International Studies Journal (ISJ)

International Studies Journal (ISJ)

Diaspora: Component and Instrument of Cultural Diplomacy

Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis

Authors
Seyed javad Ahmadi 1
Hassan Khodaverdi 2
Garineh Keshishiyan siraki 3
1 Ph.D. Student of Political Science Dep., South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Prof. at Political Science Dep., Faculty of Law and Political Science, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Prof. at Political Science Dep., Faculty of Law and Political Science, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/isj.2024.405598.2036
Abstract
The diaspora is defined as a transnational community that has involuntarily migrated from its homeland and settled in another land. As a consequence, diaspora communities carry their cultural and identity markers as defining characteristics in their new host countries. Conversely, states use cultural and identity components as subjective and objective elements to advance their cultural diplomacy strategies and promote intercultural dialogue in the international arena. Therefore, the central research question of this applied study is: how can diaspora communities play a role in cultural diplomacy? This research employs a descriptive-analytical approach with a comparative perspective to examine the constituent elements of diaspora and cultural diplomacy. The study utilizes library and online resources, along with the conceptual framework of track II diplomacy, to analyze the subject matter. The findings of the study suggest that culture and identity function as common structural components that connect diaspora and cultural diplomacy.

Highlights

Introduction

A diaspora refers to a transnational community that has relocated from its home country due to political, religious, wartime, or exile reasons and settled in another country. A diaspora brings civilizational, cultural, religious, normative, and value characteristics from its homeland to the host society, often retaining these components subjectively and objectively. This retention can hinder full integration into the host society, as diaspora members may aspire to return to their homeland. Therefore, the primary goal of a diaspora is to preserve and promote its cultural and identity heritage. Cultural diplomacy in modern nation-states serves as frontline diplomacy, aiming to connect with both ordinary citizens and elites through various components and Instrument. These include civilizational, artistic, cultural, and religious elements, as well as language, literature, norms, and values, all intended to influence public opinion within and beyond national boundaries. Track II diplomacy operationalizes these components and Instrument, facilitating the link between cultural diplomacy and diaspora engagement. This applied research investigates the role of diasporas in cultural diplomacy. The hypothesis suggests that diasporas, as subsets of societies, bring civilizational, cultural, religious, normative, and value characteristics from their home countries to host societies, actively disseminating them. Cultural diplomacy thus seeks to engage with host societies through these components.

 

Methodology

This research explores the complex relationship between diasporas and cultural diplomacy through the use of track II diplomacy. The study adopts an inductive approach to data collection, utilizing library and online resources. The data are objective and historical, and the investigation follows a descriptive-analytical method.

 

Findings

The overlap between diaspora and cultural diplomacy is significant. As a diaspora seeks to replicate its culture in the host society, cultural diplomacy aims to introduce its own culture to the host country. Both endeavors seek to influence elites, the general public, and the host state. Consequently, a substantial application can be established between the two concepts. Along its discoursal expansion, cultural diplomacy is perceived as a transnational process that can be undertaken not only by governments and their organizations but also by civil society and private sector stakeholders. “Some states have attempted to exert influence over their diaspora by establishing national institutions and cultural associations outside of their homeland. In partnership with the founders of their diasporic communities, they implemented nationalist policies aimed at promoting the native language and culture. As a result, governments and international organizations have increasingly launched diaspora engagement programs, and diaspora has emerged as a salient feature of the current global society” (Adamson, 2019, 211). Diaspora employs a diverse range of strategies to expand the realm of cultural diplomacy, “from branding to introducing music, food, and cultural norms,” which can play a significant role in the cultural economy (Minto-Coy, 2016: 13).

Diplomacy, shaped by this paradigmatic shift, has undergone a profound transformation, transcending the traditional boundaries of classical and modern diplomacy to encompass a more comprehensive array of techniques and approaches that actively engage non-state actors. Track II diplomacy stands as a prime example of this evolution, characterized by its emphasis on leveraging the influence of non-state entities to achieve diplomatic objectives. Within this new framework, track II diplomacy offers a valuable opportunity to tap into the potential of diaspora and cultural diplomacy. This approach serves as a technique for harnessing the capacities of informal actors to advance a strategic discourse aimed at influencing public opinion, achieving shared goals, and fostering relationships that promote mutual understanding in cultural and political spheres. In pursuit of these objectives, cultural diplomacy can effectively leverage the potential of migrants and diaspora communities within the host society. Diaspora communities, in their efforts to establish a distinct identity, often create a variety of institutions, such as charitable organizations, schools, religious centers, and cultural institutions, all of which contribute to the promotion of their homeland’s culture and identity in the host society. Simultaneously, organizations responsible for implementing cultural diplomacy set up educational, cultural, and religious institutions to connect with the general public and elites in the host society. They also strive to foster reciprocal relationships and engage their diaspora communities through initiatives such as language instruction, which aim to raise awareness and promote their cultural and identity-based components within the host society.

