Keohane and Nye argued that dependence means a state of being determined or significantly affected by internal forces, in contrast, interdependence – which most simply defined means mutual dependence – refers to situations characterised by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors within different countries (2001:7). Since the Cold War era, complex interdependence among societies has increased and the advent of information technology also has led to increase attention foreign policy making processes (Jang and Paik, 2012:197). Furthermore, thanks to globalisation, the world involves extensive networks of interdependence across multi continental distances, linked through flows and influences of capital and foods, information and ideas, people and force (ibid, p.228-233). Therefore, soft power – the ability to get the desired outcome through attraction (Nye, 2004) – has been naturally emerging in importance. From this, not only economic assistance, but cultural exchanges have become a powerful tool to gain more favourable public opinion and credibility abroad. This thesis will especially focus on the ‘cultural exchanges’ part – more precisely, cultural diplomacy: what it is and what and how it is achieved.
This chapter will first discuss core concepts of cultural diplomacy and its emergence. Then, the essential elements – which distinguish cultural diplomacy from other forms of diplomacy – and meaning of cultural attaché in cultural diplomacy will be explained. Finally, the brief conceptual framework – that will be applied throughout the entire thesis – and the organisation/direction/outline of the thesis will be given.
1.1 Core Concepts
Cultural diplomacy is about representing national cultures abroad – more specifically, constructing the diplomatic tools to develop long-lasting relations with other nations by understanding each other in friendly and cosmopolitan ways (Cesar, 2007:20). Like other forms of diplomacy, cultural diplomacy is also; a representation of the national interest abroad; a collection of knowledge, advice, negotiation skills and social networks; and a tool to influence their power to other countries by managing the consular activities. Before the start of the 20th Century, cultural diplomacy was actively and unintentionally used by civilisations ranging from the Byzantine and Roman Empires to the British and French Empires of the 19th and 20th centuries. Since the late 20th, countries have begun to pay much closer attention to cultural diplomacy because it plays an integral role in the political world nowadays. This has led to a diverse range of organisations and even educational establishments to further promote and develop the policy.
However, it is still considered as an ‘underestimated area’ of diplomatic activities – by comparison to economic and military diplomacy (Pajtinka, 2014:95). The underestimation of it is likely to be caused by imprecise or even incorrect ideas about the scope of its activities. In fact, cultural events organised and attended by diplomats is only a small part of the whole picture of cultural diplomacy. In cultural diplomacy, there are more diverse forms of actors and audiences involved in different types of cultural activities and events.
This thesis will examine whether this underestimated area functions as a powerful diplomatic tool in the current political world though discourses of questions and arguments that exist in this particular corner of cultural diplomacy. In this chapter, a brief historical background of cultural diplomacy, different definitions and theories will be discussed.
1.1.a Emergence of Cultural Diplomacy
The evolution of cultural diplomacy in historical context is still divided. Pajtinka (2014)
argues that cultural diplomacy firstly initiated as a specific instrument of foreign policy because states attempted to implement the idea of purposeful use of culture in order to promote foreign policy goals. Hamilton and Langhorne(1995) argue that there were some signs of cultural diplomacy dating back to the medieval times. In this period of time, Byzantine missionaries "deliberately disseminated not only [Christian] religious doctrine, but along with it, the [Byzantine] view of the world, its ideas, beliefs, and customs" (Hamilton and Langhorne, 1995:17.)
