Performing Gender Roles On The World Stage - Erickson & Thomson

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]
On: 21 October 2014, At: 14:19

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Southern Communication Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsjc20
First Lady International Diplomacy:

Performing Gendered Roles on the World
Stage
Keith V. Erickson & Stephanie Thomson
Published online: 30 May 2012.
To cite this article: Keith V. Erickson & Stephanie Thomson (2012) First Lady International Diplomacy:
Performing Gendered Roles on the World Stage, Southern Communication Journal, 77:3, 239-262, DOI:
10.1080/1041794X.2011.647502
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2011.647502
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Southern Communication Journal
Vol. 77, No. 3, July–August 2012, pp. 239–262
First Lady International Diplomacy:

Performing Gendered Roles on the
World Stage
Keith V. Erickson & Stephanie Thomson
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 14:19 21 October 2014
This study critically exposes gendered diplomacy roles as representations that limit the
performance options of first ladies. When traveling abroad, for example, presidents’ wives
rarely call attention to or address world affairs. Rather, they typically spotlight humani-
tarian issues, bolster a president’s image or extend goodwill. This investigation, therefore,
positions gendered diplomacy roles as objectified representations that suppress the agentic
conduct and voice of first ladies. We conclude by proposing correctives in keeping with
issues of equity, empowerment, and the ideals of feminism.
Neither marriage nor politics denies a spouse the right to hold an opinion or the
right to express it. Anything less . . . [is] servitude.
Nancy Reagan (1989, pp. 14–15)
Prior to Rosalynn Carter, the diplomacy performances of first ladies were largely lim-
ited to photo opportunities, participation in spousal activities, and=or ritual appear-
ances (Smith, 1997). Presidents’ wives were voiceless or chary with respect to matters
of state. By contrast, present-day first ladies are credible rhetors and ‘‘important
actors in their own right’’ (Medhurst, 1996, p. 223). They contribute to the architec-
ture of U.S. foreign affairs by bolstering the president’s image and agenda, reinforcing
vital alliances and relationships, and conferring prominence to human rights issues.
Social activist first ladies, for example, address the needs of oppressed, marginalized,
Keith V. Erickson, Department of Communication Studies, University of Southern Mississippi. Stephanie

Thomson, Department of Communication, Ferris State University. The authors wish to thank two anonymous
reviewers for their insightful assistance. We extend as well our gratitude to Maria Koskan Venetis, Purdue
University, for her initial assistance. Correspondence to: Keith V. Erickson, Department of Communication
Studies, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5131. E-mail: keith.erickson@usm.edu
ISSN 1041-794X (print)/1930-3203 (online)

# 2012 Southern States Communication Association. DOI: 10.1080/1041794X.2011.647502
240 The Southern Communication Journal
and=or disadvantaged populations. Their compassion for the plight of exploited and
underprivileged ‘‘others’’ consistently captures attention and invites political
consideration, thereby stimulating actions that inspire optimism and the prospect
of relief among the powerless (Dubriwny, 2005, pp. 84–114). Not surprisingly, inter-
national relations scholars acknowledge that first lady diplomacy appearances
commonly create goodwill and favorable images of America (Hastedt & Eksterowicz,
2006). Nevertheless, administrations consign first ladies to the performance of
gendered diplomacy roles that ideologically objectify their conduct and voice. Rarely,
for example, are first ladies authorized to address foreign policy or to articulate the
dysfunctions of world order (Knickrehm & Teske, 2006). Ironically, therefore,
presidents’ wives are characteristically silent with respect to world affairs even though
they are depicted as rhetorically empowered women.
With seeming indifference to the ideals of feminism, administrations dispatch first
ladies abroad to perform gendered diplomacy roles. Regrettably, the performance of

diplomacy roles gendered female may prejudice the agentic status of first ladies.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, noted that gendered roles objectified her per-
formance style and diplomatic function: ‘‘I was now a symbol’’ (2003, p. 140). It was
made clear that when traveling abroad ‘‘I would emphasize issues related to women,
health care, education, [and] human rights’’ (Clinton, 2003, p. 387). The First Lady
was chiefly restricted to performing diplomacy roles that dealt with gendered, rela-
tional, and humanitarian issues (Genovese, 2008). Hillary Rodham Clinton’s situ-
ation was not unique, however. The White House routinely restricts the
performance repertoire, foreign policy voice, and political agenda of first ladies,
thereby subjugating them to the conduct conventions of the so-called ‘‘mythic first
ladyship.’’ When presidents’ wives travel abroad, for example, they often perform
feminine normativity in ways that posture deference to the masculine. We judge such
performances to be ideologically corrupt insofar as they mirror the hegemonic
dichotomy of ‘‘women’s roles’’ versus ‘‘men’s roles,’’ thereby debasing the principles
of women’s equity and justice. Thus, this study indicts as outmoded the White House
practice of restricting first ladies to objectified diplomacy roles that, in the main,
depict them as dutiful spouses or perfunctory ambassadors of goodwill. We conclude
by proposing correctives relative to diplomatic agency, rhetorical empowerment, and
the ideals of feminism.
First ladies rarely bungle diplomacy appearances by wandering ‘‘off script,’’ defy-
ing tradition, or violating cultural norms. Nonetheless, administrations maintain a
tight rein on their international performances. Wary administrations no doubt
believe that limiting first ladies to diplomacy roles gendered female is both warranted
and supported by conventional wisdom.1 When Presidents Johnson, Ford, Bush, and
Reagan traveled abroad, for example, they ‘‘silenced’’ their wives by relegating them
to the status of escort; they were to be seen but not heard from (Hummer, 2008, pp.
332–368). Rosalynn Carter, although allowed to serve as President Carter’s surrogate,
was nonetheless forbidden to act as a ‘‘negotiator or as a spokesman [sic]’’
(‘‘Rosalynn’s turn at diplomacy,’’ 1977, p. 36). Likewise, President Clinton kept
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political remarks in check. He ‘‘clarified,’’ for example,
First Lady Diplomacy 241
her highly celebrated comments denouncing Chinese oppression at the Fourth World
Conference on Women in Beijing: ‘‘There was no attempt to single any country out’’
(‘‘Hillary Clinton’s China speech,’’ 1995, p. 274), the President said. On a subsequent
trip to Latin America, she ‘‘shied away from controversial topics’’ (Hastedt, 2006,
p. 201). Similarly, although George W. Bush supported Laura Bush’s social activism
in Afghanistan, he tempered her criticism of nations having patriarchic power struc-
tures. She claimed to have ‘‘no firm opinion on the issues’’ (Watson, 2006, p. 322).
Surprisingly, the normally guileless and forthcoming Michelle Obama routinely dis-
plays a detached voice on the world stage. Traveling solo to Haiti and Mexico, for
example, she avoided the politically sensitive issues of drug trafficking and illegal
immigrants (Lacey, 2010; Sweet, 2010). In South Africa, her public appearances
featured a reading of Dr. Seuss’s (1957) The Cat in the Hat, pulling carrots from a
vegetable garden, and doing push-ups with Archbishop Desmond Tutu (Hartman,
2011). Understandably, political critics agree that such contrived spectacles are ‘‘least
significant to the overall conduct of diplomacy’’ (Hastedt & Eksterowicz, 2006, p. 61).
First lady diplomacy is operationally defined here as the performance abroad of an
international relations role. Diplomacy performances are nonadversarial and dis-
tinguishable by their protocol-driven adherence to political codes of prudent and dec-
orous relational conduct (Rourke & Boyer, 2009). We define ‘‘performance’’ as an
action displayed or acted out before witnesses (speeches, interviews, photo opportu-
nities, etc.). In short, a performance is what presidents’ wives do in order to portray the
role of first lady. It is, therefore, important that critics appreciate that first ladies
‘‘invent a public persona while on stage’’ (Wertheimer, 2005, p. xi). Indeed, presi-
dents’ wives face a dizzying array of potential options when pondering the issue:
How shall I act as first lady? Irrespective of their contemplative deliberations, however,
Gary Wekkin observes that first lady performances are largely a ‘‘function of the
constraints and capacities [of her] understanding of the first ladyship’’ (2000, p. 608).
Often as not, first ladies perform diplomacy in ways consistent with their cultural
and ideological appreciation of the first lady myth (Campbell, 1998) and its gendered
link to feminine normativity and American womanhood ideals—family, motherhood,
and spousal loyalty (Anderson, 2004). Moreover, the title ‘‘First Lady’’ summons
expectations of faithfulness to female performance standards even though performing
feminine normativity may pigeonhole first ladies as gendered political actors. Presi-
dents’ wives no doubt feel compelled to conduct themselves in a manner that pru-
dently coheres to the myths of the office (Scharrer & Bissell, 2000, pp. 55–83). As
such, therefore, they must balance the portrayal of their authentic voice against the
role’s objectifying myths and traditions. Clearly, first ladies have no desire to embar-
rass their husbands, to violate diplomatic protocols, or to alienate foreign audiences by
portraying themselves as ideologically insubordinate. Nevertheless, first ladies who
perform gendered diplomacy roles may signal the message that they support the sti-
pulations of their gendered objectification and are ‘‘willing, even enthusiastic partners
in [their] subordination’’ (J. C. Scott, 1990, p. 4). Arguably patriarchic, diplomacy
roles gendered female conflict with feminist aspirations of justice and equity insofar
as they subtly exercise domination and control over presidents’ wives.
Diplomacy roles gendered female require that first ladies make prudential
decisions regarding performance options. Prudence constitutes the rational process
that logically instructs a rhetor’s conduct with respect to communicating in an
‘‘appropriate and timely manner’’ (Hariman, 2003, p. 301). It comprises the ability
to manage political appearances for desired outcomes. As such, prudence seldom
appropriates performance options that operate outside the parameters of logic. Pre-
sidents’ wives, though, face the logical incongruity of having to conform to aesthetic
‘‘demands that they act like ‘ladies’ ’’ (Parks & Roberson, 2008, p. 18). This irony is
troublesome insofar as the performance options of first lady aesthetic forms are
‘‘irreducible to principles of reason’’ (Vivian, 2004, p. 117). Furthermore, aesthetic
considerations rarely conform to the dominant ideology’s gendered conceptions of
suitable and=or appropriate conduct (including the patriarchic convention that
implies ‘‘silence and measured speech are requirements of being a first lady’’)
(Wertheimer, 2005, p. x). Thus, first ladies may compromise their persona or rhetori-
cal function while pondering aesthetic performance options or the ‘‘intrinsic satisfac-
tion of putting on a good show’’ (Hariman, 2003, p. 301).
Feminist scholars have yet to unpack critically the gendered ‘‘silencing’’ of first
lady diplomacy. This slippage is perplexing inasmuch as J. Ann Tickner (1997) argues
that power differentials unambiguously distinguish the gender expectations and per-
formance roles that exist between male and female political actors (p. 612). Arguably,
therefore, the gendered framing of first lady diplomacy performances reflects a
‘‘hegemonic logic of reasoning’’ (Baudrillard, 1990, p. 46). It constitutes a cultural
acceptance of a ‘‘politics of civility’’ that objectifies presidents’ wives as ‘‘subjects
needing a firm hand’’ (Loszano-Reich & Cloud, 2009, pp. 223–224). As Michelle
Obama noted: ‘‘There’s always . . . somebody who thinks you should do something
differently’’ (Gibbs & Scherer, 2009, p. 33). At its core, this ideological calculus sus-
tains the belief that the gender of first ladies ill-equips them to perform diplomacy in
ways other than that prescribed by the mythic first ladyship or institutional presi-
dency. Accordingly, Carlson, Painton, and Shapiro (1992) indict the mythic first
ladyship as a ‘‘tradition-bound and antiquated model of American womanhood’’
(p. 28).
Barbara Biesecker encourages feminist scholars to research cultural and insti-
tutional practices that objectify women (1992, pp. 140–161). We take her charge
to include first ladies even though they are not typical sites of women’s oppression.
Indeed, unique ideological and political conditions challenge critical interrogations of
first lady diplomacy performances. First ladies, for example, often perform contradic-
tory roles that simultaneously signal institutionally condoned subordinancy and
institutionally condoned equality—a demanding move we liken to ‘‘role discrep-
ancy’’ (Goffman, 1959). Likewise, insofar as first lady diplomacy performances are
fluid, complex, and context specific, they reluctantly yield to the gaze of critical analy-
sis. In addition, the White House rarely admits to managing the diplomacy roles of
first ladies; administrations hold quiet the presidency’s dominance and ‘‘dialectic of
disguise and surveillance’’ (J. C. Scott, 1990, p. 4). Doing so publicly, of course,
would potentially expose a masculinist bias or signal the president’s apprehension
regarding the first lady’s ability to perform diplomacy. In addition, the blurred line
that sets apart imposed restraints from a first lady’s preference for gendered roles tests
one’s critical skills. Nevertheless, it was deemed important to map first lady
diplomacy roles as sites of gender objectification insofar as women worldwide look
to presidents’ wives as exemplars of democratic ideals and role models of American
womanhood.
Methodologically, this study investigated 221 journeys taken by presidents’ wives
between the years 1961 and 2011.2 We gathered examples of both minor and major first
lady foreign excursions taken either solo or in the company of the president. The sample
is roughly proportionate to each first lady’s term in office. Procedurally, the researchers
deconstructed media accounts of the first lady diplomacy performances by probing them
as ideological ‘‘fragments’’ (Corbin, 1998; McGee, 1990; McKerrow, 1989). A critical
examination of these media ‘‘fragments’’ (newspaper and magazine articles, commen-
taries, scholarly works, memoirs, and biographies) established the rhetorical purpose
and performance activities of each excursion.3 The principle units of observation
employed, therefore, were media accounts of first lady diplomacy appearances. We deem
these fragments significant as units of observation insofar as they function to reify
notions of femininity that limit women’s agency. The researchers interrogated these frag-
mented accounts by employing an ideational, text-based (as opposed to rhetor-focused)
critique.4 A core belief of our approach was the conviction that ‘‘women should have
equal opportunities for self expression’’ (Foss, Foss, & Trapp, 1991, p. 275). Accordingly,
this essay critically indicts cultural and mythic conventions that restrict the conduct of
first ladies to objectified diplomacy roles or representations that constrain their voice,
agency, and=or persona.
Next, the researchers ‘‘reassembled’’ the performance ‘‘fragments’’ to create a working
taxonomy of first lady diplomacy roles. The resulting classification differentiated six role
functions: escort, aesthete, surrogate, cultural emissary, goodwill ambassador, and social
advocate.5 We categorized these roles around three rhetorical functions (the manage-
ment of presidential credibility, international relationships, and social issues). While per-
haps not exhaustive, the taxonomy functioned as a suitable platform from which to
analyze first lady diplomacy roles and performances. This study, therefore, examines
questions, such as ‘‘How do global audiences perceive first ladies who perform diplomacy
roles gendered female?’’ ‘‘To what extent do diplomacy roles gendered female constrain
the global performances of first ladies?’’ ‘‘How is the voice and agency of first ladies
shaped rhetorically by diplomacy roles gendered female?’’ Thus, as a critical ‘‘disrup-
tion,’’ this essay rethinks first lady international excursions by arguing that restrictions
on their diplomatic performances are not codified or institutional structures. Rather,
we maintain, they exist as ‘‘unfolding performative inventions’’ subject to correction
(Conquergood, 1991, p. 190). Limitations restrict this study’s conclusions.6
Objectified Diplomacy Roles

