8.

Diplomacy in a Globalized World: Focussing Internally to Bulid Relationships Externally

Kelly Vibber & Jeong-Nam Kim As we entered the 21st century the onslaught of round the
clock news coverage and the dramatic increase in the number of democracies worldwide
made public diplomacy not only necessary but also crucial (Graffy, 2009). Emerging
communication technologies as well as the development and expansion of transportation
networks are reprioritizing the traditional order of strategies in public diplomacy.
Historically, major sources and determinants of public diplomacy and international relations
included power, resources, state-to-state level interactions, and military strength (Doyle,
1997; Morgenthau, 1978). More recently the concepts of soft power (Nye, 2004) and smart
power (Nye, 2008) have come to the forefront. Nye’s concepts highlight the importance of
two-way interaction and the need for diplomatic efforts to be directed towards citizens of
other countries and not just governments. In addition, Nye highlights the important shift to
influencing others through likeability, attraction, and relationship as opposed to the
traditional tactics of power, force, and coercion. Payne (2009) has similarly argued that, “At
the heart of any successful public diplomacy initiative is meeting the challenge of
understanding, respecting, and appreciating cross-cultural differences as well as similarities”
(p. 490). A recent movement to sociological globalism affirms this, positing that direct
person-to-person interactions are one of the more important, if not the most important
approach in building and maintaining a nation’s soft power (Kim & Ni, 2011; Yun & Kim,
2008; Yun, 2012; Yun & Toth, 2009; Yun & Vibber, 2012). The movement of immigrants,
refugees, sojourners, students, business people, and travelers has increased steadily over the
last several years making this sociological approach to diplomacy even more critical to
consider. 132 Kelly Vibber & Jeong-Nam Kim According to the United Nations Department
of Economic and Social Affairs (2013) there are an estimated 232 million international
migrants worldwide, which means approximately 3.2% of the world’s population or one in
every 31 people is an international migrant. The number has increased substantially since
2000 when there were 175 million international migrants. This movement of individuals
around the world is creating more direct person-to-person global interaction and areas of
highly diverse populations. According to the United Nations’ data from 2013, the United
States remains the most popular destination with 45.8 million international immigrants. These
numbers all serve to reiterate that the within border, foreign publics are not small, nor are
they shrinking. Further, it is important to understand the potential they have to impact their
host countries and the way public diplomacy is enacted. This chapter identifies and presents
the role of communicative actions by internal foreign publics, relational factors that trigger
their positive or negative communicative actions about various issues related to their host
countries, and how their communicative actions could have impacts on public diplomacy
outcomes such as “soft power” for their host countries. We conceptually frame the contextual
variables of the relationships between the host country and the internal foreign publics, as
well as the communicative actions of these publics and what social consequences are likely
among their personal social networks (e.g., friends and family). It is this last perspective that
makes the connection between technological development, the individual, activism, and
diplomacy most clear. It highlights both the importance of sociological public diplomacy for
within border, foreign publics as well as the potential impact of the communicative activism
of these publics through digital media and social networks. The International Public Inside
the Border Public and international diplomacy is something that has long been seen as a
function of the government. However it has become obvious that traditional government
oriented approaches to diplomacy are not as functional in today’s world and as a result
grassroots approaches to public diplomacy are rising (Payne, 2009). Individuals, academia,
business, and nongovernmental organizations have all approached this issue of public
diplomacy and how it might be used to “heal the great divides globally and locally” (Payne,
2009, p. 487). The concept of sociological public diplomacy, or how direct interpersonal
contact through people flow around the world impacts the soft power Diplomacy in a
Globalized World 133 of a nation, has been explored by several scholars (Kim & Ni, 2011;
Yun, 2012; Yun & Kim, 2008; Yun & Toth, 2009; Yun & Vibber, 2012). Sociological public
diplomacy emphasizes the role of direct interaction or people-to-people contact and
necessitates governmental policy efforts to facilitate and protect freer and open interaction
(e.g., visa or immigration regulation, monitoring and preventing xenophobia, nationalism, or
ethnocentrism) among its citizens and individuals from foreign countries. It prioritizes
people-to-people interaction and affirmative governmental action for diasporas and foreign
publics over mediated messages and the role of governmental propagandistic campaigns.
