The term ‘cultural diplomacy’ looms commonly and is a firmly established practice today. Yet its meaning remains ambiguous, having more than one interpretation about what its practice entails and what it can achieve.
One school of scholars interpret cultural diplomacy as the use of the state’s culture to aid in attaining its country’s foreign policy goals or diplomacy. Further, another set of scholars define cultural diplomacy as an attempt to manage the international environment through the promotion of its country’s cultural assets and an interactive communication of its culture with its counterparts abroad. On the other hand, citing the most commonly used definition by Cummings, cultural diplomacy is described as ‘the exchange of ideas, information, art and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples to foster mutual understanding’ (Cummings 1).
With three different school of thoughts, there is a lack of consistency and coherence in explaining what cultural diplomacy is. Additionally, several fundamental elements about cultural diplomacy such as who conducts these cultural diplomacy practices and who the target audience of its cultural diplomacy efforts are are left unanswered. The use of these definitions also bring into question whether cultural diplomacy works at the exclusion of politics or there is a larger end goal in mind by making itself known abroad, if cultural diplomacy has a political motivation, how will culture then be used to achieve these political aims.
These unresolved gaps embedded within the meaning of cultural diplomacy are further compounded by the fact that cultural diplomacy is conflated by two perplexing concepts – culture and diplomacy. When the two words are joined, potential for misinterpretation and confusion exacerbates (Bereson 13). Additionally, in practice, cultural diplomacy is often used synonymously with public diplomacy, soft power, international cultural relations and cultural exchange, with little explanation as to why these assumptions are made (cite).
The unanswered questions about cultural diplomacy, its slippery nature and interchangeable use with other practices, all suggest the ambiguous nature of cultural diplomacy and an attempt to unravel this ambiguity then forms the broader purpose of this research. To disentangle this ambiguity, it is worth starting by interrogating where the boundaries between the various seemingly synonymous practices lie. Of which, this linguistic muddle has to be addressed first as it appears most apparent when looking at how countries use culture to build relationships with each other.
A variety of terms are undertaken in accordance to how countries and their diverse range of stakeholders perceive and conceptualise cultural diplomacy, placing more emphasis on either ‘culture’ or ‘diplomacy’, depending on their goals and priorities. Wyszomirski notes that in practice, what is termed as ‘cultural diplomacy’ in France, equates to international cultural relations in Australia, Canada and the UK, with international cultural policy utilised in Austria, The Netherlands and Sweden and cultural exchange used in Japan.
In Singapore’s context, this ambiguity is evident when the endorsement of Singapore’s cultural and creative assets is seen as an opportunity by the government to position the nation as a ‘vibrant cultural capital’ and as a global city for the arts to the audiences abroad. The projection of a nation brand can arguably be seen as a strategic communication approach articulated under the concept of public diplomacy or in Wyszomirski’s perspective, termed as international cultural relations instead of cultural diplomacy. Even amongst scholars, there are differing opinions as to what constitutes cultural diplomacy, which leads Lending to believe that ‘major semantic differences’ exists in the cultural diplomacy field, further reinforcing the need for clear distinctions to be drawn between the related terms.
This ambiguity then trickles down from a governmental level to Singapore’s cultural institution, the Singapore International Foundation (SIF) as well. Using SIF as a case study to be explored in this dissertation, it is proposed that the objectives of SIF’s projects falls more into the term ‘cultural exchange’, appearing to be inconsistent with its inferred cultural diplomatic mission, as section 1.1 will discuss.
About SIF in brief
SIF was established in 1991, with a mission that seeks to ‘nurture active global citizens and friends for Singapore’. To achieve this outcome, SIF presents two approaches: one centred on active international volunteering and another on networking.
Through the facilitation of volunteer participation abroad, SIF aims to contribute to the ‘development of communities outside of Singapore’, helping in areas such as ‘healthcare, empowerment of disadvantaged children, women and families, and rehabilitation of the disabled’. SIF also seeks to build an extensive network of friends for Singapore through its programmes, which includes organising ministerial visits and international conferences such as the exchange programmes and professional attachments with its international counterparts.
In 2009, a new mission, vision and strategic direction of SIF was unveiled. SIF states its vision as – ‘Making Friends for a Better World’ and presents its mission – ‘through shared ideas, skills and experiences, we uplift lives and create greater understanding between Singaporeans and world communities. In short, we bring world communities together to do good’.