We interrogate the aforementioned diplomacy roles from a feminist perspective that
critically exposes gender objectification. The function of each diplomacy role is
parsed and identified. Next, the essay assesses the potential impact of objectified
diplomacy performances on both a first lady’s image and U.S. international relations.
We submit one caveat: The taxonomy’s categories are not mutually exclusive as they
often serve multiple rhetorical functions.
Managing Presidential Credibility

Escort, enchantment, and surrogate performances typically augment or bolster the
president’s political image and=or political agendas. Culturally and administratively
obligated to do so, first ladies bolster their husbands’ credibility as a statesperson.
However, as James C. Scott notes, ‘‘dominant elites . . . compel performances from
others as . . . they would have themselves seen’’ (1990, p. 15). Arguably, therefore, pre-
sidents exercise patriarchic dominance over their wives’ diplomacy. While it is not
surprising that first ladies would desire to promote their husband’s international
standing, this role function objectifies presidents’ wives as supportive spouses rather
than political actors.
Escort role
One means by which first ladies reinforce their husband’s international image is by
escorting them abroad. Myra G. Gutin (in Fiore, 2010) explains: ‘‘You need to go
out, and go on the record and declare your support’’ (p. 1). Thus, given Lady Bird
Johnson’s willingness to journey on behalf of her husband, the media dubbed her
a ‘‘traveling saleslady’’ (Alexander, 1996, p. 22). Significantly, escort performances
rhetorically cue relational values intended to bolster a president’s image and credi-
bility. An escort role also signals a president’s strength, integrity, and values—a rea-
son that prompted Laura Bush’s frequent travel to locations where the president had
meager appeal or was viewed with suspicion (Feldmann, 2005, p. 1). An escort role
may also draw the attention of foreign witnesses to less well-known presidential
‘‘attitudes’’ and ‘‘beliefs.’’ Pat Nixon, for example, acquiesced to her husband’s
breathtaking request to help soften his masculinist image by depicting him as
‘‘pro-woman during the peak of the feminist movement’’ (Hummer, 2008, p. 337).
(This familial nod bared the first lady’s ironic and submissive willingness to
‘‘persuade’’ women on her husband’s behalf.) While helpful in establishing a
president’s masculine identity, escort performances typically represent first ladies
as indeterminate women. The seemingly admirable quality of being a supportive wife,
therefore, may inadvertently backfire by foregrounding male dominance, subtly
implicating the first lady as an objectified ‘‘other.’’
First lady diplomacy appearances limited to escort performances lack empower-
ment. Pat Nixon, for example, routinely escorted her husband abroad but rarely
offered a political opinion—silence served to affirm her husband’s dominance. Gen-
erally, practiced smiles and circumspect decorum sufficiently equip first lady escorts.
Witnesses, however, may perceive this unvoiced role as an act of subjugation. Laura
Bush’s initial reluctance to emerge from the shadow of her husband, for example,
subjected her to criticism that generated questions regarding George Bush’s pro-
women claims (Davidson, 2001, p. 15). Clearly, the image of a silent first lady clashes
with claims that American women enjoy rhetorical freedoms. Consequently, it is
unlikely that voiceless first lady diplomacy roles inspire or motivate suppressed
women. Rather, rhetorically muted presidents’ wives likely dim the liberationist
imagination of repressed women, as speechlessness is the ‘‘essence of femininity, a
trope for oppression, passivity, [and] obedience’’ (Glenn, 2004, p. 220). Indeed,
the ‘‘stillness’’ of objectified women symbolically represents an ‘‘essential emptiness,
the transcendent sign of decorum’’ (Oravec, 2003, p. 192). Arguably, then, escort
roles are reflexive gestures that signal feminine subservience. First ladies who portray
the role of ‘‘faithful companion’’ reinforce, accordingly, ideological perceptions of
the mythic first lady. For example, sycophant discourse that flatters a president’s
character and=or virtues privileges the masculine. Thus, first lady remarks that praise
a president’s masculine persona may inadvertently reify oppressive patriarchic