The origins of modern cultural diplomacy are related to the establishment of institutions of which the goals were to foster acknowledgement from foreign public in the 19th Century. For example, in 1883, a French diplomat P.Cambon founded Allian Francaise1 in order to ensure the influence of French language and culture around the world (French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, 2014). It is legally not a diplomatic body of France, instead a non-governmental organisation (NGO). Nevertheless, its activities always are intimately organised and coordinated with governmental goals – specifically, those of the French Foreign Ministry. During the first half of the 20th Century, more governmental institutions with specific cultural-diplomatic functions have been embodied all over the world. For instance, the French government started to send cultural attachés to fulfil specific diplomatic missions during World War I (Outrey, 1953). Plus, British Council was also founded by the British diplomat Sir R. Leeper in 1934. In the same period, the U.S. Department of State also established Division of Cultural Relations which was a specialised part for cultural diplomacy, and also promoted by F. D. Roosevelt, the president of the time. He was willing to coordinate and promote the development of cultural relations with countries in Latin America because the region had become a ‘battleground’ between two competing ideologies – capitalism and communism – during the Cold War. President Roosevelt attempted to strive to counterbalance growing influence of fascism in the region (Sablosky, 2003). Cultural diplomacy, therefore, has emerged as an important instrument involved in ideological struggles since the Cold War era. Kurucz has mentioned that culture has become an integral part of the contest between ‘two power blocs’ (2007:64).
The United States particularly make a lot of effort to design curriculums to spread the values of democracy and freedom which are elements of American cultural identity in the world. Americans are aware of the loss of international respect for the United States. In the poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre (2004), roughly 70% of Americans responded that the US is less respected by other countries than in the past, and 50% of Americans expressed that this loss of respect is not a minor problem anymore, but major to the US. The US government agency, United States Information Agency (USIA), is the best example of American effort at cultural diplomacy. In the 1950s, it was in charge of the US cultural-diplomatic activities both in an out of the country. USIA played an important role during the Cold war, and there were a few accounts of coordination that it had with private actors – such as university jazz bands. These band tours will be further discussed later in the thesis, but they were successful in terms of having personal contact with people from the opposite ideology. Finn (2003) argued that although the State Department’s Division of Cultural Relations sponsorship by the government agency is regarded as inappropriate and counterproductive today, but it is a useful reminder of how seriously the government took the promotion of mutual understanding through cultural exchange. She continued that “policymakers understood the link between engagements with foreign audiences and victory over ideological enemies and considered cultural diplomacy vital to US national security (2003: 15)”. One of the main points of cultural diplomacy is to promote a ‘dialogue’ in order to win the hearts and minds of moderate elements in societies vulnerable to radicalism (ibid).
1.1.b Diplomacy: The Public and Representations
Besides to ‘dialogue’, there are other essential parts of cultural diplomacy. As Signitzer and Coombs (1992) mentioned, the term diplomacy usually conjured up images of nation-states sending formal documents to other nation-states (p.138). In other words, cultural diplomacy carries carries the connotation of official government involvement under the umbrella of diplomacy. Furthermore, in terms of communicating with foreign actors, it has public relations targets. Wilcox et al. (1989) defined public relations as the planned and organised effort of a company, institution, or government to establish mutually beneficial relations with the publics of other nations” (p.395) . They further claimed that “national governments attempted to influence the policies and actions of other nations through their lobbying and public information efforts” (ibid, p.404). Since cultural diplomacy is a diplomatic tool that has an aim to target public relations, this can be defined as a sub-category of public diplomacy. Delaney (1968) defined public diplomacy as “the way in which both government and private individuals and groups influence directly or indirectly those public attitudes and opinions which bear directly on another government’s foreign policy decisions” (p.3). The objective of public diplomacy is “to influence the behaviour of a foreign government by influencing the attitudes of its citizens” (Malone, 1988, p. 3), and “to influence public’s onions in order to affect the behaviour of some government body to pursue their own benefit“ (Sethi, 1987).
Based on the interesting distinction between the tough-minded and the tender-minded schools in public diplomacy suggested by Deibel and Robert (1976), Signitzer and Coombs provided a clear explication (Firgure 1.) of cultural diplomacy as a subcomponent of public diplomacy.
(Fig1. Conceptualisation of Public Diplomacy, Source: Signitzer and Coombs, 1992)
As the figure explains, the aim of public diplomacy in the perspective of tough-minded schools is to influence on attitudes of foreign audiences using persuasion and propaganda. Fast media – such as television and newspapers – are the median to convey hard political information rather than cultural programs. By contrast, the tender-minded school emphasises that the creation a climate of mutual understanding between nation-states is a more important goal to achieve in current foreign policy. Unlike the former, this school adopts slow media – such as exhibitions, language instruction and artistic exchanges – which can spread messages about not only cultural lifestyles, but also political and economic systems of a nation-state (ibid, p.141).
