In the past class we discussed the idea of cultural diplomacy and how it could/should be used in modern diplomacy. After doing all the reading it seems to me that the modern view takes a far different view of culture than the norm. Those espousing cultural diplomacy seem to shun the idea of organic cultural diplomacy and support a kind of forced cultural diplomacy. I'll elaborate further.
What's the difference between forced and organic cultural diplomacy. Organic cultural diplomacy is a kind of natural trade of ideas between cultures because of shared interest. Much of this type of cultural diplomacy comes in the form of pop culture. McDonalds, CSI, and various movies are great examples of this kind of cultural diplomacy. People like fried food and crime dramas, they spread because some entrepreneurial individual/company thought it might work, and they are subject to a price mechanism that keeps non-viable aspects out. An example of non-viable organic cultural diplomacy: Why are there no Wal-Mart subsidiaries in Russia? Simply, the people didn't embrace it and thus it was never able to establish itself. For those of us who ahve studied international development this is an Easterly-esque approach to cultural exchange. This all is different from forced cultural diplomacy.
Forded cultural diplomacy is what most people think of when they think cultural diplomacy. It's the embassy events, jazz concerts, and art exhibitions of the world. Much of this is top-down planned attempts at cultural diplomacy. The greatest difference between this and organic cultural diplomacy is the lack of a price mechanism. When these events are held it's hard to determine their true effectiveness on the target country, and there is no creative destruction to weed out practices that are non or counter productive. This is a great paradox of cultural diplomacy. If we're trying to do cultural diplomacy how do we integrate a form oa a price mechanism while accomplishing set goals.
That's for this generation of political economy students to determine, because nobody has come up with a truly viable answer thus far.
For the last time,
Nick Zaiac
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Comment by Tallia Deljou:
ReplyDeleteNick, I think you bring up a good point in trying to differentiate between this so-called "forced" vs "organic" cultural diplomacy. The problem I see when it comes to cultural diplomacy is targeting a specific audience but making sure that the approach that is used does not seem forceful. I think many countries have a sort of resentment towards the United States because the US seems to be dominating the world of pop-culture. Maybe they feel like we are forcing our culture on the rest of the world. Therefore, we must be careful in our approaches while also keeping our goals in mind.
How would you classify US student exchange programs (such as the fullbright)? I ask because it holds qualities of both organic and forced cultural diplomacy. Could the fullbright be the perfect blend of top-down and bottom-up cultural diplomacy?
ReplyDeleteTallia:
ReplyDeleteThe question here isn't necessarily a matter of resentment if they still like our cultural products. The same goes for us about other cultures. The key here is the question of how each type of diplomacy exists. Organic cultural diplomacy is simply voluntary exchange of cultural products. That would exist even in world where borders didn't exist. Were there no countries people in Paris would still be watching Baywatch. This isn't true for forced cultural diplomacy. By using forced cultural diplomacy some government official is subjectively determining what is and isn't culture and that leads to a massive inefficiency in the market for culture.
Sam:
ReplyDeleteThe fullbright is definitely an odd fit. By the nature of the fact that it is a government-run program it fits into the "forced" category, but on a lesser scale than what we normally think of as cultural diplomacy. Kind of like a poke is less forceful than a punch in a way. It prods people into cultural diplomacy with a false-incentive, but then kind of leaves them alone. I'd say this is definitely a better, more natural form of forced cultural diplomacy if a government, for some reason, feels the need to use such.
Nick has an interesting, and economical, approach to cultural diplomacy. It is interesting to consider that United States should promote private US companies to expand to countries with whom our relationships are not friendly.
ReplyDeleteThis is the first thing that goes when international politics are strained, however maybe these should be the lines of communication we love open in times of crisis. A french fry understanding.