customs or erect barriers to women’s transformation.
Aesthete role
First ladies may bolster a president’s political image by performing courtship gestures
that enchant foreign officials and publics. Typically, enchanting performances
influence audiences by means of feminine charm and grace. Enchanting performances
subtly and artfully captivate, flatter, and=or enthrall publics. First ladies who enact an
aesthete role temporarily suspend their use of rationalist appeals, opting instead for
affect-inducing stratagems. As such, enchanting performances may effectively subvert
the imprint of gender-coded conduct. Indeed, Michelle Ballif claims that the appro-
priation of a feminine aesthetic empowers women as ‘‘more subtle, more ingenious,
more critical, and more ironic’’ (2001, p. 193). Regardless, aesthete roles embrace
the feminine. Aesthetically enchanting first ladies, for example, often capture an audi-
ence’s goodwill by deflecting attention, demurring praise, and=or displaying beguiling
social skills. Beguiling conduct artlessly integrates rhetorical intent and aesthetic
delight as a means of managing political outcomes. Pat Nixon’s conversational poise
as a delightful dining companion, for example, so captivated the intractable Chou en
Lai that he gifted a pair of pandas to the United States (Hobgood, 2005, p. 110).
Remarkably, a former Reagan official claims (albeit excessively exaggerated) that
Nancy Reagan’s ‘‘flirting helped to end the cold war’’ (Deaver, 2004, p. 113). By con-
trast, Michelle Obama refuses to be a ‘‘political show pony’’ (Romano, 2011, p. 48).
Obviously, aesthetic or enchanting roles are gendered feminine. They attain their
effect because they merge utility with affective pleasure or awe. Jacqueline Kennedy’s
grace and beauty, for example, enamored both the venerable Charles de Gaulle and
crusty Nikita Khrushchev (Schwalbe, 2005, pp. 111–117). Even hardened journalists
appeared smitten by her enchanting personality. She adroitly adapted to then-current
gender expectations by appropriating both cultural and mythic norms regarding
feminine conduct. Jacqueline Kennedy’s enchanting performances suggest that she
understood her audience’s sentient feelings and potential responses. Her feminine
style illustrates how she utilized prudential and decorous standards to make possible
gestures correctly suited to a given political moment. Indeed, an admittedly biased
John F. Kennedy gushed, ‘‘She’s the best ambassador we’ve got’’ (Gould, 1996,
p. 38). (Privately, she resented international trips that prominently displayed her:
‘‘I can’t stand being in front,’’ she said [Perry, 2004, p. 91].)
Similarly, the feminine style and engaging demeanor of Laura Bush helped soften
her husband’s forceful style and hardline posturing that called into question the Uni-
ted States and French relationship. To publicly underscore the First Lady’s soothing
impact on the nations’ relationship, an otherwise stuffy President Chirac made a pub-
lic display of chivalrously kissing her hand, a gesture that was ‘‘so charming that it
[probably eased] US-French relations’’ (Crabb, 2003, p. 3). When asked by bemused
journalists how she had prepared for her meeting with Chirac, ‘‘America’s weapon of
mass seduction’’ demurred: ‘‘Well, I bought a lot of new clothes’’ (Cooper, 2003,
p. 8). The appropriateness of enchanting first lady performances, of course, resides

with an audience’s ideological acceptance of affective appeals. In any event, feminist
scholars are obliged to inquire: What sorts of understandings do emotion-based, aes-
thetic performances create? Witnesses, for example, may fail to recognize enchanting
actions and displays of feminine aesthetics as affective performances, viewing them
instead as logical representations of political reality (Erickson & Thomson, 2004).
Certainly, a first lady whose ability to influence others rests primarily on her physical
appearance or personality, rather than reasoning or rhetorical skills, reinforces the
notion of woman as insufficiently equipped to reason logically.
Gender stereotypes heuristically code women and encourage political observers to
judge first lady diplomatic performances relative to culture-specific conduct stan-
dards. First ladies, accordingly, must assess whether their appropriation of aesthetic
stratagems condescendingly mimes feminine behavior. For example, enchanting per-
formances may relegate a first lady’s conduct to the realm of seduction. Witnesses
may subsequently interpret enchanting first lady performances as flattery, a seductive
illusion that elicits affect-rendering responses with facile suggestion. Terry Eagleton
warns that seductive performances ordinarily constitute a form of hegemony where
‘‘the beautiful is just political order lived out on the body, the way it strikes the
eye and stirs the heart’’ (1998, p. 38). First ladies who perform seductive gestures
for the attention of foreign audiences, therefore, may unwittingly objectify themselves
as playful or aesthetic scene-stealers (Marton, 2001, p. 3). Worse, as eluded to earlier,
seductive gestures may objectify first ladies as affect-driven rather than reason-based
political actors.
Surrogate role
First ladies from time to time travel abroad as a president’s surrogate at nonpolitical
events, ritualized occasions, and ceremonial proceedings. Even though Rosalynn
Carter toured Latin America as the president’s surrogate representative, both the
President and State Department discouraged her from engaging foreign leaders pol-
itically (K. B. Smith, 1997). Similarly, the State Department rarely requested Nancy
Reagan to travel abroad solo. Barbara Bush dismissed the need to be involved in
foreign affairs: ‘‘Just to put in my two cents—I don’t think it’s really necessary’’
(‘‘Old-style,’’ 2001, p. A2). Journalists, irked by her seemingly indifferent attitude
toward foreign policy, initially considered her homebound. By contrast, Hillary
Rodham Clinton regularly traveled as the president’s surrogate. Her credibility as
President Clinton’s trusted representative was such that when she visited Eastern
Europe virtually every nation approached her regarding their interest in joining
NATO even though she was not empowered to discuss new alliances (2003,
p. 361). She represented the president as well before nations deemed too risky for
the chief executive to visit. ‘‘That was fine with me, because the out-of-the-way
and dicey venues were often the most compelling’’ (Clinton, 2003, p. 341). The First
Lady, for example, made a day-trip to Mongolia to show support for that nation’s
decision to have democratic elections. Although symbolically important, the First
Lady was unauthorized to address Mongolia’s global issues (Hanson & McLaughlin,
1995). Her performances as a powerless surrogate lacked rhetorical agency. Surpris-
ingly, throughout her term as First Lady she never received approval to act directly as
the president’s intermediary with foreign leaders (Hastedt, 2006, pp. 205–206).
First lady surrogates also travel on fact-finding missions. Fact-finding missions are
beneficial inasmuch as the worldview of any president is likely incomplete. The White
House, for example, trumpeted independent trips by Pat Nixon to Africa, Laura Bush
to Northern Europe, and Nancy Reagan to Europe as providing their respective hus-
bands with valuable observations. A president’s somewhat insular perspective regard-
ing foreign nations no doubt may be bridged by a first lady’s firsthand observations.
Rosalynn Carter expressed her role well: ‘‘If I can help him to understand the coun-
tries of the world, that’s what I want to do’’ (Benham, 1977, p. 44). It is probable,
therefore, that a first lady’s fact-finding trip can alert a president to omissions and
overlooked aspects of a nation’s history, ideology, or culture. First ladies may be able
to witness or eavesdrop on that ordinarily drowned out by demagoguery, divisive-
ness, or the discursive clangor of an imperfect relationship. Nevertheless, this role
arguably objectifies first ladies as subjugated women dispatched globally to shore
up gaps in their husband’s international knowledge.
Wary administrations cautiously evaluate first lady travel itineraries, especially
surrogate visits to countries with suspect governments or motives. Even circumspect
appearances are capable of inadvertently assigning credibility to foreign leaders or
signaling U.S. approval for their policies. Rosalynn Carter noted, ‘‘I visited only
the countries that were leaning toward democracy so as not to put a stamp of
approval on regressive regimes’’ (1984, pp. 212–213). When Hillary Rodham Clinton
announced her intention to visit China, for example, critics argued that her presence
would symbolically lend credence to a nation that had meager regard for human
rights (Catoggio & Lofaro, 1995; ‘‘Hillary Clinton’s,’’ 1995). Additionally, a politically
inexperienced first lady’s actions may unknowingly encourage host-nation pander-
ing. When Jacqueline Kennedy toured Pakistan and India, for example, both coun-
tries competed to outdo the other in welcoming her (Truman, 1995). A prudent
first lady must vigilantly guard against foreign leaders who attempt to favor them
in order to secure the president’s goodwill. Rosalynn Carter realized that Prime
Minister Michael Manley of Jamaica ‘‘was wooing me so I would put in a good word
for him’’ (1984, p. 194). Thus, prudent first ladies interact with world leaders mindful
that, as surrogates, they are primarily perceived as conduits to the president.
Managing International Relations