These prioritized actions are seen as having a greater influence on what shapes an
individual’s view of a host country or impacts their perceived relationship with it (Yun &
Toth, 2009). From this perspective, having a society that is open to foreign publics and
interacts positively with them could do more for that country’s soft power and diplomatic
efforts (cf. “behavioral, strategic management paradigm in public relations”) than
governmental campaigns and nation branding campaigns to implant positive images among
foreign publics (cf. “symbolic, interpretive paradigm in public relations”) (Kim, Hung-
Baesecke, Yang, & Grunig, 2013; Kim & Ni, 2010; Grunig & Kim, 2011). Yun and Toth
(2009) predicted that under the framework of soft power, “sociological globalism will be a
new background of future public diplomacy” (p. 493). This new background would in turn
dictate another shift in the focus of diplomacy; that “sociological public diplomacy will
become domesticated toward ‘inside border’ foreign publics as part of government’s public
affairs” (Yun & Toth, 2009, p. 493). This awareness of within border internationals is critical
if one believes in sociological public diplomacy, because just as your own citizens will have a
greater impact on this public’s view of your country, the internal, foreign public will also
interact with others from their home country or other countries and impact their views of your
country. Recent developments in communication technology have accelerated the rate at
which this sort of opinion or experience sharing can occur. Advocates vs. Adversaries:
Positive and Negative Megaphoning of Hosted Publics The advent of many developments in
digital communication technology places within border, foreign publics in a unique position
to engage in active communication behaviors either for or against their host countries. New
conceptualizations of public diplomacy have reflected these changes. Terms such 134 Kelly
Vibber & Jeong-Nam Kim as participation, exchange, and dialogue have entered the
conversation about what diplomacy is and what it looks like as “people expect a more
interactive and participatory role” (Zaharna, 2005, p. 2; Vickers, 2004). Active
communication behavior by the internal, yet foreign, public now travels larger distances
faster than ever before and may spread exponentially through “shares,” “retweets,” and
“likes” on a variety of social networks. Wellman (2002) framed the implications of this
digital age by developing the concept of networked individualism. Within the framework of
networked individualism, “each person separately operates his networks to obtain
information, collaboration, order, support, sociability, and a sense of belonging” (Wellman,
2002, p. 16). As such, the individual becomes the portal and is essentially always connected
to and has access to create messages of influence and information via cell phones,
smartphones, computers, etc. This provides the within border, foreign public with an instant
medium and audience for their positive or negative communicative action about their host
country, a behavior that can be called megaphoning (Kim & Rhee, 2011). In addition, the
people in their networks are essentially wired into receiving the megaphoning messages when
they are sent, provided they have access to some form of digital communication. These
received messages can then be shared again through their own networks, creating a chain
effect of megaphoning. Kim and Rhee (2011) introduced the concept of megaphoning as an
application of information forwarding and information sharing, both of which were
developed in the communicative action part of the problem solving model (CAPS) (Kim,
Grunig, & Ni, 2010) and the situational theory of problem solving (STOPS) (Kim & Grunig,
2011). Originally, megaphoning was conceptualized as a form of employee communication
behavior where employees spread positive or negative information about the organization to
members of the external publics (Kim & Rhee, 2011). However, it is also possible to extend
this role and action to within border foreign publics, if we juxtapose organizations with a
government or hosting society and employees with internationals within borders (Kim, 2012).
