Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy | Introduction

In mid-2002, DiploFoundation began preparations for its first international conference on Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy, to be held in February 2003. For the first time, Diplo reached beyond the world of diplomacy, international organisations, and academia, to extend an invitation to the business community, specifically to providers of training and consultancy in intercultural communication. We invited proposals from a number of companies, telling them that we would select those best suited to our needs. We were surprised when, after sending out our polite rejection letters, instead of receiving the usual formal acknowledgement or non-response from diplomats and academics, we received back arguments, attempts at persuasion and, in a few cases, angry or rude responses questioning our judgement! We discovered, quite abruptly, that within this community the practice was to negotiate things that a diplomat would never consider negotiating. Our encounter with a new professional community illustrated well a cultural difference in modes of communication based on professional differences. Today, in almost any career, we encounter differences daily in communication styles based on national, professional and organisational cultures.

Each of us has absorbed or adopted, usually unconsciously, attitudes, values, and beliefs from our social environment. Geert Hofstede describes these patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting as “software of the mind,” using the analogy of computer programming. He defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.”¹Geert Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997), 5; see also the paper by Geert Hofstede in this volume Because of these differences, people from one cultural group may have difficulties communicating with people from another. Researchers such as Hall, Hofstede, Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars have identified various dimensions of culture, hoping that through understanding these differences, individuals can more easily understand and communicate with each other.²Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture (New York: Anchor, 1976); Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations; Charles Hampden-Turner and Fons Trompenaars, Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business (New York: Irwin, 1993) Hofstede writes, “although the variety in people’s minds is enormous, there is a structure in this variety which can serve as a basis for mutual understanding.”³Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations, 4

Marshall R. Singer applies a perceptual approach to understanding and improving the communication process. Like other researchers, he recognises that every individual is a member of more than one cultural group, ranging from small (e.g., a family) to large (e.g., a nation). Going a step further, he argues that because no person is a part of all and only the same groups as anyone else and because each person ranks the attitudes, values, and beliefs of the groups to which he or she belongs differently … each individual must be considered to be culturally unique. … [T]his means that every interpersonal communication must, to some degree, also be an intercultural communication.⁴Marshall R. Singer, Perception and Identity in Intercultural Communication (Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press, 1998), xiii However, in most cases we share at least one, and often many groups with those with whom we interact, leading to at least some commonalities in perception. Singer quotes Harry Hoijer, who writes, “Intercultural communication, however wide the differences between cultures may be, is not impossible. It is simply more or less difficult, depending on the degree of difference between the cultures concerned.”⁵ Harry Hoijer, “The Sapir-Whorf Hypotheses,” in Language in Culture, ed. Harry Hoijer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), cited in Singer, Perception and Identity, 8-9 Singer suggests that the first step towards improving intercultural communication involves understanding the impact of culture on everything we think and do, and the fact that other people have different cultures, and, therefore, are likely to think and act differently than we do. It is essential to keep an open mind, suspend judgement, and learn as much as possible about the other culture. Finally, an understanding of the communication process itself is important.⁶Singer, Perception and Identity, 98

Why is effective communication across cultures important? Throughout history people have been afraid of “the other,” usually avoiding and sometimes even fighting or killing those different from them. In today’s multicultural societies, people with different cultural backgrounds are no longer separated by national borders, but may share the same cities and neighbourhoods, making intercultural conflict often a domestic rather than an international matter. New information and communications technologies make contact between people on different sides of the world a commonplace occurrence. Of course, improved intercultural communication does not guarantee an end to conflict, but, as Singer points out, it can reduce misperception and fear based on misperception, and ensure that when conflict does occur, parties at least have a common understanding of the conflict.⁷Singer, Perception and Identity, xv

Diplomats started communicating interculturally long before the development of today’s multicultural societies and workplaces. Many diplomats came to their careers through a natural interest and ability to communicate with members of other national cultures. However, in current international relations a natural interest is not necessarily enough. First, in terms of national cultural differences, diplomats posted abroad for short terms need to learn how to communicate within a different culture very quickly while retaining the ability to report effectively within their own culture. Appropriate training and preparation can help diplomats learn to communicate more quickly and effectively in a new culture.