First ladies often travel abroad as ambassadors of goodwill or cultural envoys.
Designed to enhance international relations, their appearances prudently observe
intricate protocols, relational power differences, and strategic political issues. Accord-
ingly, first ladies carefully guard their remarks and activities. Rosalynn Carter’s good-
will world tour, for example, assessed women’s rights in a manner that both distanced
the president from her agenda and avoided embarrassing foreign nations (1984,
p. 278). A goodwill or cultural appearance typically recognizes a host-nation’s rela-
tional significance to the United States. Such visits are also vehicles for informing
administrations. Clearly, with respect to international relations the ‘‘discovery of
the other . . . is necessary . . . for meaning and wholeness’’ (Inayatullah & Blaney,
1997, p. 65). Likewise, first ladies traditionally acknowledge mutual cultural values.
Thus, goodwill and cultural diplomacy roles are immensely important for establish-
ing and maintaining global relationships (Erickson, 1998). First ladies, for example,
have appreciably improved the lives of oppressed and disadvantaged peoples world-
wide. Rosalynn Carter’s visit to Thailand’s impoverished refugee camps, Pat Nixon’s
distribution of financial relief to Peruvian earthquake victims, and Laura Bush’s
efforts on behalf of Afghanistan’s women are but a smattering of first lady efforts
to assist populations in need.
Goodwill role
Goodwill roles demand that first ladies establish authentic relationships with foreign
nations because ‘‘even ideologically opposed countries can reach agreements and
forge alliances if their leaders know and trust one another’’ (Clinton, 2003, p. 409).
Essentially, goodwill roles signal ‘‘an expression of spirit and unconditional warmth
and acceptance [that] takes on an implausible and therefore special significance
(Hobgood, 2005, p. 113). However, insofar as a first lady goodwill role typically lacks
rhetorical urgency, they sometimes are comprised of little more than epideictic
pleasantries or obligatory displays of noblesse oblige. Such performatives may
inadvertently sustain objectionable gender customs insofar as administrations rarely
empower presidents’ wives with sufficient agency to expose a nation’s hegemonic or
antifemale policies. To the extent that first lady strategically performed goodwill per-
formances gloss over women’s inequality or fail to recognize human rights, they may
serve as ‘‘masks for the preservation of injustice’’ (R. L. Scott & Smith, 1969, p. 8).
Further, even though a first lady’s goodwill appearances may establish friendships
or defuse testy relations, they may do so at the expense of subjugating her voice
and performance roles as displays of goodwill are typically gendered ‘‘feminine.’’ This
may account, in part, why presidents delegate goodwill appearances to their wives
while reserving for themselves ‘‘hardball’’ performatives that signal assertiveness
(e.g., Ronald Reagan’s ‘‘demand’’ that ‘‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!’’ [Dolan,
1999, p. A6]). Regrettably, such decisions reinforce the false binary that a masculinist
style reflects strength, while a feminine style mirrors nonassertive, relational pleasan-
tries. The White House, for example, characterized Michelle Obama’s trip to South
Africa as dispelling that country’s fear of U.S. neocolonialism. It was, claimed the
administration, an exercise in ‘‘soft power’’ intended to persuade ‘‘by focusing on
shared positive aspirations and goals’’ (Dharapak, 2011, p. 2).
First lady goodwill trips facilitate relationship building with foreign nations by
providing them a symbolic assurance of hope, friendship, and support (Maddux,
2008). Goodwill performances also enable first ladies to signify their personal concern
for a nation and its people. Michelle Obama’s first solo trip abroad, a one-day visit to
Haiti, allowed her to extend symbolic comfort to earthquake victims (Lacey, 2010).
Obviously, goodwill performances represent a balancing act between personal empa-
thy and rhetorical intent or a public performance style Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin
term ‘‘invitational’’ (1995, pp. 2–18). An invitational style constitutes a cooperative
(nonpersuasive) exchange whereby participants grant one another respect and inter-
act thoughtfully. It never threatens or challenges another’s worldview. Indeed, the
‘‘dominant motif of international [diplomacy] is not domination, but collaboration’’
(Hastedt & Eksterowicz, 2006, p. 66). As Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed it, no
‘‘public inflammatory statements or excessive rhetoric is helpful’’ (Halley, 2002,
p. 297). Related, J. Ann Tickner (1992) rebuffs the claims that successful female dip-
lomats must ‘‘deny their femininity’’ (p. 6). The qualities of charm, grace, and come-
liness, she claims, effectively serve as diplomatic palliatives. Rosalynn Carter affirmed
this belief, observing that she found a feminine style ‘‘more an asset than a liability’’
(1984, p. 200). In addition, prudence demands that first ladies perform goodwill
appearances ingenuously. Thus, goodwill performances require that first ladies
possess a broad repertoire of communications skills capable of signaling sensitivity
and a caring deportment. Disingenuous expressions of goodwill, for example, may
resonate with foreign witnesses as false or hollow representations. As Pat Nixon
noted, ‘‘People . . . can tell if you have love in your heart’’ (Hobgood, 2005, p. 297).
Goodwill performances are likewise intended to establish constructive relation-
ships with foreign leaders and their spouses. Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged
that forging ‘‘relationships with my fellow spouses provided low-key communication
among heads of state’’ (2003, p. 410). In turn, the spouses of foreign leaders ordi-
narily seek a working relationship with their U.S. counterpart. Perhaps because such
relationships are frequently bound to their husbands’ political standing, examples of
awkward events or strained acquaintanceships abound. Laura Bush (2010), for
example, led the spouses of heads of state attending the 2004 G8 Conference on a
cheery, yet contrived, bird-watching expedition. Neither the First Lady nor her guests
had any special interest in avifauna (L. Bush, 2010, p. 300). Nevertheless, and in spite
of such events, many first ladies establish long-lasting friendships with their
foreign complement, notably Barbara Bush and Raisa Gorbachev (B. Bush, 2003).
The normally decorous Nancy Reagan (1989), by contrast, openly squabbled with the
Russian first lady (p. 226). Barbara Bush refrained from desultory exchanges that
could trivialize or subvert diplomatic discourse. (However, through a third party
she informed Queen Noor of Jordan that she considered her anti-Gulf War remarks
traitorous [Queen Noor, 2003, p. 318]). Her relationships with the spouses of foreign
leaders no doubt benefitted her husband’s agendas. Symbolically, though, a first
lady’s ‘‘friendship performances’’ consigns her voice to displays of social pleasantries
rather than substantive talk. Feminine amity, which is required of goodwill roles, may
likewise signal a first lady’s objectification insofar as it requires observance of a priori
conventions of suitable conduct. Thus, Pat Nixon’s ‘‘lady-like’’ style mirrored
feminine passivity. (Reporters joked that she traveled with a ‘‘hairdresser and embal-
mer’’ [Troy, 2006, p. 259]). By contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s outspoken style
defied traditions associated with the mythic first lady role. Her performance of a
masculine style was criticized for violating normative conventions of femininity

(Campbell, 1998).
Cultural role
The need for an administration’s awareness of foreign ways of life has increased dra-
matically insofar as global disorder is, in part, attributable to cultural confusion. As
Laura Bush (2006) expressed it, ‘‘One of the best ways we can deepen our
friendships . . . is to better understand each others’ culture’’ (p. 1). Michelle Obama’s
solo excursion to Mexico, for example, featured a tour of the National Museum of
Anthropology in order for her to ‘‘get a sense of Mexico’s history and rich culture’’
(Sweet, 2010, p. A6). Nearly every host-nation provides visiting first ladies ‘‘history
lessons.’’ Logistical constraints, however, preclude all but a cursory check of a
nation’s governance and manner of life. Advance teams, aware that culture permeates
all diplomatic discourse, instruct first ladies on the avoidance of cultural affronts
(Freeman, 1997, pp. 107–111). Even so, first ladies must warily evaluate their agenda
lest they unintentionally violate a nation’s cultural customs or traditions. However,
prudential planning and decision making cannot predict unanticipated disruptions.
A scenario described as ‘‘frightening and chaotic’’ occurred when Laura Bush visited
the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Angry Muslims screamed, ‘‘How dare you come
in here. You don’t belong here’’ (Blitzer, 2005, p. 1). The First Lady’s desire to show
religious respect backfired, creating an example of a cultural gesture that collided
with present-day realities. Likewise, foreign leaders may wish to make a political
‘‘statement,’’ as did South Africa’s Jacob Zuna who expressed his displeasure with
U.S. Libyan policies by refusing to meet with Michelle Obama (Hartman, 2011).
First ladies attempt to establish a cultural bond with foreign nations by declaring
U.S. affinity for them. Laura Bush (2006) expressed her kinship with Nigerian women
by claiming that ‘‘the people of the United States share your goal, and the women of
the United States share your struggle’’ (p. 1). She justified trips to Israel, Jordan, and
Egypt as cultural opportunities ‘‘to reinforce our commitment to promoting women
and girls across the Middle East’’ (McClellan, 2005, p. 1). Similarly, Rosalynn Carter
professed her cultural affinity with the citizenry of South America: ‘‘You are Peru.
I am Peru also’’ (Chanley, 2001, p. 558). Visiting Tunisia and Morocco, she articu-
lated her desire to erase negative images that some Arabs hold toward Western cul-
ture, thereby reinforcing commonalities. While well received and consistent with
protocol, her remarks were but well-intentioned gestures inasmuch as they failed
to address the nations’ patriarchic customs and repressive practices. It is clear, given
the region’s masculinist customs and forms of governance, that the First Lady’s
silence did not motivate these nations’ to suspend female oppression.
First lady cultural performances typically consist of obligatory nods to a
host-nation’s social customs and its influence on the development of civilization.
In addition, first ladies dutifully participate in cultural rituals that are often casually
reported by the media. Lady Bird Johnson, for example, displayed atypical public
playfulness by allowing Pago Pago airport greeters to heap cumbersome leis upon
her—the crowd roared its approval (Alexander, 1966). Betty Ford seized a propitious
moment in China by dancing on pointe before a class of ballet students, a
self-effacing icebreaker ‘‘hailed as having done more to cement relations . . . than all
the talk of the diplomats’’ (p. 251). In like manner, media depictions of Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s visit to Pakistan gushed that she moved with graceful ease between
the powerful and impoverished as an ‘‘international mother figure, stroking the
hands of sweet faced infants, [and] tending to the sick’’ (Walsh, 1995, p. 11). If
allowed full expression as ‘‘texts,’’ first lady cultural appearances might ignite the
political desires of the repressed and underprivileged. Nevertheless, administrations
restrict the performance voice and roles of first ladies. Clearly, the aspirations of
oppressed people wane in the absence of rhetorically inspiring or motivating messen-
gers of hope. We believe this to be especially true for those having the potential to
prompt social or political change. The political implications of cultural performances,
therefore, have less to do with artfully produced spectacle than their rhetorical attach-
ment to configurations of signification or emotionally stimulating inducements.
In our estimate, first lady cultural appearances best promote an appreciation of
American culture, including art, dance, literature, music, and manner of life. First
ladies often signal American home life, for example, by identifying themselves with
motherhood and child rearing. On the international stage, for example, Michelle
Obama repeatedly articulates her maternal responsibilities: ‘‘I just want to . . . make
sure my girls are solid’’ (Burt-Murray, 2009, p. 107). The children of first ladies visu-
ally signify U.S. family values. Their presence abroad also signals travel freedoms
possible for America’s young women. It sends ‘‘a message in places where the needs
and abilities of young girls [are] too often overlooked’’ (Clinton, 2003, p. 400). Argu-
ably, though, motherhood displays signal values that relegate women to objectified
domicile routines. Such performances reify women’s objectification by ‘‘supporting
the idea that women’s proper place is in the home’’ (Gardetto, 1997, p. 226). Such
performances can nevertheless positively shape impressions of America by comparing
them to the practices of other cultures, dispelling unflattering myths, and ameliorat-
ing unwarranted suspicions. Regrettably, however, cultural bonds and friendships are
difficult to establish between nations long suspicious or wary of one another. Thus,
face-to-face diplomacy is necessary in order to establish viable relations that promote
a just society. Embedded as well in first lady performance fragments are cultural mar-
kers that depict American women as politically and economically emancipated citi-
zens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, remarked to a woman in Bangladesh,
who questioned her work status, ‘‘I earn my own bread’’ (‘‘Passage through India,’’
1995, p. 20). This offhand remark legitimated the right of married women to work,
implying as well that women’s survival need not be dependent upon men.
Managing Social Issues