 

Results

Due to increased migration, the concept of diaspora—a classical notion within transnational societies—has gained significant relevance over the past two decades. It represents a segment of the migrant community that carries and preserves civilizational, cultural, religious, normative, and value characteristics from their homeland, transplanting them into the host society. While maintaining subjective and objective links to their native land, diasporic communities avoid cultural assimilation in the host society. Therefore, when discussing the culture and identity of diasporic communities, it is crucial to acknowledge their ability to fulfill diverse roles in preserving civilizational heritage and contributing to strategic planning, demonstrating their effectiveness. Cultural diplomacy, a critical aspect of international relations, encompasses a wide range of elements frequently utilized in national discourse. States aim to expand its application to the international arena. The findings of the current study suggest that diaspora and cultural diplomacy in the new international order have undergone a paradigm shift. They now focus less on fostering state-centric cultural relationships aimed primarily at disseminating and promoting cultural and identity components aligned with political leaders’ preferences. Instead, they now focus predominantly on national and international branding and neo-propaganda, as perception management (mind control) plays a pivotal role in this process. As such, diasporic communities and cultural diplomacy practitioners must adopt a new perspective and employ appropriate techniques to influence other actors in the face of cultural globalization and the emergence of new non-state and quasi-state actors and transnational organizations. Lastly, cultural diplomacy utilizes culture and identity as its central components in shaping roles, while the diaspora, which shares these components, seeks to distinguish itself as a unique community. It serves as the interpreter and executor of cultural and identity-building traits rooted in its homeland. Therefore, culture and identity, as primary components shared by both diasporic communities and cultural diplomacy, can mutually contribute to their advancement towards common goals and serve the foreign policy objectives of their respective states. Through track II diplomacy, diasporas can function as components and Instrument of cultural diplomacy.

Keywords
Cultural Diplomacy
Diaspora
Cultural Relations
Identity
Culture
Track II Diplomacy

