Public Relations Review, 18(2):137-147 Copyright 0 1992 by JAI Press Inc.

ISSN: 0363.8111 All rights of reproduction in any form rcservcd.

Public Relations and

Public Diplomacy:
Benno H.
S5&aitzer Conceptual
and
Timothy Coombs Covergences
ABSTRACT: This article argues that public relations and public
diplomacy seek similar objectives and use similar tools. However,
the authors suggest, the exact ideas and concepts which can be
transferred from one area to the other have yet to be fully
delineated and tested.
Dr. Signitzer is an associate professor of communication and
head of the Public Relations Area, Department of Communication
and Journalism, Salzburg University, Austria. He received his
doctorate from Bowling Green State University in Ohio.
Dr. Coombs is an assistant professor in the Department of
Communication at Illinois State University. He received his
Ph.D. from Purdue University.

With the continued advances in communication technolo-

gies, organizations are confronted with a greater need to include foreign publics
as part of their public relations targets. Technology is pulling more and more
organizations into international public relations: “the planned and organized
effort of a company, institution, or government to establish mutually beneficial
relations with the publics ofother nations” (Wilcox, Ault, & Agee, 1989, p. 395).
Thus, the government of nation-states as well as multi-national corporations feel
the need to become involved in international public relations (Halpern, 1982;

Summer 1992 137

 Mowlana, 1986). As Wilcox et al. (1989) observed: “national governments .._
also attempt to influence the policies and actions of other nations through their
lobbying and public information efforts” (p. 404). Ahhough governments are
recognized as actors in international public relations, the theoretical and practical
public relations literature has been conspicuously silent about this issue.
While some PR textbooks have chapters on “international public relations,”
they are mainly concerned with practical problems arising from the relationships
of multi-national corporations with their foreign publics. How nation-states,
countries, or societies manage their communicative relationships with their for-
eign publics remains largely in the domains of political science and international
relations. Public relations theory d~~~elopment covering this theme has yet to
progress beyond the recognition that nations can engage in international public
relations. For example, Manheim and Albritton have examined the effect public
relations for a foreign government can have on U.S. media reports of that foreign
government (Albritton & Manheim, 1985; Manheim 81 Albritton, 1984).
The purpose of the following theoretical considerations is to explore ways in
which public relations models can be conceptually related to notions that were
derived from a branch of international relations known as public and cultural
diplomacy. The underlying assumption is that while public relations theory may
be well suited to explain and to predict the communication behavior of “ordi-
nary” organizations in both the profit and non-profit fields, public diplomacy
theories, for now, are better suited to the understanding of the relationship
between a nation-state and its foreign publics.
Two topics wiI1 be addressed in order to pursue the objective of integrating
pubIic diplomacy with public relations. First, pubfic diplomacy and its related
concepts will be defined. Second, a combined model of public relations
and cultural communication will be presented and future research concerns
considered.

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY: DEFINITIONS AND

CONCEPTUALIZATION

The term diplomacy usually conjures up images of nation-

states sending formal documents to other nation-states. This is traditional diplomacy
or the “art of conducting negotiations between governments” (Deutsch, 1966,
p. 81). Traditional diplomacy emphasizes the government-to-government
communication (Manheim, 1990). Currently, the field ofdiplomacy is experiencing
a shift away from traditional diplomacy and toward public diplomacy. Public
diplomacy has been defined as “. . . the way in which both government and
private individuals and groups influence directly or indirectly those public attitudes
and opinions which bear directly on another government’s foreign policy decisions”
(Delaney, 1968, p. 3).