First lady international diplomacy also functions as a site of social advocacy that
directs world attention to humanitarian issues, including women’s rights, education,
poverty, and disease eradication. Neither Hillary Rodham Clinton nor Laura Bush
desired to represent themselves as diplomats who lacked a rhetorical voice. Conse-
quently, both sought reforms in social justice, educational opportunities, and eco-
nomic development. Their spotlight on social issues awakened subaltern advocacy,
developed third-world public spheres and refreshed the human rights struggle. Indeed,
both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Laura Bush helped plant the seeds for a worldwide
movement to liberate women and girls. They were able to pursue this agenda inas-
much as foreign nations generally regarded their activities as nonthreatening and dis-
tinguishable from matters of state. In India, for example, Hillary Rodham Clinton
intentionally assumed a nonconfrontational posture that was ‘‘singularly insensate
and solely decorative’’ (Purdum, 1995, p. 1). However, such passiveness may signal
false impressions regarding a first lady’s commitment to social activism.
Social activist role

Generally, social activism effectively serves the White House and State Department
insofar as first ladies can appeal to foreign audiences in a manner a president may
not. Specifically, presidents’ wives can hearten third-world voices by encouraging
participation in the political process and the formation of public spheres wherein
needs, resources, and justice may be addressed. In lieu of articulating foreign policy,
Hillary Rodham Clinton contemplated, ‘‘How [can] I serve my country [globally]
without losing my own voice’’ (2003, p. 119). The First Lady settled on a social acti-
vist agenda that challenged nations to adopt cultural reforms designed to enhance the
lives of the powerless and=or impoverished, especially third-world women. She seized
the moment: ‘‘I did not want to squander a rare opportunity to advance the cause
of women’s rights’’ (2003, p. 303). She spurned, for example, participation in
host-nation spouses’ programs (teas, receptions, historical tours) in order to meet
with and discuss the needs of local residents. Heretofore, women’s issues had been
sited disproportionately on the periphery of international politics (Tickner, 1992).
Her social activism was welcomed and encouraged by the White House and State
Department. Her frank remarks delighted the State Department who capitalized on
gender issues to capture the attention of third-world women (Ferguson, 2005).
Although the role of social activist seemingly portrayed her as an empowered woman,
the first lady was nonetheless forced to guard her remarks. ‘‘Every word was mea-
sured; you [knew] only what she [wanted] you to’’ (Crowley, 1999, p. 3). Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s guileless performances nevertheless paved the way for forthright
first ladies. She did not hesitate, for example, ‘‘to make her hosts squirm’’ [when]
addressing the issue of birth control in Buenos Aires . . . . It was her Evita moment’’
(Breslau, 1997, p. 52). Her social advocacy performances commanded the respect of
world leaders. Uganda’s ambassador to the United States Edith Grace Sempala
expressed well their admiration: ‘‘[She] has eloquently spoken to the needs of every
human being’’ (First, 1999, p. 3). Hillary Rodham Clinton’s social activism subse-
quently positioned first ladies as potential advocates rather than ‘‘silent’’ witnesses
to international relations. As a rule, however, her voice and agency did not extend
to foreign policy or the resolution of world disorder.
Arguably, though, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s model for social activism influenced
Laura Bush’s turn to advocacy: ‘‘I’m an activist. It is my privilege,’’ she proclaimed
(Curry, 2005, p. 3). She prominently positioned women’s rights within her speeches
and talking points. To the surprise of critics, her diplomatic performances engaged
a form of guarded international feminism (Watson, 2006). Hamid Karzai, for
example, hailed Laura Bush’s speeches that addressed the rights of Afghanistan women
as mattering ‘‘much more than hundreds of millions of dollars’’ (Riechmann, 2005).
Laura Bush (2010) also challenged primitive notions regarding AIDS and was likewise
instrumental in providing mosquito netting for African communities plagued by
malaria. Unquestionably, the social activist roles enacted by these first ladies both
assisted and enlightened third-world women. Their laudable achievements as social
activists likely generated positive impressions of the United States. Minimally, their
appearances conveyed a message of U.S. commitment to human rights and its eager-
ness to establish mutually beneficial alliances. Nevertheless, the White House framed
the messages of both women in ways that avoided political interpretations of foreign
policy (Dubriwny, 2005; Gutin, 2000; Maddux, 2008). Not surprisingly, then, political
commentators often equate first lady diplomacy with the art of not making waves.
Observations and Conclusion

Prior to visiting Egypt, the White House failed to brief Laura Bush (2010) on appli-
cable Middle East issues. She attributed her lack of preparedness and subsequent
tough-minded cross-examination by Egyptian journalists to the administration’s mas-
culinist bias: ‘‘They thought [I] was going abroad to do . . . ladies things’’ (p. 324). In
the administration’s estimation, apparently, her diplomatic activities lacked foreign
policy significance. Regrettably, the political implications and significance of first lady
diplomacy often go unappreciated or unrecognized. This is perhaps not surprising
insofar as this study revealed that nearly all first lady diplomacy performance roles
are consistent with the mythic first lady’s purported adherence to ‘‘traditional female
concerns’’ (Knickrehm & Teske, 2006, p. 245). The 221 diplomacy performances ana-
lyzed here, for example, rarely included contributions to foreign policy. Rather, they
managed the president’s credibility (escort, surrogate, enchanter), promoted
international relations (goodwill, cultural) and engaged social activism (human
rights). Accordingly, we argued throughout this essay that diplomacy roles gendered
female constrain the diplomacy options and performance voice of first ladies. This is
regrettable insofar as the exclusion of first ladies from foreign policy roles prevents
them ‘‘from playing an equal role in the political life of the nation’’ (Burrell, 1997,
p. 144).7 Moreover, women abroad may question the objectification of first lady dip-
lomacy performances. Does America pay lip service to women’s liberation inasmuch
as it restricts without demur the conduct of its first ladies?
The researchers interrogated first lady international diplomacy from the perspec-
tive of gender-framed representations. We posited that objectified diplomacy roles
gender-frame a first lady’s persona and performance voice. In the main, our findings
suggest that first lady diplomacy roles align across a performance continuum that
ranges from normative feminine action to traditional masculine conduct. Typically,

escort, aesthete, and surrogate diplomacy roles are gendered female. Cultural and
goodwill performances, while arguably gender-neutral, nevertheless require first
ladies to display a feminine performance style. Lastly, social advocacy performances
are gendered masculine. However, the White House typically confines first lady rhe-
torical performances to female or noncontroversial issues (e.g., motherhood,
women’s rights, and health). Thus, viewers may classify such performances as femi-
nine representations. We do not suggest, however, that first lady social advocates lack
agency. As established throughout this essay, we deem first lady diplomacy appear-
ances significant insofar as they contribute to U.S. foreign relations. However, work
remains if first ladies are to have a true diplomatic voice, one freed of the restrictions
of gender objectification and the cultural expectations of the First Ladyship.
Fortunately, restrictions imposed on first lady diplomatic performances constitute
neither literal conventions nor ‘‘perversely absolute’’ rules (Nelson, 2003, p. 233).
‘‘Only the first lady and the president determine the extent of her power’’ (Anthony,
1990, p. 8); no law governs how she is to perform diplomacy abroad. Some scholars,
accordingly, contend that the presidency is a two-person career (Campbell, 1996;
Troy, 2000). Anthony J. Eksterowicz and Robert N. Roberts take a more modest
approach, arguing that the ‘‘time has come to formally make the first lady a member
of the White House team’’ (2004, p. 426). We agree, and suggest four ways to
accomplish this end through first lady international diplomacy. First, administrations
could minimize diplomacy roles that function to objectify first ladies. Doing so
would help free presidents’ wives from the mythic first ladyship and similar ‘‘struc-
tures of oppression that have historically been assigned to the category ‘woman’ ’’
(Condit, 1997, p. 97). Second, administrations could deploy first ladies to articulate
U.S. foreign policy—a responsibility that would enlarge their rhetorical voice. Ideally,
a new image of first ladies as empowered women would emerge. Third, White House
officials could treat women’s issues as matters of foreign policy. Doing so would
reduce the stigma that women’s issues are incidental to topics of world order. Hillary
Rodham Clinton agrees: ‘‘This [would be] a big deal . . . for American foreign policy’’
(Lemmon, 2011, p. 47). Fourth, administrations could expand first lady diplomacy
opportunities, especially solo excursions. This last proposal could potentially

stimulate in third-world women a revelatory experience—the ‘‘culture shock’’ of being
in the presence of or viewing an unescorted president’s wife (Mohanty, p. 244). Unac-
companied first lady diplomacy would likely signal cultural acceptance of independent
female travel, a ‘‘right that women have only just started to gain’’ (Clifford, 1992,
p. 113). Arguably, a first lady’s excursions abroad may even instill in place-situated
women a desire to relocate or escape—a state of being and mind that would contrib-
ute to a ‘‘transformation of [their] identities’’ (Weiss, 1998, p. 2).
The correctives explored here add rhetorical balance to the diplomacy roles of first
ladies. They would benefit U.S. diplomacy, enhance the voice of first ladies and
potentially reframe cultural understandings of American womanhood.8 First, varied
diplomacy appearances would constitute a performance turn for first ladies as well as
an ideological shift affirming the rights of women. First lady diplomacy, therefore,
would represent sites of ‘‘feminist advancement that challenge gender stereotypes,

