Public Relations as Public Diplomacy

The Royal Bank of Canada's Monthly Letter, 1943-2003

Sandra L. Braun

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000044638
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Business
• Categoría: Public Relations

This is a study of the Royal Bank of Canada's Monthly Letter, which was initially created in 1920 as a traditional economic newsletter and later evolved quite serendipitously into a publication marvel when, in 1943, it came under the influence of John Heron, journalist and publicist, gaining mass appeal both domestically and abroad.

This concise history documents the inception, development and rise to popularity of the Monthly Letter, telling the untold story of how a corporate newsletter became a tool of international public diplomacy. The purpose of this writing is to demonstrate the entanglement of the fields of public diplomacy and public relations and to offer a more palatable conceptualization of them as two discrete, but necessary, parts of a whole. It acknowledges the varied soup of contested terminology which surrounds the field of public diplomacy (e.g. corporate diplomacy, cultural diplomacy and economic diplomacy). This work conceptualizes public diplomacy and public relations as two parts of a whole in which the sum is greater than its individual parts, juxtaposing the two fields in relation to one another, diminishing neither.

The contents of this work provide a broad overview of the fields of public diplomacy and public relations that could serve as an introduction and discussion point for students and scholars in both fields and offers a specific case study around which lively discussion and additional study can ensue.

Part I
Background

1 Public diplomacy and public relations

Two parts of a whole

The Blind Men and the Elephant by John Godfrey Saxe

It was six men of Indostan,

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant,

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

“God bless me! But the elephant

Is very like a wall!”

The second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, “Ho! What have we here

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me ‘tis mighty clear,

This wonder of an elephant

Is very like a spear!”

The third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up and spake:

“I see,” quoth he, “the elephant

Is very like a snake!”

The fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee:

“What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain,” quoth he,

“ ‘Tis clear enough the elephant

Is very like a tree!”

The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said “E’en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an elephant

Is very like a fan!”

The sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Then, seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

“I see,” quoth he, “the elephant

Is very like a rope!”

And so, these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

Saxe’s poem of six blind men attempting to define what exactly is an ‘elephant’ reminds me very much of the scholarly debate surrounding public diplomacy and public relations. Each inquirer approaches the topic from a particular vantage point which ultimately influences each one’s definition and concept. All seem correct, yet all seem to come up short.

Scholarly work in both public relations and public diplomacy only emerged since mid-century and occurred parallel to one another with little cross-over or integration. It wasn’t until more recently that the fields began to bump into one another as the communication and cultural aspects of diplomacy became to the fore, particularly since 9/11. As scholars studied, similarities began to be noted, and questions arose as to the true relationship and linkages between the two fields. While scholarly study of the two fields are modern, the processes and practices of both diplomacy and public relations are embedded deep in human history. A quick view of history is helpful to re-orient, gain perspective, compare and contrast the two domains.

The field of diplomacy is ancient, arising from societies moving increasingly away from chaos and toward organization in search of ways to govern themselves. Deeply rooted in law, diplomacy emerged as a way to identify authoritative sources to resolve disputes and govern the relationships between states (Broderick, 1924).

Historically, the term ‘diplomacy’, in the professional sense, has implied the process of relations between nation states (Broderick, 1924). There are many views on diplomacy, but there is no over-encompassing theory or theoretical framework. Concepts and definitions of diplomacy are, therefore, contested. This, juxtaposed against globalization and increasing interconnectedness of the world, has left conceptualizations of diplomacy lacking. The more recent term ‘public diplomacy’ emerged in the mid-1960s when Edmund Gullion, a former diplomat and dean of the Fletcher School of Diplomacy at Tufts University in Massachusetts, attempted to distance the state-to-state communication process from the negative connotations of propaganda (Cull, 2008). In spite of the attempt to distinguish, it has always been understood that the term refers to traditional views of diplomacy of general state-to-state relations, which some also call ‘classical diplomacy’ or ‘traditional diplomacy’. In 1980, the United States Government called “public diplomacy a new label for an old concept… . It supplements and reinforces traditional intergovernmental diplomacy, seeking to strengthen mutual understanding between peoples through a wide variety of international communication and educational and cultural exchange programs” (International Communication Agency, 1978, n.p.).

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘diplomacy’ is of French origin, developed in the late 18th century and is associated with the aristocracy, or ruling classes. Dictionaries note its dual definition, one professional and one personal. It is “the profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country’s representatives abroad” and/or it is “the art of dealing with people in a sensitive and tactful way” (Diplomacy, n.d.). It could be argued, of course, that the latter is also an element of the former.

