Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy

Nancy Snow, Nicholas J. Cull, Nancy Snow, Nicholas J. Cull

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780429878947
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Politique publique

The second edition of the Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, co-edited by two leading scholars in the international relations subfield of public diplomacy, includes 16 more chapters from the first. Ten years later, a new global landscape of public diplomacy has taken shape, with major programs in graduate-level public diplomacy studies worldwide.

What separates this handbook from others is its legacy and continuity from the first edition. This first edition line-up was more military-focused than this edition, a nod to the work of Philip M. Taylor, to whom this updated edition is dedicated. This edition includes US content, but all case studies are outside the United States, not only to appeal to a global audience of scholars and practitioners, but also as a way of offering something fresher than the US/UK-centric competition. In Parts 1–4, original contributors are retained, many with revised editions, but new faces emerge. Parts 5 and 6 include 16 global case studies in public diplomacy, expanding the number of contributors by ten. The concluding part of the book includes chapters on digital and corporate public diplomacy, and a signature final chapter on the noosphere and noopolitik as they relate to public diplomacy.

Designed for a broad audience, the Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy is encyclopedic in its range and depth of content, yet is written in an accessible style that will appeal to both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Part 1

The Scope of Public Diplomacy

Key Practices

3

The Spectrum of Listening

Luigi Di Martino

Introduction

Gathering information on a nation’s friends and enemies has always been a key characteristic of diplomacy.¹ With the emergence of public diplomacy and its emphasis on foreign publics, information-gathering activities have been reframed as “listening” by public diplomacy scholarship in order to distinguish it from propaganda and earlier forms of information gathering in diplomacy. Listening has now become a core activity in public diplomacy and a defining element of dialogic forms of communication. Although the literature on public diplomacy largely agrees on the central role of listening, a definition of this activity and parameters defining how listening should be conducted and evaluated has largely been missing. Indeed, there are different listening approaches available to public diplomacy actors, each of which holds “implicit views of how public diplomacy works.”² In this chapter, I make the different listening approaches in public diplomacy explicit by describing the spectrum of listening,³ a framework that consists of six type of listening approaches.

Listening can be narrowly interpreted as a way to implement and readjust a strategy, or it can be considered more broadly and ambitiously as an activity that aims to advance international understanding. One interpretation of listening defines it as a synonym for monitoring, which fulfills an important planning function.⁴ The second perspective on listening comes from the collaborative approach in public diplomacy, where listening is considered as “a genuine interest in the other’s perspective.”⁵ This ethical approach to listening is based on sincere openness on the part of diplomatic actors.

These two positions suggest that the definition of listening is not straightforward. Although there is a general consensus on the need for listening in public diplomacy, this core activity remains understudied, apart from the notable exception of Cull who has focused on cases and applications.⁶ While the tactical approach considers listening as a tool of public diplomacy designed for monitoring publics and counteracting criticism, “genuine” or “ethical” understanding considers listening as an outcome in and of itself. These contrasting understandings of listening do not provide many analytical prospects for the examination of the communication process, especially when they reflect binary logics in the literature such as listening or speaking, monologue or dialogue, competition or collaboration. There are various analytical opportunities that go beyond this binary logic. In this regard, this chapter aims precisely to reconceptualize listening as a spectrum of practices that reflect a range of methodological options available to public diplomacy actors. It examines the possibilities and limitations of the different listening approaches and how they define the communication model and the type of engagement sought.

The spectrum of listening provides a framework that makes explicit public diplomacy listening approaches, ranging from the ideal type of apophatic listening to surreptitious listening activities. In between these two extremes, there are three approaches for listening in public diplomacy: active, tactical, listening in, and background/casual listening (Table 3.1). Each of these approaches entails a different understanding of engagement. Active listening, which I endorse here as the yardstick for public diplomacy listening, is driven by long-term goals, such as the creation of a fruitful communication space where national foreign policy can be advanced through dialogic engagement. Public diplomacy actors need to create spaces for listening if they want to undertake meaningful and fruitful listening. The difference between active and passive listening also marks the crucial boundary between large-scale listening and mass surveillance, both increasingly used by governments with the introduction of social media in the workings of relations between countries and non-state actors.

Table 3.1 Spectrum of listening

Type of listening	Engagement	Goal	Listening approach
Apophatic listening	Hypersensitivity and self-negation	Listen to God Meditative or mystical experience	N/A
Active listening	Dialogic and relation-building engagement Creates spaces for listening	Long-term strategy implementation and adjustment Promotes trust and understanding	Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods
Tactical listening	Instrumental and reactive engagement	Correct misconceptions and pursue short-term sub-goals	Monitoring to identify issues and actors of concern
Listening in	Unidirectional engagement	Assessment of message reach	Measuring outcomes or metrics based on impact
Background/casual listening	Casual engagement	Information gathering	Scrolling, unsystematic and/or accidental encounter of content
Surreptitious listening	No signs of engagement	Spying/ surveillance	Unethical/illegal acquisition of private data

Source: Supplied by author.

