacy conducted by governments can be affected by the
following elements: a government’s approach to international cultural affairs,
the relationship between cultural bureaus or cultural institutions and ministries
of foreign affairs, and the existence of cultural institutions. According to Haigh,
the success of cultural diplomacy depends on a cultural institution’s performance
and the degree of its autonomy and neutrality over time. In terms of structures
and practices, more distance “between the agent of cultural diplomacy and the
political or economic agenda” and more interactions “within the structure of
cultural diplomacy” are keys to success (Gienow-Hecht and Donfried 2010, 23).
Also, it is important to note that most cultural diplomacy actions originated
from private initiatives that the government picked up on after cultural affairs
done by the private sector were in decline, which was in a time of expansionism
or when the government needed to do political actions in opposition to
ideological confrontations during the Cold War. Two things are implied.
First, cultural diplomacy was politically driven not only as a means to seek
power internationally, but also as an inbound or ethnic diaspora of cultural
cohesiveness. Second, private actors have been at the core of cultural affairs
in international relations from the beginning. The latter implication shows
that a government’s role in coordination impacts the effectiveness of cultural
diplomacy.
Lastly, cultural diplomacy has been spurred on by the development of
communications technology; originally with radio communications in the early
20th century to disseminate ideological messages against foes, and later with the
ICT revolution in the late 20th century, which has been fostering globalization
and cultural transfers. One issue to consider is how cultural diplomacy responds
to cultural homogenization or fragmentation caused by globalization in the
information age.
The literature on cultural diplomacy reveals that there is no universally agreed-

upon definition of cultural diplomacy. Rather, the meaning of cultural diplomacy
varies depending on the context. Therefore, this study firstly attempted to draw
a historical outline on the basis of Paschalidis’s (2009) four phases of cultural
diplomacy: first, cultural nationalism (1870-1914); second, cultural propaganda
(1914-1945); third, cultural diplomacy (1945-1989); and finally, cultural
capitalism (1989-present).
In the first phase of cultural nationalism, this study highlighted the fact
that private initiatives related to cultural relations and exchanges led to
government-sponsored cultural diplomacy. As to the next phase of cultural
diplomacy, this study suggests it should contain Iriye’s (2004) views on
cultural internationalism, the universality of shared values and concerns, the
permanence of the commitment to promotion of cross-cultural communication,
and cooperation. In particular, this phase adds to the role of culture as part of
crisis conflict resolution, as Stoica and Pantea (2014) have suggested.
Secondly, this study pairs Haigh’s (1974) three phases of institutional
development regarding cultural diplomacy with Mark’s (2009) definition of
cultural diplomacy as distinguished from international cultural relations;
however, this study does not use the concept of international cultural diplomacy.
In that regard, this study defines cultural diplomacy in the contemporary context
as the intersection between new public diplomacy and international cultural
relations. Figure 3 delineates the overlapping area as cultural diplomacy, which
is distinguished from private initiatives in international cultural relations and
visualizes three phases over time that affect the next phase of development of
cultural diplomacy, as the arrow indicates.
This study views ‘private initiatives’ as the origin of cultural diplomacy, dating
back to the late 18th century when private individuals took initiatives for cultural
exchanges between countries and mainly were conducted by Western Europeans.
Private initiatives led to cultural propaganda, particularly during World War I
and II and throughout the era of cultural imperialism during the Cold War. This
is defined as ‘old cultural diplomacy.’ In this phase, governments took the lead to
implement and execute cultural diplomacy through policy decision-makers and
government officials. Then, what distinctions lie between old and new cultural
diplomacy? Mainly, they have different goals and objectives. While ‘old cultural
diplomacy’ has a clear ideological purpose, ‘new cultural diplomacy’ deals with
the universality of shared values and concerns, as cultural internationalism
expresses characteristics of cultural diplomacy in the contemporary era.
Meanwhile, the conception of ‘international cultural relations’ includes not only
‘private initiatives’ but ‘new cultural diplomacy,’ which overlaps with ‘new public
diplomacy.’
Figure 3. New Cultural Diplomacy as an Intersectional Concept
New Public
Diplomacy
Private Old Cultural New Cultural