[thereby] expanding women’s political spaces’’ (Parry-Giles & Blair, 2002, p. 567).
Second, U.S. foreign affairs would likely benefit insofar as persuasive diplomacy, male
or female, is the most efficient means of bringing state ‘‘power to bear on matters
engaging strategic interests’’ (Freeman, 1997, p. 11). Third, suppressed or margina-
lized publics would likely respond positively to first lady foreign policy advocacy,
perhaps stimulating fresh performance spaces to accommodate subsequent activism.
Fourth, the media would likely provide greater coverage to first lady diplomats given
an ‘‘ability to significantly expand their presence and influence [on the world stage]’’
(Orawsky, 2008, p. 9). Fifth, a balanced approach to first lady diplomacy would likely
diminish the White House’s proclivity to dramatize statecraft in ways that subject
witnesses to decorous spectacles that merely stimulate a ‘‘choreographed audience
‘aesthesis’ ’’ (Farrell, 1989, p. 160). Sixth, a first lady foreign policy turn may ease
the cynicism of foreign feminists who argue that the United States, in lieu of action,
stage-manages appeals to feminism merely to secure the support of women
(Ferguson, 2005, p. 10).
We encourage rhetorical and feminist critics to excavate here-to-fore unobserved
influences that shape or constrain first lady diplomacy. A promising research site
involves diplomacy conducted at the margins of appropriateness, where aesthetic per-
formances interdict standards of conventional wisdom. We also encourage research
that interrogates the hegemonic ‘‘disciplining’’ of first ladies, a practice that often
goes undetected. Clearly, it is a mistake to assume that ‘‘patriarchy passively exists
as a form of dominance’’ (McNay, 2005, p. 185). Why, for example, do political ana-
lysts site first lady diplomacy at the ‘‘entertainment’’ rather than ‘‘efficacy’’ end of
performance continuums (Schechner, 2002)? Why do political critics judge first lady
performances as ‘‘empty’’ or meaningless? Moreover, what cultural values do first
lady performances gendered female uphold? Nor should scholars overlook issues
related to race and ethnicity or the gendered performance implications of a ‘‘First
Gentleman.’’ Would, for example, his performances be judged from the perspective
of gender? Would beguiling male behavior be judged ‘‘seductive’’? In addition, scho-
lars may wish to assess whether or not the concepts of equity and equality adhere to
an appreciation of gender and its performance. Do the diplomacy roles of first ladies
complicate notions of gender equity? Is it a model that no longer adheres in contem-
porary understandings of gender or its complex performance? Regardless, in our esti-
mation, presidents’ wives should work to expand their international voice. Hillary
Rodham Clinton expresses it well: ‘‘We [as women] silence ourselves. We have a
choice. We have a voice’’ (Clinton, 2003, p. 463). Finally, feminist critics may wish
to educate the citizenry with respect to the world stage and how ‘‘gender affects . . .
knowledge claims about international ‘reality’ and [its] gender-differentiated effects’’
(Peterson, 1996, p. 271). Such research could add considerable awareness to how
roles gendered female affect the political performances of women worldwide.
Notes
[1] Several explanations account for why administrations restrict first lady diplomacy perfor-
mances. First, presidents recognize that their wives are under the constant observation of
powerful others whose notions of suitable conduct may exclude spousal participation in
the affairs of state. An off-hand remark of Betty Ford, for example, prompted a critic of
the president to snipe, ‘‘If you can’t control your wife’s [comments], how do you expect
to control the country?’’ (Troy, 1997, p. 228). Second, the White House restricts the inter-
national voice of first ladies in order to curb the objections and protests of critics. Media
journalist Robert Novak, for example, voiced the opinion that Hillary Rodham Clinton
lacked official standing as a foreign policy advocate and, accordingly, ‘‘shouldn’t be talking
about it’’ (cited in Parry-Giles and Blair, 2002, p. 566). Third, presidents have a self-defined
‘‘collective theatre’’ to preserve. ‘‘By controlling the public stage, [they] can create an appear-
ance that approximates what, ideally, they would want subordinates to see’’ (J. C. Scott,
1990, p. 50). Fourth, presidents wish to avert first lady misspeak or gaffes. President Clinton,
for example, clamored to explain away the First Lady’s politically explosive act of kissing the
cheek of Yasser Arafat’s wife, who moments before had claimed that Israel was poisoning
Palestinian children (King, 1999, p. 12A). Similarly, Nancy Reagan broke Vatican protocol
by directly requesting Pope John Paul II to address the issue of drug abuse (Muir & Mooney,
2005, p. 179). Fifth, presidents avoid offending or embarrassing foreign nations. Thus, Laura
Bush (2010) addressed the rights of Arabic women in a feminine manner that signaled good
intentions rather than critical condemnation (p. 224). Sixth, presidents who observe a patri-
archal posture may judge as inappropriate their wives’ participation in international affairs.
[2] The 50-year span represented by our sample focuses on contemporary late-twentieth- and
early-twenty-first-century first ladies. Generally, the contemporary presidency is acknowl-
edged as starting with the Kennedy administration. Thus, this essay is not inclusive of all
first ladies who traveled abroad to represent the United States. Scholars are advised to con-
sider, therefore, the diplomacy efforts of Nellie Taft, Lou Henry Hoover and, significantly,
Eleanor Roosevelt who defined herself as an activist first lady (Eksterowicz & Paynter,
2006, p. 213). Contrary to what one might assume, these first ladies performed diplomacy
in ways that occasionally conflicted with the public’s appreciation of their role. Moreover,
many of these women indirectly influenced foreign policy (O’Connor, Nye, and Van
Assendelft, 1966).
[3] We identified the international excursions of first ladies by reading travel accounts discussed
in their autobiographies and those of their husbands. Likewise investigated were articles cited
by The Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature (1961–2010). In addition, a thorough search of
Internet search engines yielded firsthand accounts (pool reporters, on-site witnesses, etc.) of
first lady journeys. The number of newspaper articles, magazine accounts, scholarly essays,
reports, commentaries, and analyses authored by journalists, biographers, scholars, and

presidents’ wives exceed 300. Only a limited number are cited here.
[4] The findings reported by this study may be interpreted from a variety of critical perspectives.
Richard Schechner, a performance theorist, would likely premise an analysis by positing that
no first lady ‘‘performance is pure efficacy or pure entertainment’’ (2002, p. 71). Clearly, this
is the case insofar as all first lady diplomacy performances possess agency and are politically
important. While significant as a critical point of view, we nevertheless chose a ‘‘critical
rhetoric’’ (McKerrow, 1989) critique that deconstructed, from a feminist perspective, news
accounts of first lady diplomacy performances.
[5] The taxonomical labels assigned first lady diplomacy performance roles are both original to
the authors and attributable to others, including Maryanne Borelli (2001), Virginia A.
Chanley (2001), Anthony J. Eksterowicz and Robert N. Roberts (2004), Robert P. Watson
(2000), and Gary D. Wekkin (2000). While several scholars discuss first lady domestic, civic,
and political roles, to date, no one has delineated a taxonomy of diplomacy roles organized
by their rhetorical functions. Likewise, no taxonomy classifies first lady diplomacy roles by
their gendered representation.