138 Vol. 18. No. 2

 Public Relations and Public Diplomacy Conceptual ConverJences
-

Most diplomats now see the world as a “battlefield of public diplomacy”

(Friberg, 1989, p. 4). The shift toward public diplomacy has been facilitated by:
(1) the expansion of communication technology and (2) greater public participa-
tion in the foreign affairs process (Kiehl, 1989). Communication technology has
united the world and created a global marketplace of ideas. This global market-
place of ideas cannot be ignored by nation-states since world opinion does affect
“the policies and conduct of governments” (Kiehl, 1989, p. 2). Today, govern-
ments still speak to other governments, “but they speak also to people-and
listen to them” (Delaney, 1968, p. 4).
The shift is echoed in British and West German writings as well. Mitchell
(1986, p. 1) states that “beyond diplomacy lie alternative forms of international
relations.” For the German scholar Koschwitz (1986), the actors in public
diplomacy can no longer be confined to the profession of diplomats but include
various individuals, groups, and institutions who engage in international and
intercultural communication activities which do have a bearing on the political
relationships between two or more countries.
Not all writers are happy with the term public diplomacy. Deibel and Roberts
(1976) claim it “conjures up a (false) mental image of diplomats engaged in
traditional negotiations under the glare of publicity” (p. 13). They favor the
expression government-to-people programs. Especially in the culture field, much
of the diplomacy is even people-to-people with national agencies acting merely as
facilitators (Deibel & Roberts, 1976; Weiss, 1988).
Although the terms may be debated, the objective of public diplomacy is
generally agreed to be “to influence the behavior of a foreign government by
influencing the attitudes of its citizens” (Malone, 1988, p. 3). The objective of
public diplomacy begins to reveal its relationship to public relations. Mass media
and political science research has demonstrated that public opinion can shape
policy decisions (e.g. Page & Shapiro, 1983). Corporations and advocacy groups
have learned that lesson. Organizations frequently engage in advocacy campaigns
designed to influence publics’ opinions in order to affect the behavior of some
government body (Sethi, 1987). Public diplomacy and public relations people
often pursue the same objective-affect public opinion for the benefit of their
client/organization.
Public diplomacy practitioners seek their objective through the use of commu-
nication programs directed at alien societies and designed to change (or maintain)
the attitudes of the publics in these foreign cultures (Deibel & Roberts, 1976).
Koschwitz (1986) g oes on to identify the sub-objectives of public diplomacy.
Information exchange, the reduction of cliches and prejudices, the creation of
sympathy for their own foreign policy and model of society, self-portrayal, and
image-building are all sub-objectives of public diplomacy. The sub-objectives
reveal further similarities in the relationship between public diplomacy and public
relations. Virtually any introductory public relations text will note public relations
is used to achieve information exchange, the reduction of misconceptions, the

Summer 1992 139

 Public Relntions Review

creation of goodwill, and the construction of an image (e.g. Cutlip, Center, &
Broom, 1985). Kiehl (1989) rightly notes that public relations and public
diplomacy share similar objectives.
Even with this conceptual overlap, it appears that public relations and public
diplomacy thinking have been shying away from one another instead of having a
fruitful encounter. Interestingly, Koschwitz, a German, appears to be the only
public diplomacy theorist to make explicit use of the term “public relations” when
describing public diplomacy activities, albeit in its German meaning as
OffentLichkeitsavbeit (work done in/for/by the public). Koschwitz also adds the
adjective auslandsgerichtet which is meant to specifir that he is talking (only)
about public relations “directed at foreign publics” which seems to exclude the
logical possibility of any “domestic public diplomacy.” In this context Koschwitz
employs the English meaning of public relations. However, he limits the scope by
stating that “public relations aspect.? are gaining importance in public diplomacy
theory and practice alike. Still two areas which could benefit from a union remain
divorced from one another.

