251 shades of diplomacy: Inflated terminology and deflated respect for diplomacy

As of today (22 October), I have identified 240 types of diplomacy, ranging from classical to TikTok diplomacy. This research is a ‘collateral advantage’ of my exploration of terminological confusion surrounding digitalisation and diplomacy over the past three decades. One paradox struck me: the more the term diplomacy is used, the less it is used and respected by an increasingly polarised society.

While you go through types of diplomacy, please add the missing ones here:

Evolution and terminological confusion

Once, simply saying ‘diplomacy’ was enough. Then, in the early 2000s, came ‘cyber diplomacy,’ an apt term for a time when cyber-field emerged as a new international engagement domain. By 2011, with the rise of ‘Facebook diplomacy’ during the Arab Spring, the floodgates of terminology burst open.

Today, we have nearly 30 variations of ‘diplomacy’ related to technology—from commonly used terms like cyber, digital, and tech diplomacy to newer ones like Zoom, Instagram, and selfie diplomacy. The search for terminological clarity, as illustrated below, is identified as one of the main challenges for U.S. digital/cyber diplomacy in a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

While helping students and diplomats navigate the terminological confusion surrounding ‘digital diplomacy,’ I realized the growing popularity of the term ‘diplomacy’ in other areas, leading to the current count of 234 types of diplomacy listed below.

Diplomacy around us

As I explored new uses of the term ‘diplomacy,’ one paradox became apparent: the more diplomacy becomes fashionable as a brand in everyday and public discourse, the less relevant it is in its core function of resolving conflicts in a polarized modern society. Like with money, the inflation of the term ‘diplomacy’ has diminished its value in a world where military logic and power often prevail.

You can see this trend in your towns—hotels named ‘Diplomat,’ ‘Ambassador,’ or ‘Consul’ abound, yet it is rare to find a street named after a famous diplomat or negotiator. Even historical figures like Metternich and Richelieu are relegated to side streets in Vienna and Paris. This may reflect the nature of what diplomats do: broker compromises—acts of subtle bravery that lack the drama of military victories.

The courage of compromise

Compromise, the key tool of diplomacy, requires courage. It means persuading one’s own people to respect the interests of ‘others’—a deeply unpopular stance in the simplistic narratives of national glory that dominate official histories.

In my forthcoming work, I explore how this form of bravery is largely unrecognised and how societies might benefit from redefining what it means to be brave and a hero. Diplomacy—the art of compromise—is not just about negotiations; it’s about building a society that respects others enough to seek inclusive solutions.

A call for re-evaluating diplomacy

My exploration began with the inflated use of tech-related diplomacy terms but led me to question the value of diplomacy itself. What can be done?

First, we must clarify what we mean when we use the term ‘diplomacy.’ For example, is ‘digital diplomacy’ the use of TikTok or the web for public diplomacy and propaganda, or is it an umbrella term for the impact of digitalisation on diplomacy? While we are not seeking a single, definitive definition, at Diplo, we use ‘digital diplomacy’ to describe the influence of digitalisation on the political and power environment in which diplomats operate, the emergence of new AI and digital topics that diplomats must negotiate, and the use of new tech tools in their daily work. We also strive for clarity of meaning in other uses of the term ‘diplomacy.’

Second, as we discuss terminology, we should delve deeper into the public perception and value of diplomacy and compromise as essential societal tools for resolving conflicts within and between nations.

I look forward to hearing your views and suggestions!