[6] Readers should interpret this essay knowledgeable of the study’s limitations. First, although
our sample was sizeable (221 excursions), we did not identify every first lady diplomacy
excursion. Second, the accounts examined were generally limited to the perspective of Amer-
ican reporters and critics. An analysis of the coverage of international newspapers may yield
different insights. Third, the accounts examined here reflect the authors’ political and ideo-
logical interpretations of first lady diplomacy performances. Fourth, first lady autobiogra-
phies typically ‘‘retell’’ memorable diplomatic performances. Diplomacy performances,
however, consist of numerous ‘‘moments’’ and actions, both felicitous and infelicitous.
Autobiographies, for example, may conveniently omit the retelling of unflattering or embar-
rassing performances. Fifth, a context-specific critical reading is always subject to interpre-
tive bias or error. For example, a critic may wrongly assume that a diplomacy role gendered
female was imposed on a first lady when, in reality, it may have been her decision to adapt
her rhetorical style to a specific audience (e.g., ‘‘I, too, am a wife=homemaker=mother’’).
[7] In our estimation, first ladies would competently perform foreign policy diplomacy roles inas-
much as they grasp their political significance. Nancy Reagan, for example, half-joked: ‘‘I was
terrified I might say or do something wrong and find myself accidentally starting World War
III’’ (1989, p. 351). However, we recognize that these proposals may excite public resistance.
Political opponents, for example, may resist expanding first lady diplomacy roles insofar as
‘‘redistributive issues lie at the heart of cultural recognition’’ (McNay, 2005, p. 182). That is,
the overarching influence of hegemony may blunt the resource issues of power sharing. One
argument posits that, because first ladies are not elected to office, they are ineligible to speak
on behalf of the nation. Obviously, first ladies regularly address domestic policies advocated
by administrations (e.g., health care, poverty, education, drug abuse). It would be naı̈ve, how-
ever, to suggest that gender alone accounts for why the White House and State Department
place restrictions on the diplomacy performances of first ladies. Obviously, a president would
be ill advised to send an unqualified spouse to represent U.S. foreign policy. Similarly, a first
lady may lack the desire to participate in complicated foreign policy issues insofar as ‘‘diplo-
macy is a tricky business’’ (Clinton, 2003, p. 338). Betty Ford, for example, admitted to not only
a lack of interest in but also a fear of making foreign appearances. (President Ford, incredibly,
had to threaten her into traveling abroad [Ford, 1987, p. 281]). Finally, we can envision a first
lady electing to work in the private sector or focusing her attention on national issues.
[8] The news accounts (‘‘fragments’’) analyzed here rarely questioned the appropriateness of
first ladies participating in international diplomacy. Indeed, with the exception of an
occasional faux pas or lapse in judgment, the diplomacy performances of first ladies nearly
always received favorable press coverage. However, Michelle Obama’s vacation in Spain and
Hillary’s ‘‘spring break tours’’ with her daughter annoyed journalists duty-bound to cover
seemingly meaningless excursions touted as ‘‘semi-official’’ visits. Understandably, though,
journalists are likely influenced by the intoxication of exotic locations and their semi-formal
affiliation with the White House. Regardless, it is encouraging that today’s press seldom
frames their coverage of first lady diplomacy through gendered or myth-based lenses. News
accounts generally reflect an understanding of feminism and gender issues applicable to
contemporary women. Many of the news stories analyzed here, for example, questioned
first ladies who failed to address the needs and rights of third world women, a criticism
commonly leveled at Michelle Obama.
References
Alexander, S. (1966, November). In Asia a reassuringly real first lady. Life, 61, p. 22B.
Anderson, K. V. (2004). The First Lady: A site of ‘‘American womanhood.’’ In M. M. Wertheimer (Ed.),
Inventing a voice: The rhetoric of American first ladies of the twentieth century (pp. 17–30).
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Anthony, C. S. (1990). First ladies: The saga of the president’s wives and their power, 1789–1961.
New York, NY: William Morrow.
Ballif, M. (2001). Seduction, sophistry, and the woman with the rhetorical figure. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Baudrillard, J. (1990). Seduction. Trans. Brian Singer. New York: St. Martin’s.
Benham, J. (1977, June 13). Why angry Brazil shaped up as Rosalynn’s toughest challenge. US News
& World Report, 83, 44–45.
Biesecker, B. (1992). Coming to terms with recent attempts to write women into the history of
rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 25, 140–161.
Blitzer, W. (2005, May 22). CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. [Online]. Retrieved from http://
transcripts.CNN.COM/TRANSCRPTS/0505/22/Le.o1.html
Borrelli, M. A. (2001). Competing conceptions of the first ladyship: Public response to Betty Ford’s
60 Minutes interview. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 31, 397–414.
Breslau, K. (1997, November 24). Destination unknown. Newsweek, 130, 52–54.
Burrell, B. C. (1997). Public opinion, the first ladyship, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. New York, NY:
Garland.
Burt-Murray, A. (2009, May). A mother’s love. Essence, p. 107.
Bush, B. (2003). Barbara Bush: A memoir. New York, NY: Scribner.
Bush, L. (2010). Spoken from the heart. New York, NY: Scribners.
Bush, L. (2006, January 18). First Lady Laura Bush’s remarks at the National Center for Women’s
Development [Abuja, Nigeria]. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/g/wi/RLS/
59424.htm
Campbell, K. K. (1996). The rhetorical presidency: A two-person career. In M. J. Medhurst (Ed.),
Beyond the rhetorical presidency (pp. 179–198). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University
Press.
Campbell, K. K. (1998). The discursive performance of femininity: Hating Hillary. Rhetoric & Public
Affairs, 1, 1–20.
Carlson, M., Painton, P., & Shapiro, W. (1992, September 14). All eyes on Hillary. Time, p. 28.
Carter, R. (1984). First lady from Plains. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Catoggio, N., & Lofaro, L. (1995, August 21). Will Hillary get her way? Time, p. 19.
Chanley, V. A. (2001). The first lady as presidential advisor, policy advocate, and surrogate:
Rosalynn Carter and the political role of first lady. White House Studies, 1, 549–563.
Clifford, J. (1992). Traveling cultures. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. A Treichler (Eds.), Cultural
Studies (pp. 96–116). New York: Routledge.
Clinton, H. R. (2003). Living history. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Condit, C. M. (1997). In praise of eloquent diversity: Gender and rhetoric as public persuasion.
Women’s Studies in Communication, 20, 91–116.
Conquergood, D. W. (1991). Rethinking ethnology: Towards a critical cultural politics. Communi-
cation Monographs, 58, 179–194.
Cooper, M. (2003, October 13). America’s weapon of mass seduction. Time, p. 8.
Corbin, C. (Ed.). (1998). Rhetoric in postmodern America: Conversations with Michael Calvin McGee.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Crabb, N. (2003, October 3). Oh, Jacques! . . . You are a Smooth One. Wall Street Journal. [Online].
Retrieved from http://onlinewsj.com/article/SB106514932047796700.html
Crowley, C. (1999, April 1). Hillary Rodham Clinton focuses on empowering women during Africa
Trip. CNN Inside Politics. [Television series episode]. [Online]. Retrieved from http://
web.lexisnexis-co/universe/document?m=5097a304f438aa887e288bee275ac06e
Curry, A. (2005, July 12). Mothers to mother-to-be. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.
whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050712-10.html
Davidson, R. (2001, July 19). First lady takes Europe by calm. The Herald (Glasgow). [Online].
Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23850672.html

Deaver, M. (2004). Nancy: A portrait of my years with Nancy Reagan. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Dharapak, C. (2011, June 22). In South Africa, Michelle Obama helps restore trust, and wows the
young women. [Online]. Retrieved from www.csmonitor.com/world/africa/2011/0622/
in-South-Africa-michelle-obama-helps-resore-trust-and-wows-the-young-women
Dolan, A. R. (1999, November 8). Four little words. Wall Street Journal. [Online]. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj/article/SB10001424052748704795604574522163362062796.html
Dubriwny, T. N. (2005). First ladies and feminism: Laura Bush as advocate for women’s and
children’s rights. Women’s Studies in Communication, 28, 84–114.
Eagleton, T. (1998). The ideology of the aesthetic. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Eksterowicz, A. J., & Paynter, K. (2006). The evolution of the role and office of the first lady. In
R. P. Watson & A. J. Eksterowicz (Eds.), The presidential companion: Readings on the first
ladies (2nd ed., pp. 210–230). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Eksterowicz, A. J., & Roberts, R. N. (2004). First ladies: Constitutional and job description
problems. Politics & Policy, 32, 412–433.
Erickson, K. V. (1998). Presidential spectacles: Travel and the rhetoric of political illusionism.
Communication Monographs, 65, 141–153.
Erickson, K. V., & Thomson, S. (2004). Seduction theory and the recovery of feminine aesthetics:
Implications for rhetorical criticism. Communication Quarterly, 52, 300–319.
Farrell, T. B. (1989). Media rhetoric as social drama: The Winter Olympics. Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, 6, 156–182.
Feldmann, L. (2005, March 31). New role: First lady on global stage. USA Today. [Online].
Retrieved from http:www.csmonitor.com/2005/0331/p01s02-uspo.html
Ferguson, M. L. (2005). ‘‘W’’ stands for women: Feminism and security rhetoric in the post-9=11
Bush administration. Politics and Gender, 1, 9–38.
Fiore, F. (2010, October 10). A first lady’s metamorphosis. Los Angeles Times. [Online]. Retrieved
from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/10/news/cl=55323
First lady and daughter leave for tour of North Africa: Plane malfunction delays trip. (1999, March 20).
CNN. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/20/hilary.Africa/index/html/
Ford, B. (1987). Betty: A glad awakening. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Foss, S. K., Foss, K. A., & Trapp, R. (1991). Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric (2nd ed.).
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. L. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric.
Communication Monographs, 62, 2–18.
Freeman, C. W. (1997). Arts of power: Statecraft and diplomacy. Washington, DC: United States
Institute of Peace.
Gardetto, D. C. (1997). Hillary Rodham Clinton, symbolic gender politics and the New York Times:
January–November 1992. Political Communication, 14, 225–240.
Genovese, M. (2008, April 4). Interview: Hillary Clinton’s diplomacy. The Buzz: Florida Politics
(St. Petersburg Times). [Online]. Retrieved from http://ww.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
articles.2008/apr04/more-than-sightseer-diplomacy/
Gibbs, N., & Scherer, M. (2009). Michelle up close. Time, pp. 25–33.
Glenn, C. (2004). Unspoken: A rhetoric of silence. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor
Books.
Gould, L. L. (1996). American first ladies: Their lives and their legacy. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.
Gutin, M. G. (2000). Using all available means of persuasion: The twentieth century first lady as
public communicator. Social Science Journal, 37, 563–576.
Halley, P. S. (2002). On the road with Hillary. New York, NY: Viking.
Hanson, C., & McLaughlin, A. (1995, September 8). Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Mongolia
yesterday. Christian Science Monitor, p. 2A.
Hariman, R. (Ed.). (2003). Prudence: Classical virtue, postmodern practice. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hartman, R. R. (2011, June 22). Michelle Obama, daughters make splash in South Africa. The Text.
[Online]. Retrieved from http://News.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110622/ts_yblog_
theticket/michelle-obama-daughters-makes-splash-in-south-Africa
Hastedt, G. P. (2006). First ladies and U.S. foreign policy. In R. P. Watson & A. J. Eksterowicz
(Eds.), The presidential companion: Readings on the first ladies (2nd ed., pp. 192–209).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Hastedt, G. P., & Eksterowicz, A. J. (2006). First lady diplomacy: The foreign policy activism of First
Lady Clinton. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 7, 57–67.
Hillary Clinton’s China speech mollifies critics of trip. (1995, September 9). Congressional Quarterly
Weekly Report, 53, 274.
Hobgood, L. B. (2005). Pat Nixon: Wisdom to know the difference. In M. Meijer Wertheimer (Ed.),
Leading ladies of the white house: Communication strategies of notable twentieth-century first
ladies (pp. 95–122). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Hummer, J. A. (2008). First ladies and American women: Representation in the modern presidency.
[Dissertation, University of Virginia]. DAI-A, 68(08), p. 3571.
Inayatullah, N., & Blaney, D. L. (1997). Knowing encounters: Beyond parochialism in international
relations theory. In Y. Lapid & F. Kratochwil (Eds.), The return of culture and identity in
international relations theory (pp. 62–79). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
King, L. (1999, November 10). Avoiding controversy in Mideast might be challenge for first lady.
Amarillo Globe News. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.amarillo.com/stories/111099/
usn_LA0835.001.shtml
Knickrehm, K. M., & Teske, R. (2006). First ladies and policy making: Crossing the public=private
divide. In R. P. Watson & A. J. Eksterowicz (Eds.), The presidential companion: Readings on
the first ladies (2nd ed., pp. 235–251). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Lacey, M. (2010, April 13). Michelle Obama visits Haiti. New York Times, p. A8.
Lemmon, G. T. (2011, March 14). The Hillary doctrine. Newsweek, pp. 44–51.
Loszano-Reich, N. M., & Cloud, D. L. (2009). The uncivil tongue: Invitational rhetoric and the
problem of inequality. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 220–226.
Maddux, K. (2008). Feminism and foreign policy: Public vocabularies and the conditions of
emergence for First Lady Rosalyn Carter. Women’s Studies in Communication, 31, 29–55.
Marton, K. (2001). Hidden power: Presidential marriages that shaped our recent history. New York,
NY: Pantheon Books.
McClellan, S. (2005, May 17). First lady to travel to Middle East to discuss women’s rights. [Online].
Retrieved from http://www.Sydney.USConsulate.gov/hyper/2005/0517/epf202.html
McGee, M. C. (1990). Text, context, and the fragmentation of contemporary culture. Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 274–289.
McKerrow, R. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs, 56, 91–112.
McNay, L. (2005). Agency and experience: Gender as a lived experience. In L. Adkins & B. Skeggs
(Eds.), Feminism after Bourdieu (pp. 175–190). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University
Press.
Medhurst, M. J. (1996). The ways of rhetoric. In M. J. Medhurst (Ed.), Beyond the Rhetorical
presidency (pp. 218–226). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. In
C. T. Mohanty, A. Russo, & L. Torres (Eds.), Third world women and the politics of feminism
(pp. 237–260). Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Muir, J. K., & Mooney, M. (2005). Nancy Reagan: Leading lady, supporting actress, or bit player.
In M. Meijer Wertheimer (Ed.), Leading ladies of the White House: Communication
strategies of notable twentieth century first ladies (pp. 164–186). Lanham, MD: Rowan &
Littlefield.
Nelson, J. S. (2003). Prudence as Republican politics in American popular culture. In R. Hariman