These within border foreign publics have insider experience with the country, its people, and
the government, which makes them more credible to their audiences. In addition, they have
external publics (e.g., friends and family in their home country) who are listening to them and
perhaps even waiting to hear from them. These combined factors strategically position within
border foreigners to be able to execute/create potential activism. According to the situational
theory of problem solving (STOPS), individuals who identify a problem will organize to
resolve it provided that they feel involved with the issue, motivated to act, and feel they can
do Diplomacy in a Globalized World 135 something about it (Kim & Grunig, 2011; Kim &
Krishna, 2014). When these things are true, the public, and the individuals who make up the
public, are likely to engage in communicative action or activism to attempt to solve the
problem or correct the issue. These active behaviors could include information forwarding,
information seeking, and information forefending (Kim, Grunig, & Ni, 2010). Information
forwarding is the active sharing or passing on of information related to the problem or issue.
Information seeking is the active searching for information or resources to help with the
issue, and information forefending is the active selective attending to and rejecting of
different information based on how it fits a set of criteria (e.g. validity, consistency with
beliefs or goals). It is important here to acknowledge that the availability of digital
communication technologies has in some ways altered the constraint recognition—perceived
obstacles in addressing problematic states—that individuals and publics feel. Kim and Ni
(2010) have noted that active publics exploit online communication space because these
media allow them to feel more powerful, as well as more empowered to share their thoughts.
Also it is critical to highlight that neither communicative action in problem solving (Kim,
Grunig, & Ni, 2010) nor the situational theory of problem solving (Kim & Grunig, 2011)
dictates that the issue must be negative (e.g., some publics may arise around a positive issue
to secure beneficial consequences from a management decision or policy). Furthermore, the
concepts of positive and negative megaphoning are both situational and cross-situational
communicative actions. This means that they may be situational—increasing for a short time
related to a hot issue such as a hostile immigration law—or may be dormant or chronic—
continuing and reappearing even after the situational motivation has declined, such as when a
person asks them about their experiences with the country. In the latter case, the way publics
view previous experiences with the host country is mediated through their perceived
relationship quality (e.g., trust, control mutuality) and type of relationship (i.e., communal vs.
exchange relationship) with the country. These perceived relationships in turn influence the
direction (i.e., positive or negative) and the amount of communicative actions the publics take
(Kim, 2012). Thus it is possible that activism and megaphoning behavior can take on either a
positive or negative tone, as well as potentially becoming a continuous or recurrent behavior
that would be strong enough to trigger information flows in communicators’ social networks.
This positions internal, foreign publics as potential advocates or adversaries for their host
country and essentially micro-diplomats or spokespersons to their social networks and
members of their home country. Recent work by Yun and Vibber (2012) did find some
support for the idea that students 136 Kelly Vibber & Jeong-Nam Kim abroad would at least
attempt to act as advocates or adversaries on behalf of their host country when
communicating with people in their home country. Impetus for Communicative Activism The
relationship between a foreign public and its host country serves as the impetus for any
communicative action they may take for or against the host country. This relationship is
twofold and extends beyond the individual or diaspora within the host country to those in
their social networks. When reconceptualizing the communicative action of publics, Kim,
Grunig, and Ni, (2010) outlined the potential of communicative action to spread from the
focal communicant, the one directly involved and high in communicative action, to the
peripheral communicants, members of the focal communicant’s network who received the
message or megaphoning. In turn, these peripheral communicants with medium levels of
communicative action may share these messages with their own networks reaching a still
more peripheral communicant (Kim, Grunig, & Ni, 2010). Figure 8.1. Illustration of
intercommunication using the communicative action model variables. (reprinted from Kim,
Grunig, & Ni, 2010) Diplomacy in a Globalized World 137 Within the context of
sociological diplomacy, the first part of this relationship is the direct relationship between the
individual (focal communicant) and the host country. This perceived relationship is based on
the direct interaction or sociological public diplomacy between the foreigner and people of
the host country. It is a behavioral relationship in that it is contextual, sociological, and based
on actual interactions (Grunig & Kim, 2011; Kim et al., 2014). The second part of the
relationship involves members of the social network (peripheral communicants) of the
individual who has a direct relationship with the host country. These individuals have an
indirect and tangential reputational relationship with the country (Grunig & Kim, 2011; Kim,
Hung-Baesecke, Yang, & Grunig, 2013). For example, parents who perceived a positive
relationship when choosing to send their children to school in the United States may feel
differently if their child is treated unfairly or experiences racism. There may also be
individuals who experience both levels of the relationship, such as immigrants who left their
home country based on a positive reputational relationship with a host country and then
experienced a behavioral relationship with the people and the country that may or may not
confirm the reputational relationship. Either of these situations may influence publics or
individuals at the first or second level to engage in communicative activism. Activism that
engages social networks can spread quickly and affect the host country’s soft power.