Cultural diplomacy has characteristics of the both. It is often confused with cultural relations, but they have different goals. Cultural diplomacy is more ‘formal’ compared to cultural relations due to the presence of a states’ or governments’ agenda. Both are organised or regulated by the state in general, yet numerous private actors are involved in them (Kurucz 2007, p.65). When those private actors hold their events ‘spontaneously’ – as in independently from the state and its foreign policy achievements, it loses the feature of diplomacy and becomes cultural relations.
There is no one established definition for cultural diplomacy because there are still various views and approaches within the field of it, but as demonstrated earlier, it is about representing national cultures abroad (Cesar, 2007:20). As an diplomatic tool, it develops long-lasting relations with other nations based on understanding and empathising. To grasp better meaning of cultural diplomacy, this paper will break down the term into two words ‘culture’ and ‘diplomacy’. Culture refers to the set of values and practices that create meaning for a society (Nye, 2004:3). Similarly, UNESCO also defined it as “the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group” that “encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs” (UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2001). A unified culture works as the glue that binds civil societies because it “provides for the common assumptions which undergird markets, laws and regulations” (Feigenbaum, 2001:7). On the other hand, difference in cultures can put countries into worse relationships. It, hence, is crucial to understand the culture of other people and nations. Natarajan (2017) also argued that cultural contacts are revealing and instructive in international relations. Next word ‘diplomacy’ – as mentioned above – can be substituted with foreign policy. In summary, cultural diplomacy is a set of activities – undertaken directly by or in collaboration with state/government bodies – that aim to promote foreign policy by fostering cultural exchange with foreign states.
1.1.c The Cultural Attaché
Like it mentioned earlier, culture has ‘dual potentials/abilities’ that make things bond together or separate from each other. Therefore, the way to convey culture should be carefully chosen. In this sense, a figure delivers the cultural representations is also an important matter.
In cultural diplomacy, there are several actors and audiences are involved. Cesar (2007) came up with the term ‘cultural attaché’ to refer the actors who appear as acting diplomats – who represent a sovereign, a country, their customs, personal objects and cultures (p.19). Moreno-Pino also defined that ‘cultural attaché’ is someone or group of people who are responsible for making the academics in the target country aware of their nation’s culture by disseminating through slow media – such as conferences and exhibitions (1996: 166). Finn (2003) and Nye (2004) also described ‘cultural attaché’ as a cultural diplomat who mainly persuades to strengthen security issues with using soft-power.
The performative role of cultural attaché varies from artists to propagandist to extreme cases. The diverse spectrum of ‘cultural attaché’ leads to different outcomes of cultural diplomacy. This will be the main focus on this thesis – whether different ‘cultural attachés’ affect on the result of cultural promotion through cultural diplomacy.
1.2 Conceptual Framework
Similar to ‘cultural attaché’, different groups of scholars and politicians have various perspectives to cultural diplomacy. Even though there is a clear distinction between cultural relations and cultural diplomacy, the degree of involvement of political or official institutions is still ambiguous. Thus, a number of pundits attribute a diverse emphasis on the nature and role of cultural diplomacy – more precisely, the degree of political intention behind cultural diplomacy or government involvement in cultural-diplomatic activities.
Some scholars – such as Enders (2005), Hubinger (2006), Kurucz (2007) – argue that it should be regarded as a specific but integral part of state foreign policy goals. For example, Enders explained that it should work as “the instrument that serves for political purposes” (Enders, 2005:176). Hubinger also agreed that it is “an important instrument of state foreign policy, associated with the presentation, promotion and positive image building of a state, by means of cultural activities” (Hubinger, 2006:85).
By contrast, another group of scholars – such as Cummings (2003), Frieberg (2013) and Ota (2013) – emphasise that the main reason of cultural diplomacy is to promote mutual understandings between states rather than to one achieve states’ political or economic interest. Cummings (2003) contended that cultural diplomacy is the exchange of ideas, information and other aspects of culture between countries and peoples in order to foster mutual understanding and in many cases active cooperation.