Initiatives Diplomacy Diplomacy
International
Cultural
Relations
Therefore, this study supports the conceptualization of cultural diplomacy as

a subset of new public diplomacy, as well as a subset of international cultural
relations. Thus, new cultural diplomacy can be defined as a cultural actor’s
attempts to cultivate cultural understandings through international cultural
relations in line with a government’s concerted efforts to achieve credibility,
trust, and mutuality with normative values and shared goals beyond national
interests. Here the international cultural relations include such cultural exchange
programs and activities as multicultural events, art exhibitions, performing
arts concerts, popular cultural arts, international festivals, and others. In
this conception, this study also classifies cultural actors into two groups: (1)
cultural actors associated with new public diplomacy, such as governments,
governmental agencies, and quasi-governmental institutions; and (2) cultural
actors in conjunction with international cultural relations, particularly facilitated
by private initiatives such as individual artists and personnel, commercial
companies in art and culture, non-profit organizations, and non-governmental
organizations.
CONCLUSION
This study discussed scholarly debates about public diplomacy and cultural
diplomacy. Against the backdrop of the Cold War, public diplomacy was
considered merely as a substitute for propaganda and thus held pejorative
connotations. As the information age arrived, diplomatic functions and systems
have been challenged in the context of globalization. After the 9/11 attacks, there
was a paradigm shift in diplomatic activities in association with information and
communications, which gave rise to a new perspective on public diplomacy—new
public diplomacy. Communications, international public relations, marketing,
foreign policy analysis, diplomatic studies and their practitioners, were
dedicated to developing the concept of the ‘new’ public diplomacy. However, this
study finds that there are literature gaps as to what ‘new’ public diplomacy is and
how it differs from ‘old’ public diplomacy.
After exploring the major arguments in the fields of communications, public
relations, and international relations, it turns out that the concept of soft
power provides common ground for scholarly debates on the nature of the
new public diplomacy. This study defines the six characteristics of new public
diplomacy as follows: (1) aiming to increase a country’s soft power; (2) seeking
international credibility for the country; (3) managing two-way and symmetric
communications; (4) pursuing collaborations to achieve common goals; (5)
engaging non-state actors and embracing multi-stakeholders and partnerships;
and (6) cultivating a favorable diplomatic environment in world politics. In line
with these six characteristics, this study insists that there is an additional point
related to the role of government in conducting new public diplomacy, and so
conceptualizes new public diplomacy as the concerted efforts of governments
to win the hearts and minds of foreign publics and to include public diplomacy
vis-à-vis domestic publics. However, this study disagrees with the notion of
considering non-state actors as public diplomacy actors because it blurs the
distinction between civilian diplomacy and public diplomacy.
In this respect, this study defines new public diplomacy as a government’s
concerted efforts to achieve credibility, trust, and mutuality through two-
way, symmetric communications to deal with public opinion between that
government and foreign or global publics by engaging non-state actors and
fostering partnerships as a means of embedding foreign policies within soft
power. Therefore, from the perspective of new public diplomacy, this study also
considers different methods of, and tools for, conducting public diplomacy, such
as media diplomacy, cyber diplomacy, aid diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, sports
diplomacy, and so forth.
In the previous section, this study uncovered the missing pieces in cultural
diplomacy as a subset of new public diplomacy by exploring the perspectives of
international historians, international relations scholars, and cultural diplomacy
scholars. This enables the study to differentiate the historical development
phases of cultural diplomacy from institutional development phases. This study
also found that the concept of cultural diplomacy evolved into international
cultural relations and embraced such cultural exchange programs and activities
as multicultural events, art exhibitions, performing arts concerts, popular
cultural arts, and international festivals regardless of whether they were public
or private initiatives.
This study reveals that cultural diplomacy can be considered as an intersection
between new public diplomacy and international cultural relations, and upholds
the conception of new cultural diplomacy as a subset of new public diplomacy, as
well as a subset of international cultural relations. This study defines new cultural
diplomacy as a cultural actor’s attempts to cultivate cultural understandings
through international cultural relations in line with a government’s concerted
efforts to achieve credibility, trust, and mutuality. In doing so, this study
contributes to building the theoretical concepts of new cultural diplomacy as a
subset of public diplomacy by looking at different perspectives on new public
diplomacy, soft power, cultural diplomacy, and international cultural relations.
For future research, it is suggested that an examination of which schools of
thought in international relations can best support and explain the concepts of
new public diplomacy and new cultural diplomacy.
REFERENCES
Andreasen, Uffe. 2008. “Reflections on Public Diplomacy after the Danish