Further Conceptualization of Public Diplomacy

Public diplomacy is a multi-faceted concept. Figure 1 is a

visual representation of the components vvhich comprise public diplomacy. The
explication of this figure will begin with the distinction between tough-minded
and tender-minded lines and work down the figure to the diferences between
cultural diplomacy and cultural relations.
Using the concepts advanced by James (1955), Deibel and Roberts (1976)
haIre developed an interesting distinction between the tough-minded and the
tender-minded schools in public diplomacy. The tough-minded hold that the
purpose of public diplomacy is to exert an influence on attitudes of foreign
audiences using persuasion and propaganda. Hard political information is consid-
ered more important than cultural programs. Fast media such as radio, television,
nevvspapers, and news magazines are given preference over other forms
of communication. Objectivity and truth are considered important tools
of persuasion but not extolled as virtues in themselves. Supreme criterion for
public diplomacy is the raison d’etat defined in terms of fairly short-term policy
ends.
The tender-mined school argues that information and cultural programs must
bypass current foreign policy goals to concentrate on the highest long-range
national objectives. The goal is to create a climate of mutual understanding.
Public diplomacy is seen as a predominantly cultural function as opposed to the
conveying of hard political information. Slovv media such as films, exhibitions,
language instruction, academic and artistic exchanges with a view toward trans-
mitting messages about lifestyles, political and economic systems, and artistic
achievements are used. Truth and veracity are considered essential, much more
than a mere persuasive tactic.

140 Vol. 18, No. 2

 Public Relations and Public Diplomac_~ Conceptual Convergences

jTRADITIONAL DIPLOMACY 1
1PUBLIC DIPLOMACY1

TOUGH-MINDED LINE TENDER-MINDED LINE

-TO INFLUENCH FOREIGN -TO CRFATE A CLIMATE OF
ATIITUDES MUTUALUNDERSI'ANDING
-FAST MEDIA -SLOW MEmA

-TO EXPLAIN GOVIXNMENI’ POLICIES

-TO PORTRAY THE NATIONAL SOCID3-Y

/\

CULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
-FOREIGN MlNISTRY -CULW SECIION OF
-EMBASSY FOREIGN0I'HERMINISIRY
-SEMI-AUTONOMOUS BODY

/\

CULTURAL DIPLOMACY (CULTURALRELATIONS )

-CULTURAL AGREEMENIS CULTURAL COOPERATION
F&we 1. Conceptualization of Public Diplomaq

Neither school can be said to be correct. Instead the schools function best
lvhen synthesized. Deibel and Roberts (1976) provide such a synthesis when they
identified the aspects shared by the two schools:

First, all public diplomacy programs have a primary responsibility to explain

and defend golwnment policies to foreign audiences. This is a necessary role
because so much of today’s foreign policy depends at least partly upon popular
acceptance for its support. It is not enough today simply for a government to
explain its policy in private to other governments; the world expects to be

Summer 1992 141

 informed if not consulted. This role as spokesman for governmental policies,
therefore, must be performed by every government.

Alongside it, hobvevcr, lies a second important function, that of portraying

that national society in toto to fove.r&z audiences. This is the “cultural” side of
what is public diplomacy. (p. 15)

The division of public diplomacy into political information and cultural rela-
tions moves us to the second level in Figure 1. Political information is usually
administered by a political section of the foreign ministry or by a political secretary
of an embassy. The other is cultural communication, usually entrusted to a
cultural section ofthe foreign ministry, a cultural institute abroad, or some type of
semi-autonomous body such as the British Council or the German Goethe
Institute. Malone (1988, pp. 34) confirms this distinction with some slight
modification; he calls the “political information” side of public diplomacy political
advocacy and adds to the term cultural communication a two-way meaning: its
purpose is not only to “help foreign citizens gain a better understanding of the
United States, its culture and institutions” but also to foster “mutual under-
standing betvveen our people and those of other countries.”
The third and final level in Figure 1 is a further dileneation of cultural commu-
nication. The focus is on cultural communication because political information
currently lacks further differentiation. (The exception is the study of press at-
taches (e.g. Fankhauser, 1985; Fischer, 1985; de Jong, 1977). Cultural commu-
nication has been differentiated into cultural diplomacy and cultural relations.
The work of British theorist J. M. Mitchell (1986) will be used as the guide for
the differentiation of cultural communication.
According to Mitchell (1986), cultural diplomacy has hvo levels of meaning.
The first-order meaning applies to the creation (through negotiations) of cultural
agreements in the formal sense. The second-order meaning refers to the “execu-
tion of these agreements and the conduct of cultural relations flowing from
them” (Mitchell, 1986, p. 4). Such activity may be seen “either as the extended
responsibility of governments or as something delegated by governments to
agencies and cultural institutions” (Mitchell, 1986, p. 4). Cultural diplomacy’s
goal is to convey a favorable image of one’s culture with a view toward facilitating
diplomatic activities as a whole.
The purpose of cultural relations, in contrast, is not necessarily to look for
unilateral advantage. “At their most effective, their purpose is to achieve under-
standing and cooperation between national societies for their mutual benefit.
Cultural relations proceed ideally by the accretion of open professional exchanges
rather than by selective self-projection. They purvey an honest picture of each
country rather than a beautified one. They do not conceal but neither need to
make a show of national problems” (Mitchell, 1986, p. 5). Ideally, cultural
relations has a nobler goal, that of information exchange. However, it is difficult if
not impossible to separate information exchange from persuasion (Burke, 1966).