Within SIF’s vision and mission, there is much that can be problematised with the idea of ‘friends’ reappearing several times. What kind of ‘friends’ is SIF looking for and what does SIF determine ‘friends’ to be? What is SIF’s purpose of fostering friendships? Does doing good necessarily equate to better friendships? It is hence arguable that the idea of ‘friends’ as put forth by SIF is built upon many assumptions and tenuous connections in actuality.
A comparison with other key cultural institutions engaged in cultural diplomacy is thus carried out in the next section, to obtain a better understanding of cultural diplomacy within an international context.
Background of other cultural institutions
Looking at other cultural institutions such as the British Council and Japan Foundation, as described by the British Council, their vision is that ‘the future for the UK depends on people of all cultures living and working together on foundations of education, mutual understanding, respect and trust’ and their mission is to ‘create international opportunities for the people of the UK and other countries and build trust between them worldwide’. By creating more opportunity and trust, the British Council believes that stronger long-term relationships for the UK would be developed, aiding them in sharing and enriching its assets in English, the arts, education and society.
While the Japan Foundation presents itself as ‘Japan’s only institution dedicated to carrying out comprehensive international cultural exchange programs throughout the world’, with the objective of ‘deepening mutual understanding between the people of Japan and other countries’, using ‘various activities and information services that would create opportunities for people-to-people interactions’.
With words such as ‘mutual understanding’, ‘opportunity’, ‘trust’ and ‘people’, the above stated objectives would suggest that the desire to build strong interpersonal relations between its people and individuals from other countries undergird the work of the British Council and the Japan Foundation. (Question the idea of interpersonal relations) The language used indicates that building bridges and cultivating human connections between communities are central to what these organisations espouse to do, having a fundamental inclination and commitment towards wanting to get to know the other party better through continuous interaction and engagement. Within its idea of relationship building, these institutions are also characterised by mutuality and a two way transmission between people to people. These attributes lean towards culture being used as a tool to create a conducive climate of international trust and understanding and pave the way for official relations to operate, demonstrating culture on a diplomatic level and a cultural diplomatic purpose.
Taking a closer look at the outputs of the British Council, three kinds of services which includes teaching of the English language, education and the arts are offered. Through English language courses, the British Council aims to develop an extensive knowledge of the English language worldwide. Additionally, the focus on Education in the British Council is driven by an aim to enrich the education systems of others, through partnerships and collaborations between the institutions in the UK and around the world. Lastly, in the aspect of the arts, the British Council provides opportunities for the exchange of knowledge and for the development of skills and new work through partnerships and collaborations between UK and Singaporean organisations and cultural practitioners.
Essentially, the broad spectrum of activities in the British Council strives to allow for engagement and partnership. Of which once the value of engagement between the UK and the other country is witnessed, it is hoped that a deeper understanding of the UK is facilitated and the other country is then able to contribute to this partnership with confidence, stimulating new ways of connecting and seeing of things from each other’s perspective, thereby developing trust between them.
In comparison, though the term ‘friends’ is used in SIF’s mission, there is no clear indication of what kind of friendship SIF is looking to foster and much less focus on the process of cultivating a relationship, like what the British Council and the Japan Foundation centers its work around. It seems to instead emphasise on the end product of ‘uplifting lives’, ‘doing good’ and ‘creating positive, tangible, lasting change in Singapore and around the world’, giving the impression that SIF is undertaking a different direction of work compared to the other two cultural institutions.
(how SIF appears to be in cultural exchange) This can be further exemplified through a closer observation of the ‘Cultural Exchange’ department's projects at SIF. The department works with three different programmes – Arts for Good, Singapore Internationale and Visits & Insights. The SIF’s Arts for Good initiative ‘seeks to contribute to positive social change through collaborations between Singaporean artists and their international counterparts, as well as galvanise greater community involvement in sustainable change’. While the Singapore Internationale ‘supports showcases of Singapore’s culture and innovation through the arts, as well as arts-based initiatives for social good’ and the Visits & Insights programmes aims to ‘strengthen international understanding and inspire action for good’, where ‘world communities are introduced to Singapore's policy innovations and way of life, to gain understanding of Singapore and increase opportunities for cross-cultural collaborations’.