Cartoon Crises: from Crisis Management to Normal Public Diplomacy
Work.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 3(2), 201-207.
Arndt, Richard T. 2005. The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural
Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century . Washington, D.C.: Potomac
Books, Inc.
. 2006. “Rebuilding America’s Cultural Diplomacy.” Foreign Service
Journal 83(10), 39-43.
Bachrach, Peter and Morton Baratz. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.” The
American Political Science Review 56(4), 947-952.
Batora, Jozef. 2005. “Multistakeholder Public Diplomacy of Small and
Medium-Sized States: Norway and Canada Compared.” Paper
Presented to the International Conference on Multistakeholder

Diplomacy, Mediterranean Diplomatic Academy, Malta (February 11-
13).
Bryce, James. 1889. The American Commonwealth , Volume 1. New York:
Macmillan.
Conze, Eckart. 2003. “States, International Systems, and Intercultural
Transfer: A Commentary.” In Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht and F.
Schumacher eds., Culture and International History . New York:
Berghahn Books, 198-205.
Costigliola, Frank. 2004. “Reading for Meaning: Theory, Language, and
Metaphor.” In Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Patterson eds.,
Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations . Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 279-303.
Cowan, Geoffrey and Amelia Arsenault. 2008. “Moving from Monologue to
Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy.” The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616(1),
10-30.
Cross, Mai’A. Davis and Jan Melissen. 2013. European Public Diplomacy: Soft
Power at Work . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cull, Nicholas J. 2009. “Public Diplomacy Before Guillon: The Evolution
of a Phrase.” In Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor eds., Routledge
Handbook of Public Diplomacy . New York and London: Routledge, 19-
23.
d’Hooghe, Ingrid. 2011. “The Limits of China’s Soft Power in Europe: Beijing’s
Public Diplomacy Puzzle.” In Sook Jong Lee and Jan Melissen eds.,
Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 163-190.
Entman, Robert M. 2008. “Theorizing Mediated Public Diplomacy: The US
Case.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 13(2), 87-102.
Finn, Helena K. 2003. “The Case for Cultural Diplomacy: Engaging Foreign
Audiences.” Foreign Affairs 82(6), 15-20.
Fitzpatrick, Kathy R. 2011. U.S. Public Diplomacy in a Post-9/11 World: From
Messaging to Mutuality . Los Angeles, CA: Figueroa Press.
Fousek, John. 2000. To Lead the Free World: American Nationalism and the
Cultural Roots of the Cold War. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina Press.
Fox, Michael David. 2012. Showcasing the Great Experiment: Cultural
Diplomacy and Western Visitors to the Soviet Union. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Gienow-Hecht, Jessica C.E. 2003. “On the Diversity of Knowledge and the
Community of Thought: Culture and International History.” In Jessica
C.E. Gienow-Hecht and F. Schumacher eds., Culture and International
History . New York: Berghahn Books, 3-26.
. 2004. “Cultural Transfer.” In Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G.
Patterson eds., Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 257-278.
Gienow-Hecht, Jessica C.E., and Mark C. Donfried. 2010. “The Model of
Cultural Diplomacy: Power, Distance, and the Promise of Civil Society.”
In Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht and Mark C. Donfried eds., Searching for
Cultural Diplomacy. New York: Berghahn Books, 13-31.
Gilboa, Eytan. 2008. “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy.” The
55-77.
Glade, William. 2009. “Issues in the Genesis and Organization of Cultural
Diplomacy: A Brief Critical History.” The Journal of Arts Management,