Second, diplomats now communicate with members of a growing number of professional cultures within different national cultures. As well as nation states and international organisations, non-governmental organisations and the private sector are increasingly active on the international scene. An understanding of the different professional and organisational cultures of these international players is essential for a diplomat.

Finally, diplomats increasingly address not only foreign audiences, but foreign and domestic audiences simultaneously. At times, diplomacy must work to convince the domestic audience about foreign policy moves. This domestic communication is increasingly direct: diplomats now communicate on a day-to-day basis with journalists, business people, pressure groups, religious institutions, and local authorities – each group with its own specific professional and organisational characteristics.

The papers presented in this volume not only address the topic of intercultural communication, but they approach it from a wide range of cultural perspectives; the authors hail from 17 different countries and a variety of professional sectors, including foreign services, universities, businesses, and non-governmental organisations. $(The views expressed in the papers presented in this volume represent the views of the authors. They are not necessarily the views of DiploFoundation). Through these papers, the reader will begin to see that intercultural communication pervades the work of the diplomat. A thorough understanding of the communication process and of the influence of culture on communication is essential. The negotiations and decision-making that define the work of the diplomat affect the lives of people of many nations; ensuring effective communication and that parties emerge with a common understanding is crucial.

The first section of this volume sets the scene, with a number of papers focusing on the theory and basics of intercultural communication. Geert Hofstede, a pioneer of intercultural research, outlines the cultural dimensions he identified through his research with IBM employees, and reflects on the role of diplomats as “cultural bridge builders.” Heather Robinson, an interculturalist, and Lewis R. Macfarlane, a retired diplomat, share a conversation illustrating selected aspects of intercultural communication with anecdotes from diplomatic practice. Their reflections support the idea that “intercultural communication depends on what we know about ourselves as much as it does on what we know about the other.” Diana M. Lewis explores the relationship between language and culture, arguing that cultural competence includes linguistic competence, and that, rather than to language, culture is related to discourse.

This section ends with Peter Serracino Inglott’s plea for a multi-dimensional portrayal of the religions of the Mediterranean acceptable to the adherents of all three faiths and reflecting their own self-understanding. Serracino writes that it is important for us “to be concerned about the ways in which we portray each other’s religion.” I would extend this to say that we should also be concerned with the way we portray other cultures; in the words of Amin Maalouf, “it is often the way we look at other people that imprisons them within their own narrowest allegiances. And it is also the way we look at them that may set them free.”⁸Amin Maalouf, In the Name of Identity (New York: Penguin Books, 2003), 22

The papers in the second section explore the practice of intercultural communication in diplomacy. Dietrich Kappeler looks at the complexity of multilateral diplomatic relations resulting from the variety of cultures involved. Using the example of human rights, Kappeler shows how basic concepts may have vastly different meanings in different cultures and, as a result, international conventions are often accepted and even ratified by countries whose view of the subject matter vastly differs. Kappeler suggests that professional diplomats should take more time to communicate among themselves and with others about these issues, and to explain potential dangers to their own governments and to the public in their own countries and elsewhere.

The next two papers discuss the foreign cultural policy of states as a specific form of intercultural communication. Heinrich Reimann outlines the advantages of this kind of interstate communication, pointing out that culture communicates without words. He suggests that relations between countries would benefit if more investment were made in training embassy staff in cultural awareness and capacity. Valentin Katranzhiev compares the cultural content on representative ministry of foreign affairs and embassy websites worldwide to determine the usefulness of these sites for cultural and public diplomacy. His study aims to determine the extent to which these websites contribute to intercultural dialogue and understanding.

In the final paper in this section, Sandra Gillespie offers a case study focusing on the sustained cooperation between China and Africa over the last 50 years, an area relatively neglected by researchers in the West. She writes that “building international diplomacy requires understanding ourselves, others, and how we relate together. It also involves understanding how others relate among themselves.”

The third section of the volume contains two papers on public diplomacy, grouped separately from the other papers on diplomatic practice because of the particular features of intercultural communication aimed at a domestic as well as a foreign audience. R. S. Zaharna looks at post-9/11 American public diplomacy, showing how it reflects a uniquely American cultural style of communication, public relations, and advertising. Although this style of communication resonates positively with the domestic public, it resonates negatively with many foreign publics, resulting in an increasing gap between the two publics. Due to global media and IT, foreign and domestic publics can no longer be separated for public diplomacy purposes.