Negative megaphoning and word of mouth may more easily damage soft power because this
power essentially relies on the country’s appeal and attractiveness to others through its
culture, ideologies, and institutions (Nye, 2004). Stories of others’ negative or positive
experiences can more immediately impact others’ views of that country, thus directly
impacting the attractiveness of that country to others and in turn the power or influence that
country has. Framing the Relationship: Major Contextual Factors of Perceived Relationships
Among Foreign Publics Work by a variety of scholars has attempted to conceptualize the
major sources of soft power that influence the perceived relationships, both behavioral and
reputational, that foreign publics have with their host country (Kim & Ni, 2011; Yun & Kim,
2008; Yun & Toth, 2009; Pratt, 1989). Kim and Ni (2011) summarize the three antecedents
of soft power as follows: political and economic interactions; people-to-people interactions;
and cultural interactions. It is important to note that only the first of these functions at an
institutional/governmental level. The second construct more immediately impacts the direct
or behavioral relationship with a country. 138 Kelly Vibber & Jeong-Nam Kim Figure 8.2.
Antecedents of soft power: A positive model. (modified from Kim & Ni, 2011) Although the
construct of people-to-people interactions reflects sociological public diplomacy and
interpersonal interaction, Kim and Ni (2011) also acknowledge the role of information
technology in making this type of interaction cheaper and more accessible to many even
though it may not always reflect actual face-to-face interaction. The third antecedent, cultural
interactions, reflects more immediately on the indirect reputational relationship with a
country. This antecedent reflects the individualized consumption of cultural products such as
music, literature, art, and films. This consumption can lead to the development and
amplification of a perception about the cultural products and the country of origin (Kim & Ni,
2011). It is recent developments such as globalization of economies, social media, and new
media technology which have allowed for greater individual participation in international
relations making these types of cultural and media diplomacy possible (Signitzer & Wamser,
2006). These have in turn impacted the factors that most directly shape individuals’ relations
with foreign countries and the Diplomacy in a Globalized World 139 ways in which they can
impact the soft power of those nations as a result of their relationships. Taking a slightly
different approach to soft power, Yun and Kim (2008) developed a regression model with
three predicting variables: ethnic relations, between country relationship quality, and
normative performance (reputation) of the country. Ethnic relations, like in the constructs of
Kim and Ni (2011), were based on sociological globalism and interaction with members of
other ethnicities. Relationship quality was a measure of the relationship between the
individual’s home country and the host country or other country in question. This is similar to
the construct of political and economic interactions from Kim and Ni (2011). Yun and Kim
(2008) found that relationship quality had the most significant influence on soft power and
that ethnic relations had a sizeable and significant effect as well. Normative performance had
a weak and insignificant impact on soft power. Examining these two studies, it seems
consistent that although the role of the institution and government in forming relationships
and soft power with other publics has not been eliminated, it is also no longer the main factor.
The relationship between one’s country and another country in terms of politics, policies, and
economy does impact the relationship citizens perceive with that country (e.g. hostile vs.
friendly). However, the increased access to cultural products as well as direct or digital
interaction with individuals who are from or have been to these countries has changed and
continues to change the way in which individuals’ relationships with countries are shaped.