Law, and Society 39(4), 240-259.
Gregory, Bruce. 2008. “Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field.” The
274-290.
Gupta, Akhil and James Ferguson. 1997. “Culture, Power, Place: Ethnography
at the End of an Era.” In Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson eds.,
Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology . Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 1-31.
Haigh, Anthony. 1974. Cultural Diplomacy in Europe. Council for Cultural
Cooperation, Strasbourg (France): Manhattan Publishing Company.
Hayden, Craig. 2012. The Rhetoric of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy in Global
Contexts. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
. 2013. “Logics of Narrative and Networks in US Public Diplomacy:
Communication Power and US Strategic Engagement.” Journal of
International Communication 19(2), 196-218.
Henrikson, Alan K. 2005. “Niche Diplomacy in the World Public Arena: The
Global ‘Corners’ of Canada and Norway.” In Jan Melissen ed., The New
Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations . Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan UK, 67-87.
Hocking, Brian. 2005 “Rethinking the ‘New’ Public Diplomacy.” In Jan
Melissen ed., The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International
Relations . Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 28-43.
Hudson, Valerie M. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis Classic and Contemporary
Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Iriye, Akira. 1997. Cultural Internationalism and World Order . Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
. 2004. “Culture and International History.” In Michael J. Hogan and
Thomas G. Patterson eds., Explaining the History of American Foreign
Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 241-256.
Jönsson, Christer and Martin Hall. 2003. “Communication: An Essential
Aspect of Diplomacy.” International Studies Perspectives 4(2), 195-210.
Kaiser, Wolfram. 2003. “The Great Derby Race: Strategies of Cultural
Representation at Nineteenth-Century World Exhibitions.” In Jessica
History. New York: Berghahn Books, 45-59.
Kamminga, Jorrit. 2013. “Public Diplomacy in Afghanistan Beyond the 2014
Transition: Lessons from the United States and the Netherlands.”
Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael .
Accessed at https://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/Public%20
Diplomacy%20in%20Afghanistan%20beyond%20the%202014%20
Transition.pdf (March 20, 2016).
Kennedy, Liam. 2003. “Remembering September 11: Photography as Cultural
Diplomacy.” International Affairs 79(2), 315-326.
Kim, Hwajung. 2011. “Cultural Diplomacy as the Means of Soft Power in
an Information Age.” Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. Accessed at
http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/Hwajung_
Kim_Cultural_Diplomacy_as_the_Means_of_Soft_Power_in_the_
Information_Age.pdf (March 20, 2016).
Kitsou, Sofia. 2013. “The Power of Culture in Diplomacy: The Case of US
Cultural Diplomacy in France and Germany.” Exchange: The Journal of
Public Diplomacy 2(1), 21-39.
Kounalakis, Markos and Andras Simonyi. 2011. The Hard Truth about Soft
Power. Los Angeles, CA: Figueroa Press.
Leonard, Mark. 2002. Public Diplomacy . London: Foreign Policy Centre.
L’Etang, Jacquie. 2009. “Public Relations and Diplomacy in a Globalized
World: An Issue of Public Communication.” American Behavioral
Scientist 53(4), 607-626.
Litvinsky, Marina. 2011. European Union Public Diplomacy: The Need
for a New Frame . The George Washington University, ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Manners, Ian. 2002. “Normative Power Europe: a Contradiction in Terms?”
Journal of Common Market Studies 40(2), 235-258.
Mark, Simon. 2009. “A Greater Role for Cultural Diplomacy.” Netherlands