As shown varied definitions and focus on cultural diplomacy have formed a diverse theoretical backbone in cultural diplomacy. Melissen pointed out that cultural diplomacy is a prime example of soft power, but it also is often easily dismissed as too soft and peripheral to the real issues of policy (2005:xxiii). This implies that there is no concrete pillars to analyse overflowing cases in the field of public and cultural diplomacy. Cesar (2007:20) developed specific/sub-questions analysing different representations of cultural diplomacy in his thesis – such as:
“how” is cultural diplomacy understood and constructed in the representation;
“what” is the significance of cultural representations for contemporary cultural diplomacies;
“how” can identities be constructed to inform the overarching cultural diplomacy representations.
These questions made his thesis more straightforward and clear. Based on his notion, below this thesis will set up a few questions to help find an answer and clarify the answer posed by this thesis. The question can be generally divided into two approaches – concept and structure. The conceptual approach will look at motivations of cultural diplomacy, so questions that can be asked are:
What do nations, rulers, governments and citizens desire to achieve by familiarising others with their own culture?
What is the content of their programs?
In turn, the structural approach questions will focus on the setup part, so questions can be:
Who are the responsible agents of cultural diplomacy?
How do they correlate with state interest?
These questions will work as a yardstick to measure the effectiveness/successfulness and achievement of two case studies of cultural diplomacy – that will be further discussed in chapter 2 and 3.
1.3 Organisation of the Thesis
As discussed, a large number cultural attachés have focused on cultural diplomacy in international relations in this era. This implies that a significance of cultural diplomacy has been emerging as well. Friberg perceived the modern political world as a “battlefield of public diplomacy” (1989:4). Signitzer and Coombs (1992) also argued that the field of diplomacy has been experiencing a shift away from ‘traditional diplomacy’ to ‘public diplomacy’ (p.138) – which is the broader (or perhaps, more holistic) concept of cultural diplomacy. Kiehl (1989) analysed this shift has happened because of development in two things: 1) communication technology and 2) public participation to the foreign countries. Moreover, globalisation has stimulated worldwide growth and enabled states to integrate markets and technologies (Feigenbaum, 2001:7). Communication technology has united the world and created a global marketplace of ideas – which cannot be ignored since nation-states make a decision based on their images, so called nation branding (Cesar, 2007). National branding is another reason that a number of nation-states try their best to develop cultural programs with other states – which is closely related to soft power (Nye, 2004).
Considering what has been briefly discussed in this chapter, the outline of this thesis will start with understanding of theoretical backbones cultural diplomacy in depth. In the second part of chapter 2, then will introduce comparative historical politics as a political research methodology for my dissertation topic. This method will analyse dependent and independent variables in cultural diplomacy, then be used to test two case studies – jazz tours presented by different cultural attachés in chapter 3 of the thesis. It will be an important tool to gauge whether identity of cultural performers plays an important role in modern cultural diplomacy.
Jazz diplomacy is an excellent example of a specific form of cultural diplomacy this thesis will focus on because it has been rather neglected and has perhaps become unfashionable as not many people appear to pay attention to it these days. However, it has made an important contribution throughout the history – and especially the Cold War era. The power of jazz is still recognised by scholars -for instance, Stowe (2010) argued that jazz is a ‘powerful social force which has cut broadly and deeply, its prophets, rituals and myths touching not only individuals sounds but large groups, bringing intimations of magic and the sacred to an era whose norms changes have deleted conventional faiths’ (p.313-314). Since it still has a potential as a powerful tool in the modern political world, my claim is that it is worth analysing/looking back on effect of jazz diplomacy.
While looking at two historical cases of jazz diplomacy in the chapter 3, dependent and independent variables introduces in chapter 2 will be applied in real cases. From the test, this thesis will analyse what causes a bigger impact of cultural diplomacy, and causal relationship between the causes and result. The shortcomings and an evaluation of cases, as well as suggestions in what sense the test was important/meaningful – and possible improvement for future research – will be a conclusion.