142 Vol. 18, No. 2

 Public Relations and Public Diplomac_v:Conceptual Converlqenrcs

Figure 1 summarizes the various elements which comprise public diplomacy. In

discussing the definition and objectives of public diplomacy, its relationship to
public relations was noted. This relationship is further expanded by comparing
models from the different areas. The discussion of the Peisert model of public
diplomacy and the Grunig/Hunt model of public relations will reinforce the
substance which is shared by public diplomacy and public relations.

MODEL COMPARISON: PEISERT AND

GRUNIG/HUNT

Much has been said about cultural communication’s func-

tions and contributions to diplomacy. Whatever the results, cultural communica-
tion is still an important aspect of public diplomacy. The German author Peisert
(1978) has developed a model of cultural communication. His work drew from
an extensive investigation of the different countries and resulted in the four-fold
table found in Figure 2.
Peisert’s first model, exchange and cooperation, involves a situation where both
partners have equal rights. The two sides join together in combined efforts to
solve scientific, social, and cultural problems. The ultimate goal is to substitute
national for international loyalties. Organizationally, some sort of central institu-
tion, which is autonomous and shielded from day-to-day foreign policy, may
collect information at home and abroad and pass it on to professional and
academic bodies. These bodies then actually carry out the exchange and co-
operation activities such as international scholarship and visiting programs, joint
research projects etc. Typically, there are no national institutions (e.g. cultural
institutes) abroad.
The one-laay transmission of own culture abroad, Peisert’s second model, is
unbalanced in its structure. There is a central institution, close to foreign policy,

Is Interested in Is Disinterested
the culture and in the culture
cultural issues of and cultural
the other country issues of the
other country

Intends Cultural EXCHANGE AND ONE-WAY

Changes in the CO-OPERATION TRANSMISSION OF
OWN CULTURE
ABROAD

Accepts the Cultural INFORMATION SELF-PORTRAYAL

Status Quo in the
Other Country

Figure 2. Peisert'sModel of Cultural Communication

Summer1992 143
 Public Relations Review

which is designed to assure that the activities fit into the over-all strategy.
Systematic language policy is a major vehicle in this approach-language is here
seen primarily as an instrument of persuasion rather than information exchange.
A network of language schools abroad is a typical institutional pattern.
The information model, Peisert’s third model, seeks to create abroad under-
standing and sympathy for one’s own country. Institutions in the other country
(e.g. cultural institutes) monitor relevant social and cultural developments. At
home, close contacts are sought with the cultural and scientific community and
less so with foreign policy. Language courses and other measures are only offered
when there is a clear demand for it which cannot be met by domestic efforts.
The self-portrayal approach, Peisert’s fourth model, aims at the conscious
drawing of a specific picture abroad of one’s own country. A central organization
plans and coordinates policy and activities according to the picture envisioned.
Closeness to foreign policy is essential. Information about the targeted country is
sought in order to improve comprehension. A typical example are cultural
institutes with a strong national profile and a staff who are experts about their
own country.
These four models of cultural communication are to be regarded as ideal types.
In reality, there is overlap and practices do change over time. However, Peisert
(1978) has demonstrated that the four models can serve a useful organizing
purpose in a study of the cultural communication “styles” of different countries.
Austrian researchers (i.e. Weiss, 1988; Signitzer, 1988) have recently made an
attempt to connect the Peisert model of cultural communication and the Mitchell
(1986) differentiation of cultural communication with the Grunig/Hunt ( 1984)
models of public relations. Figure 3 is a visual representation of that effort.
Below is a summary of the relationship between the four models of Peisert and
the four models of Gnmig/Hunt. Two of the four models of public relations
seem to fit best with cultural diplomacy.