Institute of International Relations Clingendael . Accessed at https://
www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20090616_cdsp_discussion_
paper_114_mark.pdf (March 20, 2016).
. 2010. “Rethinking Cultural Diplomacy: The Cultural Diplomacy of New
Zealand, the Canadian Federation and Quebec.” Political Science 62(1),
62-83.
McClellan, Michael. 2004. “Public Diplomacy in the Context of Traditional
Diplomacy.” PDAA(An Association of Public Diplomacy Professionals).
Accessed at http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/45.htm (March 20,
2016).
Melissen, Jan, ed. 2005. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in
International Relations . New York Palgrave Macmillan.
. 2013. “Public Diplomacy.” In Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman eds.,
Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices . Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press, 192-208.
Muller, Guido. 2003. “France and Germany after the Great War: Businessmen,
Intellectuals and Artists in Nongovernmental European Networks.”
In Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht and F. Schumacher eds., Culture and
International History. New York: Berghahn Books, 97-114.
Ninkovich, Frank A. 1981. The Diplomacy of Ideas: US Foreign Policy and
Cultural Relations, 1938-1950 . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Nossel, Suzanne. 2004. “Smart Power.” Foreign Affairs 83(2), 131-142.
Nye, Joseph S. 1990. “The Changing Nature of World Power.” Political Science
Quarterly Academy of Political Science 105(2), 177-192.
. 2002. “The Information Revolution and American Soft Power.” Asia
Pacific Review 9(1), 60-76.
. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics . New York:
Public Affairs.
. 2008. “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.” The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 616(1), 94-109.
. 2009. “Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power.” Foreign Affairs
88(4), 160-163.
. 2011. The Future of Power . New York: Public Affairs.
Ordeix-Rigo, Enric and João Duarte. 2009. “From Public Diplomacy to
Corporate Diplomacy: Increasing Corporation’s Legitimacy and
Influence.” American Behavioral Scientist 53(4), 549-564.
Pamment, James. 2011. The Limits of the New Public Diplomacy: Strategic
Communication and Evaluation at the US State Department, Foreign

& Commonwealth Office, British Council, Swedish Foreign Ministry
and Swedish Institute. Department of Journalism, Media and
Communication (JMK): Stockholm University.
. 2012. “Did Public Diplomacy Kill the British Council?” E-
International Relations (December 22). Accessed at http://www.
e-ir.info/2012/12/22/did-public-diplomacy-kill-the-british-council/
(March 20, 2016).
Paschalidis, Gregory. 2009. “Exporting National Culture: Histories of Cultural
Institutes Abroad.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 15(3), 275-
289.
Pells, Richard. 1997. Not Like US . New York: Basic Books.
Pigman, Geoffrey Allen and Anthony Deos. 2008. “Consuls for Hire: Private
Actors, Public Diplomacy.” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4(1),
85-96.
Potter, Evan H. 2009. Branding Canada: Projecting Canada’s Soft Power
through Public Diplomacy. Montreal & Kingston, London, Ithaca:
McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.
Rasmussen, Steffen Bay. 2009. “Discourse Analysis of EU Public Diplomacy:
Messages and Practices.” Netherlands Institute of International
Relations Clingendael. Assessed at https://www.clingendael.nl/sites/
default/files/20090700_cdsp_discussion_paper_115_Rasmussen.pdf
(March 20, 2016).
Roberts, Walter R. 2006. “The Evolution of Diplomacy.” Mediterranean
Quarterly 17(3), 55-64.
Russell, Bertrand. 1967. War Crimes in Vietnam . London: Allen & Unwin.
Sanders, Barry A. 2011. A Strategic Approach to U.S. Public Diplomacy . Los
Angeles, CA: Figueroa Press.
Schneider, Cynthia P. 2003. “Diplomacy that Works: ‘Best Practices’ in
Cultural Diplomacy.” Center for Arts and Culture. Accessed at http://
www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/Schneider.pdf (March
20, 2016).
Schmidt, Oliver. 2003. “Small Atlantic World: U.S. Philanthropy and the
Expanding International Exchange of Scholars after 1945.” In Jessica
History. New York: Berghahn Books, 115-134.
Servaes, Jan. 2012. “Soft Power and Public Diplomacy: The New Frontier for
Public Relations and International Communication between the US
and China.” Public Relations Review 38(5), 643-651.
Sharp, Paul. 2005. “Revolutionary States, Outlaw Regimes and the Techniques
of Public Diplomacy.” In Jan Melissen ed., The New Public Diplomacy .
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 106-123.
. 2013 “Diplomacy in International Relations Theory and Other
Disciplinary Perspectives.” In Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman eds.,
Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theory and Practices . Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press, 51-67.
Signitzer, Benno H. and Timothy Coombs. 1992. “Public Relations and Public
Diplomacy: Conceptual Convergence.” Public Relations Review 18(2),
137-147.
Snow, Nancy and Philip M. Taylor, eds. 2008. Routledge Handbook of Public
Diplomacy. Routledge.
Sonenshine, Tara D. 2015. “Is “Soft Power” Smart and Does It Work?” Public
Diplomacy Magazine. Accessed at http://publicdiplomacymagazine.
com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Smart-Power-PD-Mag.pdf (March
20, 2016).
Stoica, Alina and Dana Pantea. 2014. “The Role of Cultural Diplomacy in
Contemporary Crises and Conflict Reconciliation.” Studia Universitatis
Babes-Bolyai-Studia Europaea 1, 219-230.
Tuch, Hans N. 1990. Communicating with the World: US Public Diplomacy
Overseas. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Van Ham, Peter. 2008. “Place Branding: The State of the Art.” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 616(1), 126-149.
. 2010. Social Power in International Politics. London, UK: Routledge.
Vaughan, James R. 2005. “A Certain Idea of Britain: British Cultural
Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1945-57.” Contemporary British History
19(2), 151-168.
Vikers, Rhiannon. 2004. “The New Public Diplomacy: Britain and Canada
Compared.” British Journal of Politics and International Affairs 6(2),
182-194.
Villanueva Rivas, César. 2010. “Cosmopolitan Constructivism: Mapping a Road
to the Future of Cultural and Public Diplomacy.” Public Diplomacy
Magazine . Accessed at http://www.publicdiplomacymagazine.com/
cosmopolitan-constructivism-mapping-a-road-to-the-future-of-
cultural-and-public-diplomacy/ (March 20, 2016).
Zaharna, Rhonda S. 2010. Battles to Bridges: U.S. Strategic Communication
and Public Diplomacy after 9/11. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zicheng, Ye and Zhang Qingmin. 2013. “China’s Contemporary Diplomacy.” In
Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman eds., Diplomacy in a Globalizing
World: Theories and Practices . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,