Page Break
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework and methodology
Cultural diplomacy sits on a spectrum of ideational approaches to diplomacy – alongside it on this spectrum one can locate soft power, nation branding and propaganda (Goff, 2013:1). The first part of this chapter will discuss two different theoretical concepts of cultural diplomacy; based on realism and constructivism of theories of international relations. In this theoretical discussion, the intention of government and political engagement of cultural attachés are the crucial point to look at. The second part of the chapter, then, introduces comparative historical analysis to assess whether identity of actors is an important factor to lead greater success in cultural-diplomatic events. Before applying the methodology to the real cases in chapter 3, advantages of this method and reasons that the thesis has adopted it will be revealed.
2.1 Different schools of thoughts
It is difficult to depict the conduct of diplomacy in the absence of the ambassador, the diplomatic mission, and the consulate (Goff, 2013). In the case of cultural diplomacy, the official/governmental body does not have to physically be there when the events are held. Yet, since it is still a subset of actions and programs under the heading of public diplomacy, the government involvement is necessary to some extent. British historian Nick Cull represents that cultural diplomacy attempts to manage the international environment through making the nation’s cultural transmission abroad (Cull, 2007). Arndt (2005) also sharply distinguishes cultural diplomacy from cultural relations. Unlike cultural relations – for instance, millions of daily cross-cultural enchanters like intermarriage, book circulation and migration which grow naturally without government intervention, cultural diplomacy engages formal diplomates in the service of national governments who employ these exchanges to achieve national interest (p.xviii).
Its motivations also vary from prospects of improved economic export to cultural and political recognition around the world (Gienow-Hecht and Donfried, 2013:19). Gienow-Hecht and Donfried (2013) still emphasised that the “Science” of cultural diplomacy lays on the exchange of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, and beliefs in all aspects of our societies – such as art, sports, science, literature and music – with the intention of fostering mutual understanding. Whereas, some scholars – such as Vaughan (2007), and Hubinger(2006) – highlight the political motivations of cultural diplomacy.
While cultural diplomacy has emerged as a named and intentional policy since the twentieth century, a proliferation of civil societies has also occurred. For instance, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), institutions and artists are involved in the support of government goals from foreign policy. It is challenging to achieve a goal of the government in cultural diplomacy without their support. Gienow-Hecht and Donfried (2003) claimed that civil societies have often had more freedom to pursue their own mission statements, at times idealistic, at others pragmatic (p.23). There are still potential risks when unofficial cultural attachés become the main actor in an event of cultural diplomacy. Non-governmental bodies do not necessarily have the same interest with the state, so once they have different aims, it is difficult to determine the aim of the diplomatic action.
In other words, cultural diplomacy is a perplexing and controversial concept. As Haigh (1974) argued, it is often interchangeably used with “propaganda” and even “cultural exchange”. This is because the intensity of the cultural diplomatic activity is diverse, depending on the state and its foreign policy priorities and ambitions (Pajtinka, 2014). In practice, its main activities range from disseminating national culture and its identity to negotiating international treaties on cultural cooperation. The different perspectives of cultural diplomacy have resulted in two different theoretical frameworks – propagandist theory and cultural promotion theory.
2.1.a Propagandist – Realism
A group of scholars who argue that the government plays a role as propagandist in cultural diplomacy believe that the use of culture is merely ‘an instrument of state policy’ with limited private participation (Vaughan, 2007). A. Enders – a German diplomat – also observed ‘the nature of cultural diplomacy’ as the instrument that serves for political purposes and establishes its own objectives that are derived from the general foreign policy objectives (Enders, 2005:176). These scholars view that events organised in an attempt cultural diplomacy are one of activities oriented on exchange of cultural values ‘in line with the goals of foreign policy’ (Kurucz, 2007:62). The emphasis of cultural diplomacy is still laid on diplomacy rather than culture, so scholars in this group believe that the main function of cultural diplomacy is ‘an important instrument of state foreign policy which associated with the presentation, promotion and positive image building of a state by means of cultural activities’ (Hubinger 2006:85).