(1) PRESS AGENTRY/PUBLICITY = ONE-WAY TRANSMISSION

OF ONE’S OWN CULTURE ABROAD
l both models are one-way
l propaganda = aggressive language policy
l unbalanced relationship

(2) PUBLIC INFORMATION = SELF-PORTRAYAL

l both one-way information, very little persuasion
l both concerned with comprehension
The other models seem to fit best with cultural relations:

(3) TWO-WAY ASYMMETRIC = INFORMATION

l goal is sympathy and acceptance
l careful; scientific planning
l no change of one’s own behavior

144 Vol. 18, No. 2

 Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Convergences

ONE-WAY TWO-WAY
COWl4UNICATION COMWUNICATION

INFORWATIVE One-Way Transmission Information

Press Agentry/Publicity Two-Way Asymmetric

PERSUASIVE Self-Portrayal Exchange and Cooperation

Public Information Two-Way Symmetric
F&rre 3. Four Models of Cultural Communication and Four Models of Public Relations

(4) TWO-WAY SYMMETRIC = EXCHANGE AND CO-OPERATION

l dialogue, balanced effects
l change of own behavior on each side

Once more when compared, the areas of public diplomacy and public relations
are revealed to share basic concepts. Even some of the models show a strong
similarity. In fact, Weiss (1988) found some support for the applicability of the
Peisert-Grunig/Hunt analogy in her investigation of the regional French Cul-
tural Institute in Salzburg, Austria. However, the synthesis was not perfect as she
had difficulty with the notions of “two-way” communication in cultural commu-
nication. In cultural communication, two-way is more of two one-way “ex-
changes” (e.g. A French art exhibition in Austria for an Austrian one is France)
than the sender-receiver model being substituted by a participant A-participant B
construct (Rogers & Kin&d, 1981). Thus, Weiss’s work is another indication of
the potential and the need for further examination of the relationship between
public diplomacy and public relations.
Modern technology and the needs of modern nation-states have created a
convergence between public diplomacy and public relations. Modern nation-
states find themselves more and more in the area of public relations as they
attempt to influence the opinions of foreign publics. Witness Richard Rose’s
(1988) new book, The Post-Modern President, which posits that American presi-
dents must court the favor of foreign, as well as domestic, publics if they are to be
successful. Neither public relations nor public diplomacy is fully equipped to
handle the new demands which face them. Public relations is fairly unsophisti-
cated in the strategies nation-states must employ when engaging in international
public relations. International public relations is designed for corporations. Na-
tion-states pushing foreign policy is not the same as a multi-national corporation
peddling an image. On the other hand, public diplomacy lacks the tools/tactics
necessary to affect change in foreign publics (Friberg, 1989). Each area can
benefit by learning the strengths of the other area and adapting them to the
practice of dealing with foreign publics.
As argued here, a relationship between the two areas does exist. Public relations
and public diplomacy do seek similar objectives and use similar tools to reach
those objectives (Kiehl, 1989). However, the exact ideas/concepts which can be

Summer 1992 145

 Public Relations Revim

transferred from one area to the other have yet to be fully delineated and tested.
Future research needs to test what works from one area in the other area. Weiss’
work clearly indicates some ideas do transfer while others do not. Practitioners
and researchers will do well to heed the relationship between public relations and
public diplomacy. Practitioners should explore what the “other” area has to offer
for their work and researchers should test which concepts best transfer between
the two areas.
Public relations and public diplomacy are in a natural process of convergence. A
process which should be cultivated and not ignored. Only a series of theory-based
empirical studies will facilitate this convergence of research traditions which, in
the past, have evolved in quite different intellectual and academic settings and in
near isolation form each other.

