Public Diplomacy or Propaganda?

In the process of defining public diplomacy we often find the mention of a link between public diplomacy and propaganda. Are they the same thing? Noting that both terms lack one clear definition (Brown, 2008), there are some who argue that indeed, public diplomacy was born as (and still is) a euphemism for propaganda, as Edmund Gullion, who coined the term in 1965, himself indicated (Berridge, 2010, 179, 181 and 182). He would have called the “conduct of foreign policy through engaging international publics” (i.e. influencing public opinion abroad) “propaganda” (Cull, 2010, 11), but could not do so because in various languages the term carries negative connotations (the English and Americans are reminded of the first World War propaganda campaigns, while Germans immediately think of Hitler, Goebbels, and other figures and practices during Nazi rule) (Lilleker, 2006, 163). So he called it “public diplomacy”.

Is public diplomacy propaganda? It cannot be entirely different, because both practices are aimed at influencing public opinion in favour of the “sender” (Brown, 2008). But is that all there is to it? Many highlight the differences between the two by looking at public diplomacy “at its best” (Berridge, 2010, 182). Public diplomacy in its ideal form is a two-way system of communication (Kruckeberg and Vujnovic, 2005, 302) in which those who are to be influenced are first “listened” and not simply spoken to (Cull, 2010, 12). Propaganda, whether its source is known (white propaganda), unknown (grey propaganda) or falsified (black propaganda), does not listen (Osgood, 2002).

We seem to be able to separate propaganda and public diplomacy by looking at the intention (good or bad), the methods used (listening or telling), and the sources employed (truthful or falsified) in the practice of influencing foreign public opinion. Yet, again it is the influence of foreign public opinion that is the aim of both (Berridge, 2010, 182), regardless of the intention, methods, or sources. What does this mean? Both certainly overlap and can be virtually the same thing in practice. But at their extremes they can diverge and appear quite different. So maybe this means that they are part of one another – is public diplomacy the “soft” or “nice” part of propaganda or maybe a modern and sophisticated version of it? Because after all, it is a widespread view that the best propaganda is the one we do not identify as being propaganda at all (Brown, 2007). Or have we moved from the dark ages of propaganda (as practiced by totalitarian societies and during the Cold War) to a new an enlightened age of engaging public diplomacy - with propaganda merely being an aberration from the norm? Do only those who have not yet learned any better engage in propaganda?

I believe that both terms are very closely related and in the end, our opinion on this matter will always be based on our definition of the concepts. This means that it will continue to be a disputed question, because both terms are notoriously difficult to define.

References:

- Berridge, G.R. (2010) Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 4^th ed., Palgrave, Basingstoke

- Brown, John H. (2007) “The Paradoxes of Propaganda”, US Centre on Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog, 16^th April, http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/070416_the_paradoxes_of_propaganda/, accessed: 22.2.2011, 19:36

- Brown, John H. (2008) “Public Diplomacy & Propaganda: Their Differences”, americandiplomacy.org, 16^th September, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2008/0709/comm/brown_pudiplprop.html, accessed: 22.2.2011, 19:55

- Cull, Nicholas J. (2010) “Public Diplomacy: Seven lessons for its future from its past”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol.6, No.1, pp.11-17

- Kruckeberg, Dean and Vujnovic, Marina (2005) “Public relations, not propaganda, for US public diplomacy in a post-9/11 world: Challenges and opportunities”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol.9, No.4, pp.296-304

- Lilleker, Darren G. (2006) Key Concepts in Political Communication, Sage Publications, London

- Osgood, Kenneth A. (2002) “Propaganda”, Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/propaganda.aspx#1-1G2:3402300123-full, accessed: 22.2.2011, 19:56

'One of the most potent tools of British diplomacy is about to be blunted'

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ce58a0dc-2b1c-11e0-a65f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1DI7d6wLA

Soft Power at the core of Public and Cultural diplomacy

In previous areas of history, seen to full effect by the use of propaganda during wartime, predominantly during the second world war, propaganda which can be defined as the distribution of information of a biased or misleading nature in order to promote a political cause or point of view, has been used in an attempt to influence groups of people. With the establishment however of the concept of soft power by Joseph Nye in the publication Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power in 1990 the focus on the old form of influence, propaganda, changed or perhaps became obsolete.

As Nye stated, the view on influence or promotion now focused on a greater number of aspects, what have been labelled as a states 'primary currencies', these being values, culture, policies and institution. The aim of which, through their exportation in the context of Public and cultural diplomacy being to make other states and their people to "want what you want" (Nye, Soft Power: The means to success in world politics p31).

This change can be seen to have altered the attitude of the distributor state as it embraces different methods of attaining their goals, namely to attempt to establish an image which will carry favour. Soft power is therefore highly influential as it does not tell people what to think, as propaganda did, but instead allows them to formulate and act upon their own opinion based on what they have been told or what they have seen.

To relate this to Public and cultural diplomacy, it exists as a core as public and cultural diplomacy due to the fact that they include aspects such as the exportation of culture and ideas and communication with foreign public's, the aim of which being to influence and most importantly inform them.