Since the time of Gullion’s proposed new nomenclature, ‘public diplomacy’ has begun to appear in the literature and has been the object of scholarly study, but it has continually lacked a discrete definition and having been parsed into business diplomacy, corporate diplomacy, cultural diplomacy and more; it has remained, therefore, “essentially a contested term with many labels” (Potter, 2009, p. 257; see also Saner, Yiu, & Sondergaard, 2000).

As a result, the concept of public diplomacy has ‘bled into’ other domains of various academic inquiry such as policy studies, mass communication, international affairs and peace studies, among others (Gilboa, 2008). One of those is public relations (for example, L’Etang, 1996). Nye’s (2004) introduction of the concept of ‘soft power’ has particularly created porous boundaries into the field of public diplomacy. Suddenly, nation states could exert power in other ways besides by economic or military force. The insertion of soft power into the discussion of diplomacy, amidst the backdrop of an increasingly interconnected world, opened the already-tenuous definition of diplomacy to acknowledge the influences of such forces as corporatism, entrepreneurialism and culture, thereby creating many nuanced notions of diplomacy.

Scholars have been debating the convergence, similarity and/or separation between public diplomacy and public relations for many years (see Van Dyke & Verčič, 2009; L’Etang, 1996). Upon examination, the resemblances between these two fields are, indeed, striking.

Similarities between public diplomacy and public relations

Both have been identified as having roots in ancient processes which evolved into modern practice. Many examples of public diplomacy from ancient history have been identified across many cultures from ancient Egypt, Greeks, the Ottoman Empire of the 6th century, the Chinese Tang Dynasty or India of the 3rd century (see Black, 2010). Public relations in ancient history has been associated with the Rosetta Stone for touting the achievements of the pharaoh; it has been identified in ancient writings of Sumeria, Persia and Babylonia projecting prowess in battle. Some have also pointed to the persuasive efforts of early Christians as ancient public relations efforts (see Cutlip, Centre, & Broom, 2000, p. 102; Bates, 2006; Cutlip, 1994, p. xv). However, the modern practice of public relations or “the roots of the vocation” is traditionally identified as the around the turn of the 20th century (Cutlip, 1994, p. xvi).

L’Etang (2009) identified some broad linkages between public relations and public diplomacy—communication, stakeholder relationships and shaping of public opinion. Signitzer and Wamser (2006) pointed out the strategic communication aspects. Other discussions have suggested that both public diplomacy and public relations involve dialogic communication, relationship building and the promotion of good will to create positive environments, and both aim for similar goals (Signitzer & Coombs, 1992; Wang, 2006a; Fitzpatrick, 2007; Signitzer, 2008; L’Etang, 2009; Yun & Toth, 2009; Fitzpatrick & Vanc, 2012). Public diplomacy involves “representation, advocacy, image-building, delivering messages, interpreting, and explaining” (Potter, 2009, p. 124), all of which have been associated with the public relations function (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Cutlip et al., 2000; Wilcox, Ault, Agee, & Cameron, 2001).

There are many other similarities. Both have themes of unsavory histories and roots of meaning. As far back as 1604, the negative view of diplomacy was characterized by English diplomat Sir Henry Wotton when he declared, “An ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie for the good of his country” (Eilts, 1979, p. 3). Public relations has had to deal with a negative image in popular opinion because of exaggeration, manipulation, propaganda and deceptions (see Ewen, 1996; Tye, 1998). This led to, among other things, the development of the four models of public relations practice and two-way symmetry as a preferred, or more excellent, form of practice (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Cutlip, 1994; Moloney, 2006). Most recently, the issue of negative views of public relations has led to discussions about re-naming the field or focusing on the term ‘strategic communication’ or ‘communication management’ as a way to distance the field from its more unsavoury past and negative connotations (Bailey, 2018).

Modern public relations specialists have been encouraged to be proactive and preventative in their approaches versus reactive. Maintaining proper, ongoing communication and developing positive relationships in a proactive manner is a strategic approach to avoiding crises (Coombs, 2012). Like proactive public relations specialists, successful diplomats are those who treat “international diseases at the beginnings and at their roots” (Brown, 2011, p. 75). Successful diplomatic efforts, like good public relations efforts, are often those that will never make it into the news.

A key ingredient to success in both public relations and diplomacy has been the admonition for truth telling. Public relations practitioners are held to ethical standards that include a commitment to accuracy, as evidenced by the common themes of accuracy and truth telling present in many professional codes of conduct (Yang, Taylor, & Saffer, 2016). Truth telling has also been regarded as a central key to success in diplomacy. As early as 1823, an Envoy received exhortation that “you must at all times, and on all occasions, speak the truth, for the consequence will be, that you will never be believed” (A lesson in diplomacy, 1823, p. 224). Diplomacy is “not a science based on duplicity or cunning” any more than is public relations (The relation of diplomacy, 1902, p. 160).