(Ed.), Prudence, classical virtue, postmodern practice (pp. 229–257). University Park, PA:
O’Connor, K., Nye, B., & Van Assendelft, L. (1966). Wives in the White House: The political
influence of first ladies. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 26, 835–853.
Old-style first lady is back. (2001, January 20). The Irish Times. [Online]. Retrieved from http://
www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2001/0120/01012000058.html
Oravec, C. J. (2003). Fanny Wright and the enforcing of prudence: Women, propriety and
transgression in nineteenth-century public oratory of the United States. In R. Hariman
(Ed.), Prudence, classical virtue, postmodern practice (pp. 189–228). University Park, PA:
Orawsky, C. M. (2008). The white glove pulpit?: The changing role of the modern first lady.
[Online]. Retrieved from http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows/2008/
Orawsky.pdf
Parks, G. S., & Roberson, Q. M. (2008). Michelle Obama: The ‘‘darker side’’ of presidential spousal
involvement and activism. Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers, 1–44. [Online]. Retrieved
from http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops-papers/39
Parry-Giles, S. J., & Blair, D. M. (2002). The rise of the rhetorical first lady: Politics, gender
ideology, and women’s voice, 1789–2002. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 5, 565–600.
Passage through India. (1995, April 5). Christian Science Monitor, p. 20.
Perry, B. A. (2004). Jacqueline Kennedy: First lady of the new frontier. Lawrence, KS: University Press
of Kansas.
Peterson, V. S. (1996). The gender of rhetoric, reason, and realism. In F. A. Beer & R. Hariman
(Eds.), Post-realism: The rhetorical turn in international relations (pp. 257–276). East Lansing,
MI: Michigan State University Press.
Purdum, T. S. (1995, April 6). Hillary Clinton Discovers a New Role. New York Times. [Online].
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/06/world/hillary-clinton-discovers-a-new-
role.html
Queen Noor. (2003). Leap of faith: Memoirs of an unexpected life. New York: Miramax Books.
Reagan, N. (1989). My turn: The memories of Nancy Reagan. New York, NY: Random House.
Riechmann, D. (2005, March 31). First lady in war zone: Laura Bush supports Afghan women.
Nation=World. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www/star.niu.edu/articles?id=8432
Romano, L. (2011, June 13 & 20). White House rebel. Newsweek, pp. 46–51.
Rosalynn’s turn at diplomacy ‘‘family style.’’ (1977, June 6). US News & World Report, 82, 36.
Rourke, J. T., & Boyer, M. A. (2009). International politics on the world stage. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Scharrer, E., & Bissell, K. (2000). Overcoming traditional boundaries: The role of political activity
in media coverage of first ladies. Women & Politics, 21, 55–83.
Schechner, R. (2002). Performance studies: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schwalbe, C. B. (2005). Jacqueline Kennedy and Cold War propaganda. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 49, 111–127.
Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Scott, R. L., & Smith, D. K. (1969). The rhetoric of confrontation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 55,
1–8.
Seuss, Dr. (pseudo.). (1957). The cat in the hat. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Smith, K. B. (1997). The first lady represents America: Rosalynn Carter in South America. Presidential
Studies Quarterly, 27, 540–549.
Sweet, L. (2010, April 11). Michelle Obama’s Mexico trip kicks off ‘‘international agenda.’’ Chicago
Sun Times, p. A6.
Tickner, J. A. (1997). You just don’t understand: Troubled engagements between feminists and
international relations theorists. International Studies Quarterly, 41, 611–632.
Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in international relations. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Troy, G. (1997). Mr. & Mrs. President: From the Trumans to the Clintons. Lawrence, KS: University
of Kansas Press.
Troy, G. (2000). Mr. & Mrs. President?: The rise and fall of the co-presidency. Social Science Journal,
37, 591–600.
Troy, G. (2006). Copresident or codependent: The rise and rejection of presidential couples since
WWII. In R. P. Watson & A. J. Eksterowicz (Eds.), The presidential companion: Readings on
the first lady (2nd ed., pp. 252–272). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Truman, M. (1995). First ladies: An intimate group portrait of White House wives. New York, NY:
Random House.
Vivian, B. (2004). Being made strange: Rhetoric beyond representation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Walsh, K. T. (1995, April 10). Soothing the World—and people back home. US News & World
Report, 118, 10–11.
Watson, R. P. (2000). The presidents’ wives: Reassessing the first lady. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Watson, R. P. (2006). Something old, something new . . . Laura Bush’s surprising political first
ladyship. In R. P. Watson & A. J. Eksterowicz (Eds.), The presidential companion: Readings
on the first ladies (2nd ed., pp. 309–325). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Weiss, B. (1998, March 6). Morgenthau’s odyssey: Culture, travel and the transformation of
identity. Working paper. [Online]. Retrieved from www.ciaonet.org/conf/web01/index.html
Wekkin, G. D. (2000). Role constraints and first ladies. Social Science Journal, 37, 601–610.
Wertheimer, M. M. (2005). First ladies fundamental rhetorical choices: When to speak? What to
say? When to remain silent? In M. M. Wertheimer (Ed.), Leading ladies of the White House:
Communication strategies of notable twentieth century first ladies (pp. ix–xxiv). Lanham, MD:
Rowan & Littlefield.

Performing Gender Roles On The World Stage - Erickson & Thomson

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

Performing Gender Roles On The World Stage - Erickson & Thomson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]

On: 21 October 2014, At: 14:19

Southern Communication Journal

First Lady International Diplomacy:

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2011.647502

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

First Lady International Diplomacy:

Keith V. Erickson, Department of Communication Studies, University of Southern Mississippi. Stephanie

ISSN 1041-794X (print)/1930-3203 (online)

ladies abroad to perform gendered diplomacy roles. Regrettably, the performance of

Objectified Diplomacy Roles

Managing Presidential Credibility

a president’s masculine persona may inadvertently reify oppressive patriarchic

p. 8). The appropriateness of enchanting first lady performances, of course, resides

Managing International Relations

masculine style was criticized for violating normative conventions of femininity

Managing Social Issues

Social activist role

Observations and Conclusion

ranges from normative feminine action to traditional masculine conduct. Typically,

opportunities, especially solo excursions. This last proposal could potentially

would represent sites of ‘‘feminist advancement that challenge gender stereotypes,

reports, commentaries, and analyses authored by journalists, biographers, scholars, and

their gendered representation.

Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23850672.html

Nelson, J. S. (2003). Prudence as Republican politics in American popular culture. In R. Hariman

You might also like