Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Makale Yumuşak Güç
Makale Yumuşak Güç
Makale Yumuşak Güç
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.
jTRADITIONAL DIPLOMACY 1
1PUBLIC DIPLOMACY1
/\
CULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
-FOREIGN MlNISTRY -CULW SECIION OF
-EMBASSY FOREIGN0I'HERMINISIRY
-SEMI-AUTONOMOUS BODY
/\
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:
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).
Is Interested in Is Disinterested
the culture and in the culture
cultural issues of and cultural
the other country issues of the
other country
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.
ONE-WAY TWO-WAY
COWl4UNICATION COMWUNICATION
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
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.