This propagandistic view of cultural diplomacy can be interpreted through one of the most traditional and dominant theories in international relations – Realism. Political Realism is a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2011). To be more precise, realists contend that power to keep the security is the main motive of states and states rely on its own power rather than rely on its alliances to influence the behaviour of other states (ibid, p.43). Morgenthau (2006) emphasised that political realism believes that politics is governed by objective laws which drive from human nature and the main signpost of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power. They, hence, perceive that the contemporary conditions of foreign policy with extreme instability and ever-present threat of large-scale violence will be endless.
Realists argue that power can be interpreted as influence. Power is not influence itself, but the ‘ability or potential’ to influence others. Goldstein and Pevehouse (2011) defined power as the ability to get other [states] to do what it would not otherwise have done (p.45). Realists note that states have moral forces in themselves by not only protecting citizens but also existing in international community (Goldstein and Pevehouse: 2011: 74). In realism theory, the power of states can be estimated by various elements – political culture, patriotism, and education can be fungible elements of a long-term power. Therefore, the propagandistic view of cultural diplomacy is clearly understood by the realistic point of view.
In fact, Fayet (2010) grapples with the tension between propaganda and diplomacy. He viewed cultural diplomacy as a state-controlled propaganda tool. The best instance he demonstrated is cultural diplomacy in the Soviet Union from the 1920s onward took the dimension of cultural propaganda work. Propaganda activities in cultural diplomacy had been conducted to influence the world or countries with the opponent ideology. As expressed above, realists insist that orders can be formed through balance of power. Waltz (1979) also suggested that foreign policy continuously occur to defend their own nation from the fear of other states’ power. From the perspective of realists, nation-states carry on their cultural diplomacy to influence other nation-states or foreign public to keep its power and the balance of power in international relations as a means of propaganda.
Neoclassical realists also concur that states have different interests and levels of efficiency, but tensions in between states are inevitable. Considering that ethical policies generated aura of legitimacy and respect (Morgenthau, 2006), propagandist theoretical framework does not completely mean that nation-states are in rivalry positions. Most of all, cultural diplomacy was traditionally defined in large part by national governments as a prime example of soft power or the ability to persuade through culture, value and ideas (Gienow-Hecht and Donfried, 2013:19) – which offered a neutral bridge that fosters and sustains a two-way cultural dialogue and exchange. Scholars who argue realists and propagandists in the filed of cultural diplomacy take governmental agencies as the ground in a need to safeguard the rights of the citizens of the country (ibid). These scholars also advocate that targets and motivations of cultural-diplomatic movements are mutually interchangeable (Magnúsdóttir, 2010).
The outgrowth of cultural diplomacy since 1945, cultural productions became the most powerful tools for the promotion of ideological goals and strategies. According to 1959 definition of the US state department, cultural diplomacy entails “the direct and enduring contact between peoples of different nations” in order to “help create a better climate of international trust and understating in which official relations can operate”, but “manipulation of cultural materials and personnel for propaganda purposes, and a branch of intergovernmental propaganda” (US department of state, 1959:iv). The Soviet Union (USSR) also conducted cultural activities aiming to disseminate a positive and controlled image of it abroad. It believed that cultural diplomacy would rebuild the Soviet economy and restore the nation’s diplomatic credibility (Gienow-Hecht and Donfried, 2013:5). The images of ideological and political rivalries of two ‘super powers’ commenced to spread all over the world with the advancement of technologies and mass media. The two powers – US and USSR – focus on conducting diplomatic relations through cultural practices – for instance, education/exchange programs, the arts, international sport and so on – in different regions to advance their respective national interests (ibid, p.7).
In conclusion, propaganda efforts – as in defensive side of the cultural cold war – continued to be made with the aim of competing for an influence in the world. Nations-states wished to ‘avoid open political or military conflict’, but still influence the world and keep their power in the world order. Thus, they believe the main mechanism of cultural diplomacy is propaganda movement.