The Process and Outcomes of Migrants’ Communicative Activism Increased accessibility of
information, communication technologies, and global networking are making the voice of the
individual perhaps more important to public diplomacy than ever before. Locke, Levine,
Searls, and Weinberger (1999) contend that the Internet has reinstated the value of the
individual’s voice and that people want to hear and believe in individuals more than they do
corporations and organizations. After a long period driven by mass marketing, what is
currently valued is personal voice and interaction with real people. This theory in conjunction
with the ideas of sociological diplomacy and communicative activism (megaphoning)
highlights the potential impact of these within border, foreign publics: their personal accounts
of what they experience are likely to be valued, believed, and prioritized over official
government statements or national news. According to Kim and Ni (2011): 140 Kelly Vibber
& Jeong-Nam Kim Because migrants have more substantial, direct, and natural, rather than
superficial, indirect, and artificial interaction and contact with the hosting countries, their
experiences and perceptions are more credible with people in their home countries. And
because migrants still have connections with people back home, they can more easily
enhance or destroy the hosting countries’ reputation or the resources of soft power. (pp. 140–
141) As previously highlighted, the advent of social networking sites and the development of
communication technology have made it possible for their megaphoning to be disseminated
quickly and then echoed, reverberating through “shares,” “retweets,” and “likes” that may
then echo again through the next set of networks and the next (cf. the informative behavioral
interactions between focal communicants and peripheral communicants in Figure 8.1). In this
way social networks do part of the activist work for the user placing their information into the
newsfeeds of the users’ network and allowing them to easily forward the message with
minimal effort. The important message here is that of contagious relational quality in that
there is a two-step flow of influence through communicative actions (i.e., megaphoning) from
the direct behavioral relationship holders to the indirect reputational holders. Because of the
technological developments discussed here, their connections are now more portable,
accessible, and immediate, positioning both types of relationship holders to embrace
communicative action. As a result, communicating with within border foreigners “is no
longer a means to an end but an end itself,” reshaping the way we think about public
diplomacy and the importance of person-to-person contact (Kim & Ni, 2011, p. 141). These
individuals with direct behavioral relationships are not only well positioned but also
contextually legitimized as micro-diplomats, relating their experiences abroad to members of
their home country and acting as local representatives of their native country in their host
residence. It is noteworthy that the very vehicle that connects concrete, first-hand experiences
(relationship) to superficial, second-hand opinion (reputation) among foreign publics is the
communicative actions of members of foreign publics (see Figure 8.1). The motivated
communicative actions of behavioral relationship holders become the engine or social
cognitive mills to produce the direction and amount of information related to the hosting
country that is shared and amplified over socio-communicative networks among foreign
publics. More importantly, the communicative activism by the first-hand, behavioral
relationship holding foreign publics would earn priority or added-weight when the
information from the hosting country itself and the information from the foreign publics in
that country are inconsistent (e.g., positive media image vs. negative witness from family
about the given country). In this vein, Diplomacy in a Globalized World 141 communicative
activism is an under-studied aspect in conceptualizing the process and outcomes of public
diplomacy and has increasingly more salient theoretical linkages among the key factors and
outcomes of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy theory and practice should pay attention to
these threats and opportunities in the positive and negative megaphoning of within border
foreign publics. Strategic Public Diplomacy: The Opportunities and Threats of
Communicative Activism by Behavioral, Relationship Holding Foreign Publics This new
face of diplomacy comes with both great benefits and also potential threats. On the plus side,
the value of word of mouth has a long history both in that it provides good marketing and
reputation building without tangible cost and that others find it more believable than if the
organization had promoted itself. However, on the negative side, sociological diplomacy is
much harder to control. It is based more on individual actions and responses than systematic
or planned communication campaigns. A country cannot control how individual citizens act
in all situations, or prevent all foreigners from encountering racism or prejudice. Should a
country or its individuals do something that others find offensive or wrong, these individuals