Biljana Scott considers post-9/11 public diplomacy in the form of social advertising campaigns aimed at building national unity out of cultural diversity. Scott warns that the image of multiculturalism presented in these campaigns discourages much needed dialogue, and she calls for intercultural communication instead. She alerts readers to the “dubious nature of some of the methods of persuasion used in the exercise of public diplomacy.”

Intercultural communication in negotiation and conflict resolution settings is the topic of the fourth section. Nike Carstarphen explains the role of personal story telling in creating shared understanding between conflictual parties. Such stories include “past personal experiences, the meaning and impact of those experiences, why and how participants came to hold their attitudes, beliefs and perspectives, and … meaning-making of the world, especially in relation to the conflict and the other.” Sharing personal stories is one of the most successful methods of “making the ‘other’ human,” as an essential first step in relationship building. In her paper, Marina Tuneva-Jovanovska begins with a personal story illustrating her understanding of the ethnic conflict that has ravaged her country. She focuses on the role of the media in creating and perpetuating ethnic tensions, presenting both pessimistic and optimistic scenarios for the future.

Yunxia Zhu and Sun Zhu analyse communication barriers in unsuccessful negotiations between Chinese and Australian businessmen. Using a number of cultural dimensions, some general and some particular to the Chinese culture, the authors show how lack of knowledge of the culture of negotiation partners can lead to a breakdown in negotiations, in diplomacy as well as business. They point out that it is a “mutual responsibility for both negotiation parties to understand the cultural realities of their negotiation partners. … Intercultural competency is, after all, a two-way learning and communication process.”

The fifth, and longest, section of this volume focuses on communication between organisational and professional cultures, an increasing area of concern for diplomats and others working in the field of international relations. Mainly through case studies, these papers examine good practice, barriers to communication and the consequences of failed communication between different professional and organisational groups. Stefano Baldi and Eduardo Gelbstein identify “jargon, protocols and uniforms” as the symbols of different organisational and professional cultures, and show how these create barriers to communication. Offering the events of 9/11 as the tragic consequences of communication breakdown, they suggest that “all of us concerned with inter-professional communication, particularly in crisis situations, should never forget the enormous responsibility that we have for the life and security of others.”

Raymond Saner and Lichia Yiu guide diplomats assigned to the UN through various informal arrangements intended to safeguard the interests of member states while allowing for collaboration in areas of interdependent needs such as the environment, peacekeeping, public health and humanitarian assistance. They describe the particular organisational culture of the UN as a result of “porous boundaries.” Also highlighting the importance of understanding organisational cultures, Caroline Linse investigates the challenges faced by women working in overseas diplomatic positions. Her interviewees suggest that knowledge of the working culture of the foreign service and embassy is more important than knowledge of the culture of the host country.

Valeriu Nicolae, though a case study on communication between Roma rights activists and the political elite, examines the organisational culture of the NGO world. Upholding open and effective communication between civil society and the government as essential for the protection of basic rights, Nicolae examines ethnic and professional cultural differences, the culture of racism, and the lack of common ground as barriers to communication. As a result of these barriers, politicians and activists prefer talking among themselves rather than to each other: “Instead of opening the windows of dialogue, most of the people who should be solving problems prefer to surrender themselves to mirrors.” He suggests that diplomats, with their cross-cultural skills, may be ideally placed to help “build bridges between those concerned with human rights and those able to implement policies meant to bring tolerance in a world ravaged by interethnic conflicts.”

Biljana Scott writes that “The distinctive characteristics of professional cultures become most apparent under the following conditions: first, when separate cultures come into contact with each other and attempt to translate across their differences; and second, when the members of one professional culture transgress the rules and mores of their community and are exposed for their mistakes.” Using the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly as a case study of both situations, she analyses aspects of the professional culture of the journalist, the politician and the scientist, focusing on the language used and the transgressions of all three professional cultures. Eduardo Gelbstein compares and contrasts two other professional cultures: information technologists and their clients, including diplomats, revealing areas of difference that lead to communication failure. He suggests a number of simple, but not necessarily easy, steps to improve communication.