One purpose of public diplomacy is to “strengthen mutual understanding”; a purpose of public relations is to work toward “mutually beneficial relationships” (International Communication Agency, 1978, n.p.; Cutlip et al., 2000, p. 6). Public diplomacy requires the “assessment of public attitudes and opinions”; similarly, symmetrical models of public relations require the gathering of outside opinion as necessary research prior to developing campaigns (International Communication Agency, 1978, n.p.; Grunig & Hunt, 1984).

Public diplomacy is ongoing and continual, seeking to inform and promote understanding; public relations, similarly, has been called the ongoing process of relationship management (International Communication Agency, 1978, p. 1; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). Golan’s (2013) integrated public diplomacy model focuses on the relational aspects of public diplomacy (versus, for example, the media aspects). Successful public diplomacy involves trust, a dimension of relationships; trust has been named as an indicator of successful public relations (Payne, 2009, p. 580; Hon & Grunig, 1999). Public diplomacy has been called a “two-way street” as has public relations (Payne, 2009, p. 582; Snow, 2005; Goldman, 1948; Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Public diplomacy has been characterized as (critically, ‘too often’) unidirectional; similarly, public relations has been criticized for its history of being heavily one-way and asymmetrical (Payne, 2009; Goldman, 1948; Cutlip, 1994).

Kingsley, as early as 1967, and more recently Brown (2011) have noted the effects of semantics and language in the execution of public diplomacy. Public relations scholars have embraced theories of communication such as symbolic interactionism and have recognized the process of creation of meaning and semiotics as playing a role in successful communication practice (Braun, 2012; Gordon, 1997; Anderson, n.d.).

The origins of public diplomacy are in state-to-state communication, and, it has been suggested, similarly, that public relations activity “largely originated with the state [as] the only organization with the resources and need to organize large-scale public communication to shape perception on policies, religions, and its underlying legitimacy” (Senne & Moore, 2015, p. 327).

Indeed, many of Cull’s (2010) lessons for “a new public diplomacy era” (p. 11) could virtually read as lessons in public relations:

1. a it begins with listening
2. b it is connected to policy (i.e. objectives)
3. c it is not a performance for domestic consumption
4. d it requires credibility
5. e it is ‘not always about you’
6. f it is everyone’s business

Finally, interestingly, the public relations function has been viewed as an ambassadorial function, and empirical testing has shown linkages between public relations behaviour and management and diplomacy behaviour and management (Carmi & Levental, 2019; Yun, 2009).

In view of these many similarities and points of intersection, including others, it is predictable that linkages between public relations and public diplomacy have been the subject of scholarly inquiry (also see Bouzanis, 2009).

The key puzzle pieces: select linkages

Linkage #1 – propaganda as neutral

In spite of many scholarly efforts, what is preventing the linkage between the fields of public diplomacy and public relations? The negative image of public relations as being a credible source of information has been named as a stumbling block or barrier to the integration of the professions (Snow, 2015). The public relations profession has evolved considerably since its early days of largely one-way, asymmetrical approaches and its perception as largely manipulation and flack, but still, ironically, suffers from an image problem. This image problem lies largely with the values-laden definition of propaganda as a negative, versus neutral, term. Scholars have discussed propaganda as a neutral term, more akin to a one-sided presentation (Moloney, 2006, p. 167). Propaganda exists in government communications as much as business, or even non-profit communications. Such exhortations to ‘don’t text and drive’, ‘don’t smoke’ or ‘please vaccinate’ can be viewed as no less propagandistic than Hitler’s mass deceptions of WWII; in other words, propaganda is one-way communication to achieve the sender’s purpose, with asymmetry as not necessarily unethical, depending on the communication (Yun, 2009). The question of the morality of an appeal is a separate one that need not impinge upon definition. The idea of having separate terms for ethical versus non-ethical communications practice does exist, however, in some Eastern European countries. Practitioners in Russia and Bulgaria reference the existence of ‘black PR’ as distinct from ‘public relations’ when there is an element of duplicity or intention to harm (Braun, 2007, p. 211; Samuilova, 2004).

Scholars and practitioners need to settle on the term ‘propaganda’ as a neutral term that carries no moral declarations with it but rather is a reflection of the direction and mutuality of communication (that is, one-way asymmetrical communication). The morality and merit of a message or campaign is another matter.

This is not so far-fetched. The term ‘propaganda’ has historically been a fluid term. While it originated from the Latin meaning ‘to propagate’ and was developed in the religious context of the Catholic Church in the 1600s, it drifted into secular contexts by the 1700s and then took on negative connotations in political contexts in modern history (Diggs-Brown, 2012). It is a term that has ridden the waves of changing cultural times. In these times of global communication, multiplicity of thought, increasing fragmentation of audience...