only have to access their social networks to start gathering support from individuals and
groups domestically and abroad. Despite a variety of countries attempting to control digital
information flow both into as well as out of their country, the resourcefulness of citizens,
revolutionaries, and activists has prevailed repeatedly connecting these individuals with the
information they were seeking and providing an audience for their voice so that they could
mobilize support, awareness, and activism. These actions have often resulted in severe
damage to a country’s soft power or complete social revolution. Because of both the potential
opportunities as well as the risks in this approach to diplomacy, it is important to approach
the relationship with within border foreign publics in a symmetrical way and to attempt to
achieve balance of interests among related parties (Grunig, 2009). Symmetrical
communication has been shown to be more effective than an asymmetrical approach in
relationship building, particularly long-term relationship building between organizations and
publics (Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & Grunig, 1999). Kim and Ni (2011) have highlighted
the need for diplomacy to not only be one sided in seeking soft power to secure one’s own
nation’s interests, but also to be “soft empowering” to those countries who may be less
culturally powerful or attractive to other nations. There is a need to open the dialogue and to
learn from and understand each other in order to build successful and 142 Kelly Vibber &
Jeong-Nam Kim enduring soft power; otherwise a nation runs the risk of being revealed as
only seeking its own interests through cultural and social interactions. If this happens, the
nation will in turn lose some of its soft power, as manipulation and exploitation are not
viewed as factors that increase one’s attractiveness to others but may only further increase
active information behaviors against the country among foreign publics. Here again the role
of the individual and grassroots movements is critical in developing effective and enduring
soft power. As previously mentioned, their messages have the benefit of being seen as
unbiased and authentic. As a result of recent developments in communication technology and
social networking, within border foreign publics can spread their legitimized voice quickly
and efficiently at a very low or no cost to the country. Thus making these publics a country’s
greatest ally or enemy in the realm of diplomacy. By extension of this idea, Kim and Ni
(2011) highlight that a country might even reap benefits or losses from its own citizens
interacting as diasporas or visitors within other countries. As a result it may be advantageous
to cultivate cultural awareness and respect for diversity among one’s citizens in order for
them to act as assets to a nation’s soft power both at home and abroad. Furthermore, if
governments embrace a role of facilitating instead of attempting to censor or limit the
exchange of cultural products and information among social members internally and
externally, they may encourage more creativity among cultural producers who can enact the
role of positive diplomats on behalf of the nation (Kim & Ni, 2011). Lastly, governmental
policy efforts to foster and secure open and egalitarian grassroots interactions will be critical
to maximize positive communicative actions and temper negative communicative activism.
The efforts of social institutions to create inclusive culture, tolerance for foreign values, and
mutual respect for within border, foreign publics will also be important in encouraging
positive communicative actions among these strategically positioned publics. Despite the
shift to a more person-to-person approach, as dictated by sociological globalism, the role of
the government in diplomacy has not been completely revoked. However, it has been
drastically altered and it is important that governments acknowledge this and adjust their
approaches and policies to help mobilize the resources already available through their citizens
and social organizations. In today’s globalizing society some of the strongest potential
advocates and adversaries of a nation and its diplomacy are no longer in the state offices and
municipal buildings, but in the grocery store, the bar, and on Facebook. These groups and
individuals have the potential to be the most believable and affordable allies in building a
nation’s soft power, but the relationship a nation cultivates with its within border foreign
public is critical in determining Diplomacy in a Globalized World 143 whether or not this
potential is realized. This chapter has provided a discussion of major factors that influence
that relationship as well as predictors of communicative action, the types of activism likely to
be enacted, and important considerations in developing these relationships. As we move
forward in this age of globalization and digital technology it is likely that our networks and
connections will only become more advanced and interconnected. Nations would do well to
recognize the importance and value of relationships with those key publics inside their
borders and work to develop them to the best of their ability, not only to benefit relations
within their borders but also to in turn bolster relationships with constituents abroad.