2.1.b Cultural Promotion – Constructivism
In contrast to Propagandist theory, this ‘cultural promotion’ theoretical framework puts emphasis on the term ‘culture’ instead of diplomacy. Scholars – such as Cummings, Ota and Frieberg- believe that cultural diplomacy is beyond the realm of the state official activities. Cummings highlighted that the main objective of cultural diplomacy is “the exchange of ideas, information, art and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples to foster mutual understandings between nation-states (Cummings, 2003:1), rather than to pursue foreign policy interest. Ota (2013) also even dismissed the necessity of state agencies in cultural diplomacy. He argued that cultural-diplomatic activities have been undertaken mostly by non-governmental actors or even individuals to promote the culture of country. Similarly, Frieberg (2013) also defined cultural diplomacy as diplomatic activities by “non-state actors” – not just NGOs, but anyone in the name of nation – attempting to accomplish an exchange in foreign relations. Apart from the radical perspectives by Ota and Frieberg, Aoki-Okabe et al (2013) classified cultural diplomacy into two different ways; the promotion aboard of national culture; and imperative international cultural exchange. As demonstrated earlier, the structure of it can be very complex due to many cultural attachés and audiences involved in it. Aoki-Okabe et al (2013) provides examples of Japanese NGOs developing Japanese cultural diplomacy which only get funded by the government. They believe the main achievement from cultural diplomacy is to promote interactive cultural programs – which are like official/government policy, and this can be acquired from a close collaboration between the public and private actors.
This approach to the concept of cultural diplomacy can be further elaborated by another international relations theory – Constructivism. To start with definitions, constructivists claimed that “culture is more than a summation of the shared ideas that individuals have in their heads, but a “communally sustained” and thus inherently public phenomenon” (Wendt, 1999: 164). Tylor (1976) argued that a constructivist definition of culture is “complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (1976: 1). Kuper also added that we are not naturally born with cultural background but made – ‘culturally constructed’ – into what we are (Kuper, 2001: 32). The concept of culture forms cultural diplomacy discourse in a way that the government’s understanding of the concept leads that government can interactive with other nation states and foreign public with cultural diplomacy (Manuela Aguilar, 1996)
The link between cultural diplomacy and constructivism was well organised by Cesar (2007). He provided three ways of representations in cultural diplomacy- Soft Power (SP), Nation Branding (NB) and Cosmopolitan Constructivism(CC)2. The former two are not closely related to constructivist perspective, but Cosmopolitan Constructivism is highly relevant to the perspective of ‘cultural promotion’. This concept emphasised the cooperation and identity politics in cultural diplomacy to achieve a mechanism for common understanding and peace. Cesar referred CC as “Reflexive” one – which means that nation-states will be reflexive on their images and behaviour established in international relations, and make it more favourable to more nation-states by improving a way to convey understanding of their own identity (ibid, p.23). To rephrase that, governments decide whether they should organise a cultural-diplomatic event after reflecting on their position and image in the world politics.
Hanna Pitkin’s theory of reflexions on representations is also similar with Cesar’s CC. She (1967) argued that a political concept creates an obligation between a representative and a constituency. According to her, this political obligation in terms of representing or being represented can be perceived in the formalistic view. This view includes two concepts; ‘authorisation' – that is about actors performing on behalf of others; and ‘accountability’ – that is about actors representing due to bonds or responsibilities (1967:110). Pitkin’s distinction is a useful tool to look at because it will help clarifying the position and motivation of actors in cultural-diplomatic activities. It can be difficult to tell what motives or desired outcomes actors want to achieve from representing the country – especially when the actors are not government agencies or have no political intention. Her point of view is an essential part to consider for this thesis. It will be useful when distinguishing identity of actors in cultural diplomacy.