Ending on a positive note, Nadia Boyadjieva and Kostadin Grozev examine the implementation of the Dayton Accords for Bosnia and Herzegovina. They present a case study of this implementation to exemplify the new type of involvement of the international community in crisis management and post-war reconstruction. In a volatile environment, the daily work of implementing these accords shows unprecedented communication and cooperation between NATO and non-NATO states, on the one hand, and between military and civilian institutions on the other.

The authors in the sixth section look specifically at the professional culture of the diplomat. Dietrich Kappeler traces the birth and evolution of diplomatic culture. He finds the roots of some aspects of this culture in the characteristics of the earliest envoys: for example, the use of persuasion rather than force, and familiarity and understanding of the host culture. Kappeler concludes that “whereas diplomatic culture has changed and keeps changing, it is by no means dead, and it should not be allowed to die!” Paul Sharp, likewise, examines the origins and characteristics of an independent diplomatic culture, which he believes “arises out of the experience of conducting relations between peoples who regard themselves as distinctive and separate from one another.” He feels that this culture is worth cultivating through appropriate training and education. This would involve overcoming influences of cultures less consistent with the practice of good diplomacy, and “getting diplomats to think of themselves as members of their respective services less and as members of an international profession more.”

The interaction of the diplomatic culture with the domestic environment is the concern of Kishan Rana’s paper. Rana holds that there is a common diplomatic culture, different from the national or civil service culture of most countries, which leads to challenges in dialogue between foreign ministries and other institutions in the home countries. For example, diplomats are often seen as elites by other institutions, while within diplomatic services the perception is that they are “under siege.” In the final paper in this section, Wynne Russell calls for further research on the concept of “emotion cultures” – cultural rules governing the experience and expression of emotion – and the question of whether diplomats are socialised into a distinctive and global diplomatic emotion culture.

The papers in the seventh and final section of this volume suggest practical approaches to intercultural communication training for diplomats. Alena Korshuk concludes that although most diplomats communicate sufficiently well across cultures, currently they have too little time for adaptation in the field. As most diplomats already undergo some kind of pre-posting training, in language skills at least, why not offer preparation in cross-cultural communication as well? She proposes an outline for such a preparatory course focusing on both culture-general and culture-specific knowledge. Yunxia Zhu, based on interviews with diplomats in New Zealand, similarly suggests that intercultural training for diplomats can be improved. She proposes a model for high-level competence training, incorporating both etic (culture-general aspects for comparison across cultures) and emic approaches (culture-specific aspects from within a culture), to reduce the possibility of over-generalisation.

The final two papers describe the approaches to intercultural training taken by particular institutions. Daniel J. Kealey, Doug MacDonald and Thomas Vulpe elaborate on the research undertaken by the Centre for Intercultural Learning of the Canadian Foreign Service Institute to learn what it really takes to be interculturally competent and how individuals and organisations can improve their intercultural competence. The result of this research is an instrument designed to establish clear and measurable indicators of intercultural competence for the selection, training, and evaluation of international personnel. Elena A. A. Garcea introduces programmes implemented in Europe to promote intercultural dialogue and to prevent and manage conflicts. As the mobility of professionals, teachers, and students within Europe is increasingly encouraged, cultural diversity within workplaces and educational settings is enhanced. “International professionals, trainers and educators should be prepared and should prepare societies for these new scenarios.”

As a final word on the topic of diplomatic training, DiploFoundation would like to suggest a methodology that has worked well in practice: the multistakeholder approach to diplomatic training. It is clear that increased contact and opportunities for communication help people from different national cultures to understand and often to appreciate each other – this is the basis for the numerous existing exchange and international programmes. The same idea can be applied to different organisational and professional cultures: through studying together – in effect, time spent together on a joint undertaking – individuals from different professional and organisational groups can gain a better understanding of different professional cultures. Over the last few years, Diplo has promoted the participation of representatives from international organisations, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, and media, along with diplomats and other civil servants in courses on diplomacy-related topics. Participants in these courses report positively on the experience and on the results in their professional lives.