REFERENCES

Albritton, R. B., & Manheim, J. B. (1985). “Public Relations for the Third World: Images
in the News.” Journal of Communication, 35143-59.
Burke, K. (1966). Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley University of California Press.
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1985). Efictive Public Relations.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Deibel, T., & Roberts, W. (1976). Culture and Information: Two Foreign Policy Functions.
Newbury Park: Sage.
de Jong, J. G. (1977). “The Press Attache: Background, Status, Task.” Gazette, 23 (3):
171-184.
Delaney, R. F. (1968). “Introduction.” In A. S. Hoffman (Ed.), International
Communication and the New Diplomacy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Deutsch, K. W. (1966). Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the
Foundations of Nationality. Cambridge, IMA: MIT Press.
Fankhauser, M. M. (1985). “Diplomatie and Cjffentlichkeit-Am Beispiel der Entwicklung
der ijffentlickeitsarbeit der osterreichischen Diplomatie. Eine Fallstudie zu den
Berufsmnktionen der osterreichischen Presseattaches im auswfrtigen Dienst.” Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Fischer, H. D. (Ed.) (1985). Kommunikations-DipLomatea im intevnationlen DiaLoJqtem.
Presseattaches an Auslandsmissionen zwischen Iufovmationspolitik und publizistischen
Rahmenfaktoren. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Fisher, G. H. (1972). Public Diplomacy and the Behavioral Sciences. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Fisher, G. H. (1987). American Communication in a Global Society (rev. ed.). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Friberg, R. (1989). “Problems in Profiling Small Countries.” Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the International Public Relations Association, Helsinki, Finland.
Grunig, J. A., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managin& Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Halpern, B. M. (1982). Tell It to the World. Ne\\rYork: Gefen Books.
James, W. (1955). Pragmatism. Cleveland: World Publications.

146 Vol. 18, No. 2

 Pltblic Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Conne~qences

Hartmann, U. (1988). “offentliche Diplomatie: Interdependenz von politischen Akteuren,

Medien und offentlichkeit.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Salzburg, Salzburg,
Austria.
Kiehl, W. P. (1989). “Public Diplomacy and the Information Revolution: An American
Perspective.” Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the International Public
Relations Association, Helsinki, Finland.
Koschwitz, H. (1986). “Diplomatie und Ciffentlichkeit.” Beit&& ZUYKonjliktforschung,
16 (1): 53-68.
Malone, G. D. (1988). Political Advocacy and Cultural Communication: Organizing the
Nation’s Public Diplomacy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Manheim, J. B. (1990). “Coming to America: Head-of-State Visits as Public Diplomacy.”
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe International Communication Association,
Dublin, Ireland.
Manheim, J. B., & Albritton, R. B. (1984). “Changing National Images: International
Public Relations and Media Agenda Setting.” American Political Science Review,
78:641-657.
Mitchell, J. M. (1986). International Cultural Relations. London: Allen & Unwin.
Mowlana, H. (1986). Global Information and World Communication. New York:
Longman.
Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American
Political Science Review, 77:175-190.
Peisert, H. (1978). Die Auswiivtige Kulturpolitik dev Bundesuepublik Deutschland:
Sozialmissenschaftliche Analysen und Planungsmodells. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication Networks: Towardsa Paradigm
for Research. New York: Free Press.
Rose, R. (1988). The Postmodern President: The White House Meets the World.
Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Sethi, S. P. (1987). Handbook ofAdvocacy Advertising: Concepts, Strategies, and Applications.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Signitzer, B. (1988). “Public Relations-Forschung im Uberblick.” Publizistik, 33 (1):
92-l 16.
Weiss, M. (1988). “Kulturelle Kommunikation und offentlichkeitsarbeit: Eine
Untersuchung von Kongruenzen und Divergenzen am Beispiel der Auslandskulturpolitik
von Frankreich.” M.A. Thesis, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Wilcox, D. L., Ault, P. H., & Agee, W. K. (1989). Pubic Relations: Stlaategies and Tactics.
New York: Harper & Row.

Summer 1992 147