Since cultural diplomacy is still a subset of foreign policy, it is impossible to be completely pure or neutral – as in no political intention involved, but a study by Gienow-Hecht and Donfried (2013) discovered the connectivity between the distance from governments and private sector agendas and how that works/appeals to audiences. The authors elaborated that “the more distance there is between the agent of a cultural diplomacy programs and a political or economic agenda, the more likely the program is to succeed” (2013:23). Additionally, “the more interactive meaning that dialogue and exchange move in both directions between the agent and recipient of the cultural diplomacy program the structure of the cultural program, the more likely it is to be sustainable and therefore successful “(ibid). In other words, when the programs are closely linked to governments or their agendas, the programs are not attractive to the target audiences and there can even be associated negative feeling towards the associated nation. Foreign publics tend to dislike messages conveyed by different governments because they sense the propagandistic movement from foreign government programs and resent inter-national attempts to pursue a national agenda in their own nation. Nation-states, hence, have become more aware of the significance of cultural diplomacy, and cautions of the degree of neutrality of their initiates and their legitimacy.
In conclusion, Gienow-Hecht and Donfried (2013) argued that it is difficult to determine whether governmental initiatives represent efforts to build dialogue, understanding and trust, or are rather a means of promoting a national agenda. However, constructivists advocate that the primary aim of cultural-diplomatic events is to promote better mutual understanding between nation-states in practice, and that cultural understanding will contribute to better understanding for foreign policy interest of different states as well.
2.2 Methodology
This thesis is argued, methodologically speaking, mainly from comparative historical analysis (CHA), by which I mean the thesis will compare two historical events and analyse the cause and effect relationship with identifying dependent and independent variables. CHA is often used to produce causal arguments about the macro-sociological phenomena (Ritter, 2014:1), but also to develop, test, and refine causal, explanatory hypotheses about events or structures integral to macros-units such as nation-states (Skocpol, 1979:36).
Among various type of comparative and historical research styles, this thesis has adopted CHA as the main method. CHA involves the investigation of events that either have an important impact on subsequent developments or provide an opportunity for testing the implications of a general theory (Halperin and Heath, 2017:241). Most of all, the comparative method has several advantages over the single country case study. Rose (1991) argued that single country case study will help to guard against the twin dangers; false uniqueness and false universalism. False uniqueness emphasises the specificity of the case, entirely ignoring the general social forces at work, and does not move beyond ‘thick description’ (Halperin and Heath, 2017:212). This problem usually occurs where researchers emphasise how ‘unique or exceptional’ their chosen country of analysis is, and seal themselves off from wider engagement with what is being written about in other countries. By contrast, false universalism assumes that the theory tested in one country/context will be equally applicable to other countries (ibid). The important function of comparison is descriptive – that will lead to analysing correlations. Plus, by looking at the correlations between variables, it is easy to distinguish analytical emphasis on causal relationships. CHA necessarily deals with only a limited number of cases (Ritter, 2014:4). This thesis will compare jazz tours that were delivered by two types of performers.
The main methodological contribution in this work rests on the correlations between the different identities of performers and the result of cultural promotion. I have narrowed down to the result of cultural promotion rather than both theoretical frameworks – propaganda and cultural promotion, because the scope of the thesis is limited to conduct a research for the both. By focusing on the aspect of cultural promotion, this paper will test whether identity of performers affects the degree of cultural promotion.
To establish causal relationships between dependent and independent variables, CHA in this thesis employs a logic called “method of difference”. This means that “contrast cases in which the phenomenon to be explained and the hypothesised causes are present to other (‘negative’) cases in which the phenomenon and the causes are both absent, although they are as similar as possible to the ‘positive’ cases in other respects” (Skocpol and Somers, 1980:183).
Referring to Mill’s comparative method, I have provided a chart, where y represents the dependent variable and all other letters represent independent variables – A, B and C are the consistent ones, but X is the inconsistent one (Chart 1). The inconsistent independent variable ‘X’ is the identity of performers – which will be tested to see correlations with dependent variable ‘Y’ – that is the degree of cultural promotion. In the chart, they are divided as professional and amateur performers for convenience. To be more specific, professional performers mean jazz musicians that are renowned all over the world with a few international experience, in contrast, amateur ones imply students in University of Michigan Jazz band – who have never had an international experience before the tour.