Subjects

  1. Adamson, F. B. (2019). Sending States and the Making of Intra-Diasporic Politics: Turkey and Its Diaspora(s). International Migration Review, 53(1), 210-236. DOI: 1177/0197918318767665
  2. Andersson, K. B. (2019). Digital Diasporas: An Over view of Theres Eche Areas of Migration and New Media Through a Narrative Literature review. Human technology, 15(2), 142–.180. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201906123154.
  3. Anga, I., Raj Isar, Y., Mar, P. (2015). Cultural Diplomacy: beyond the national interest? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(4), 365–381. Doi: org/10.1080/10286632.2015.1042474
  4. Al Kathary, A. R., Khan, M. (2019). A Perspective on Saudi Soft Power and Cultural Diplomacy. Global Social Sciences Review, 4(2), 20-26.
  5. Baylis, J., Smith, S., Owens, P. (2017). The globalization of the world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, 1-14.
  6. Becard, D.   R., Mene Chelli Filho, P. (2019). Chinese Cultural Diplomacy: instruments in China’s strategy for international insertion in the 21st Century. Rev. Bras. Polit. Int., 62(1), 1-20.  DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201900105
  7. Cardelli, E., & et.al. (2019). Social Bonds in the Diaspora: The Application of Social Control Theory to Somali Refugee Young Adults in Resettlement. American Psychological Association,1-31. DOI:  https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000259.
  8. Constant, A.F., Zimmermann, K.F. (2016). Diaspora economics: New perspectives. UNU-MERIT, 1-27, website: http://www.merit.unu.edu.
  9. Cohen, R. (2008). G lobal Diaspora s, Second edition, London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  10. Dehshiri, M. (2014). Cultural Diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran: Katibeh. (In Persian)
  11. Eswari, C. N. (2014). The role of television in the formation of transcultural identities. The Journal of the South East Asia Research Center for Communications and Humanities, 6(1), 25–39.
  12. Hartig, F. (2016). How China understands public diplomacy: the importance of national image for national interests. International Studies Review, 18 (4), 655-680. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viw007
  13. Hartig, F. (2016). Chinese Public Diplomacy: The Rise of the Confucius Institute. Oxford and New York: Routledge.
  14. Horst, C. (2013). The depoliticization of diasporas from the Horn of Africa: From refugees to transnational aid workers. African Studies, 72, 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2013.812881
  15. Holden, J. Try horn, c. (2013). Influence and Attraction: Culture and the race for soft power in the 21st century. London, British Council.
  16. Gaz so, D. (2017). Diaspora Policies in Theory and Practice. Hungarian Journal of Minority Studies, 1, 65-87.
  17. Gil, J. (2015). China’s cultural projection: a discussion of the Confucius Institutes. China: An International Journal,13(1), 200-226.
  18. Goff, P. M. (2013). Cultural diplomacy. In: The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, Edited by Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur, 420–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199588862.013.0024
  19. Gharibi, K., Seals, C. (2019). Heritage language policies of the Iranian diaspora in New Zealand. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1-17, at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1653746
  20. Gharibi, K., Mir Vahedi, S. H. (2021). You are Iranian even if you were born on the moon’: family language policies of the Iranian diaspora in the UK. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1935974.
  21. Kanu Kova, Z. v. Tua Eva, B. v. (2019). The Persian community in Vilady Kavkaz: preserving ethnic identity in an alien cultural environment. RUDN Journal of Russian History, 18 (3), 560-588.  https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8674-2019-18-3-560-588
  22. Kameli, I. Kho da Verdi, H. (2022). Diplomatic role of track two in reducing international conflicts, case study: Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America. Political Science Quarterly,18(58), 20-1. (In Persian)
  23. Kim, H. (2017). Bridging the Theoretical Gap between Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 15(2), 293-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2017.08.15.2.293
  24. Koh Kan, A., et.al. (2023). A Review of Party Attitudes and Party Politics in the United States (1993 to 2020), International Studies Journal, 20(1), 191-169. (In Persian)
  25. Kothari, r. k., Khan, e. (2020). India becoming a global power in the twenty-first century, translated by Mohamad Reza Dehshiri and Ameneh Samak Nezhad, Tehran: Elm. (In Persian)
  26. Luke, C., Ker Sel, M. (2016). U.S. Cultural Diplomacy and Archaeology: Soft Power Hard Heritage, Routledge Future Anterior. 13(1), 140-146.
  27. Me Lisen, J. (2013). Public Diplomacy. In. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, Edited by Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge
  28. Heine, and Ramesh Thakur, 438-453. DOI: 10.1093/Oxford /9780199588862.013.0025
  29. Minto- Coy Indianna, D. (2016). Diaspora Engagement for Development in the Caribbean, See discussions, stats and author profiles for this publication,.121-139. at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300128714. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-22165-6-8
  30. Mokhtari, S. Keshi Shiyan Sirki, G. (2020). The diplomatic role of track two in the relations between Iran and America: a case study of sports diplomacy (1998-2019), International Relations Research, 10(4), 269-290. (In Persian)
  31. Negin Raz, P., & et.al. (2020). The diplomatic role of track two in solving the Turkish-Armenian conflict: a case study of the Turkish-Armenian solidarity commission. Central Asia and Caucasus Journal, 11, 157-191. (In Persian)
  32. Pon Zansi, S. (2020). Digital diasporas: Postcoloniality, media and affect. Interventions,8(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369801X.2020.1718537.
  33. Rius Ull Demo Lins, J. Zamorano, M. M. (2014). Spanish nation branding project Marca España and its cultural policy: the economic and political instrumentalization of a homogeneous and simplified cultural image. International Journal of Cultural Policies, 21(1), 20-40.
  34. Sajjad Pour, K., Nagin Raz, P. (2014). Requirements in the evaluation model of the second path diplomacy technique. Foreign Policy Quarterly, 28(2), 213-236. (In Persian)
  35. Segal, A. Y. (2020). Articulating Persian identities between Iran and Israel: On nationality, diasporas, and lived ethnicities in online media. Wiley Online library. com/journal/nana, 1-16. DOI: 10.1111/nana.12639
  36. Sheikh UL-Islami, M. Am Rul Lahi, M. (2021). Diaspora of Indian Parsis and foreign policy. Of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran: Abrar Maser. (In Persian)
  37. Sin Atti, G., Horst, C. (2015). Migrants as agents of development: Diaspora engagement discourse and practice in Europe, journal Ethnicities, 15(1), 134-152. DOI: 1177/1468796814530120
  38. Smith, G. S. (2019). Transatlantic Cultural Relations, Soft Power, and the Role of US Cultural Diplomacy in Europe. European Foreign Affairs Review, 21-42. http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/EERR2019017
  39. Tajik, K. & et. al. (2018). Alternative diplomacy and choosing the optimal point of secrecy in diplomatic relations. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 22(4), 155-208.(In Persian)
  40. Th osso, D. K. (2017). Globalization of Chinese Media: the global context. In China’s media global, London: Routledge.
  41. Topic, M., Sciortino, C. (2012). Cultural Diplomacy and Cultural Imperialism: A Framework for the Analysis. European perspective(s), Frankfurt: Peter Lang ,9-49.
  42. Ying, N., Manderson, M. (2013). Quantifying diaspora healthcare and education contributions to Jamaica (Preliminary report). Kingston: Jamaica Diaspora Institute.
  43. Zahar Na, R.S., Arsenault, A., Fisher, A., eds., (2013). Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: the connective mind shift. New York, NY: Routledge.
  44. Zakem, V., Saunders, P., Antoun, D. (2015). Mobilizing 'Om patriots: Russia's Strategy, Tactics, and Influence in the Former Soviet Union. CNA, occasional paper. Arlington, 246-281.
  45. Zamorano, M. M. (2016). Reframing Cultural Diplomacy: The Instrumentalization of Culture under the Soft Power Theory. Culture Unbound, 8, 166-186. http://www.culture-ep.liu.se.
  46. Zare, S. (2018). Cultural Identities. International Journal of Society Culture & Language, 6(2), 102-112.