I first summarize and discuss the different types of listening that comprise the spectrum of listening. The discussion builds upon academic fields such as public relations, communication theory, democracy studies, and political science. In the second part I discuss active listening as a representational act and then describe how active listening can be methodologically framed, focusing on the case of social media data.

Apophatic Listening

The first type of listening in the spectrum (Table 3.1) is borrowed from Waks, who discusses listening in the context of educational leadership.⁷ He distinguishes between cataphatic and apophatic listening. In the former, the listener imposes his categories of interpretation while in the latter the listener makes a genuine effort to understand “feelings and personal connotations within or behind the words.” Apophatic listening requires a genuine effort of complete openness, putting aside predetermined categories.

The two types of listening represent the two extremes in a hypothetical spectrum of listening. Macnamara reminds us of the theological origin of the two terms: apophasis is defined as a “negative” approach of listening to God that focuses on what “God is not,” and thus requires openness to the possibility of what cannot be perceived.⁸ By contrast, a “positive approach,” cataphasis, is limited to the description of what can be perceived. The theological origin of these terms links to the question formulated by Bickford as to whether the extreme form of openness associated with apophasis or “hyperreceptivity is even possible (except in a mystical or meditative experience).”⁹ Therefore, it is questionable whether apophatic listening, the “ideal” form of listening in the spectrum in Table 3.1, is likely to be applied to public diplomacy listening activities, which entail political direction and purpose.

Determined by its theological origin, this type of listening encompasses a meditative or mystical experience as a form of “listening to God” without preconceptions and implies self-negation. This echoes Habermas’s notion of the “ideal speech situation.”¹⁰ Indeed, Habermas presents in his theory of communicative action an idealized situation that concrete situations must be measured against. In an ideal speech situation, participants can interact free of any kind of coercion with the mere desire to collaboratively create a rational consensus. This form of idealized communication is intentionally counterfactual, something that can be approximated but never fully realized.

Although this type of listening is unlikely to be found in public diplomacy actors’ communications, it is useful as an “ideal” yardstick by which to compare the different listening strategies. The conceptualization of ideal forms of communication or listening—as in the case of apophatic listening—is a fascinating theorization of hypothetical forms of international communication that public diplomacy actors could aim for. This ideal form could allow for the implementation of an evaluation framework based on the comparison of concrete situations with idealized forms of communication and listening.

Active Listening

If apophatic listening is ideal and counterfactual, a more concrete yardstick for the evaluation of public diplomacy listening comes from the concept of active listening. This concept has been developed by Dobson, who argues that good listening must be active in order to produce constant interaction in a real dialogic form of communication.¹¹

In the context of public diplomacy, active listening requires the active participation of both diplomatic and non-diplomatic actors. The goal is to advance foreign policies by creating the conditions for international dialogue. Listening in this case is conceived as a communication enabler. An active listener creates a favorable environment where public diplomacy actors are seen to listen and are therefore considered credible interlocutors.

Active listening enhances trust and enables the cultivation of long-term goals. The dialogue resulting from this type of listening is more likely to produce meaningful conversations when people feel that they are being listened to and by creating spaces for listening. The active listener is mindful to the extent that listening is situation-specific and culture-bound. During the process of active listening, a public diplomacy actor aims to fully understand the types of engagement that fit the particular cultural context and to hear all voices.

In order to achieve the goals of active listening, a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodological approaches for listening to publics is required. In more practical terms, the assessment of public engagement is primarily framed by the methods applied in its analysis. Thus, tracking active listening requires a combination of thin and thick description, a distinction borrowed from Geertz.¹² In the context of social media, thin description is performed by analyzing complexity in large-scale listening (e.g., big data analysis), whereas thick description is performed with the help of small or “deep data,” which refers to approaches such as interviews or case studies.¹³ I will discuss this combination further below after describing the remaining types of listening.

Tactical Listening

According to the literature on public diplomacy, tactical listening is performed via “two-way asymmetrical public diplomacy [which] means that although communication might be both sent and received … the effects of the communication are limited to the foreign audience.”¹⁴ Tactical listening aims to implement and readjust public diplomacy messages and correct misconceptions. It facilitates the identification of issues and actors of concern to provide a picture of the environment in which tactical goals operate. Forms of engagement are sometimes interactive, but with the clear goal of facilitating the accomplishment of a particular communication sub-goal (e.g., correcting misconceptions).

In the case of tactical listening, the creation of a trusting communica...