282-299.
[Received February 10, 2017; Revised May 31, 2017; Accepted June 13, 2017]

Kjis015 02 06

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kjis015 02 06

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kjis015 02 06

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridging the Theoretical Gap between

Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy

*Hwajung Kim(hwajungkim@ewha.ac.kr) is a lecturer on public diplomacy at the Graduate

publics. Furthermore, as public opinion has started to have an impact on foreign

of public diplomacy, thus contributing to the theorizing on cultural diplomacy

PARADIGM SHIFT IN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT IN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Although public diplomacy has become multidisciplinary, particularly in its

SOFT POWER AND NEW PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Melissen (2005) successfully adopted communications into public diplomacy by

when considering public diplomacy. Sharp (2005, 106), using an instrumentalist

Figure 1. Nodal Point of Paradigm Shift in Public Diplomacy

From an international relations standpoint, this study defines six

a nation-state in world politics. This study defines new public diplomacy as

Figure 2. New Public Diplomacy

UNCOVERING THE MISSING PIECES OF CULTURAL

PERSPECTIVES OF INTERNATIONAL HISTORIANS

PERSPECTIVES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SCHOLARS

influence” because historians developed culture as an “all-inclusive category

Picking up Iriye’s notion of culture, Gienow-Hecht suggests that “culture

hand, provides a different approach to the role of culture in international

PERSPECTIVES OF CULTURAL DIPLOMACY SCHOLARS

(multilateral or collective cultural diplomacy). In comparison, Paschalidis

WHAT COMPLICATES THE DEFINITION OF CULTURAL DIPLOMACY?

CULTURAL DIPLOMACY ROOTED IN WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

U.S. CULTURAL DIPLOMACY

CULTURAL DIPLOMACY LABLED AS A MEANS OF NEW PUBLIC

propaganda. They categorize five perspectives: (1) cultural diplomacy associated

way communication with foreign publics, and fostering mutual understanding

HOW TO DEFINE CULTURAL DIPLOMACY?

The literature on cultural diplomacy reveals that there is no universally agreed-

Figure 3. New Cultural Diplomacy as an Intersectional Concept

Private Old Cultural New Cultural

Therefore, this study supports the conceptualization of cultural diplomacy as

Andreasen, Uffe. 2008. “Reflections on Public Diplomacy after the Danish

Presented to the International Conference on Multistakeholder

Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Mark, Simon. 2009. “A Greater Role for Cultural Diplomacy.” Netherlands

Communication and Evaluation at the US State Department, Foreign

World: Theories and Practices . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,

You might also like