States Promotion and National Interests - Essay Example

Cultural peculiarity of a is what characterizes it among the rest. In this respect cultural versatility implements a factual designation of a country in the world arena. It provides a particular vision and ability to impact on and cooperate with other cultures. Thus, a state promotion of its culture plays a great role of how valuable and influential the culture is for the rest of the world. In this vein, the paper is more related to the diplomatic relationships and which makes no conundrum in playing major role while promoting a definite country. The question of the national interests makes a difference in the world. In this case each country is seeking to prove its cultural heritage as a really valuable for the world’s success or even progress. Following this idea, the measure between the most or less influential countries of the world slowly becomes vague, so to speak. However, if the main features of such a discussion are that it is really the fact to keep in mind. Definitely, as Snow & Taylor (2008, p. x) admit, this kind of “primacy-of-culture perspective dominates much of our thinking about public diplomacy and calls for a more balanced perspective that takes into account cultural difference but also recognizes and utilizes influence universals.” Hereby, this question still remains to be answered. On the other hand, the truth of cultural diversity seems to be of less concern for powerful countries of the world inclined more and more to impose their cultural peculiarities along with the way of living on other communities. Here comes a mere extent of imitation in a global scope. One of the most apparent examples is the American cultural influence. On the other hand, less people have an idea of cultural life in Jakarta, for instance. Needless to say, such cultural ideals are mostly stereotyped and have much of copyism. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2008, p. 34) pays more attention to the following fact in terms of the cultural aspect: “Images of foreign countries are in fact part of the culture of the country that holds the perceptions: Japan’s image in China, for example, is part of Chinese culture, and vice versa.” Thus, countries are constantly trying to earn more appreciation from the rest of the world forgetting about some national priorities and, therefore, amplifying the need for the cultural promotion as it is. Everyone desires to look well or even better before the rest. Thereupon, countries urge for better reputation in order to show their status in the world arena. Once such a country achieved the majority of likes, it becomes an etalon for others. This phenomenon tells one about the need for some marketing and economic strength which a particular country demonstrates. The extent to which a country can show itself off depends on different factors according to the culture. Products, level of living, power of the economy, participation in the international affairs, etc. – all of these factors presume to get the cultural solidity of a country higher. The thing is that earlier or later people all around will guess why this country makes some social, economic, and political dreams come true. In fact, most of the individuals from other countries delve into the aspects of mentality and culture. This is why the logic of such a question touches upon the cultural realization and the image of the country on the whole. Snow & Taylor (2008) provide reasoning on the term of the “soft power” which by no means manifests the country in its ability to impact the public opinion over the globe. Moreover, Melissen, et al. (2007) follows the same term in making an effort to distinctively describe the process of cultural breakthrough referred to the national interests. It makes people believe in something good and better than could be at the moment. On the other side, soft power is something that massively falls into habit. One of the most overt examples is, of course, the United States: “The world will forever have an ambivalent feeling about the U.S. soft power advantage vis-à-vis popular culture and media” (Snow & Taylor, 2008, p. 4). Judging from this point, mass media and public pressure coming through this evaluates the country as strong enough. That is to say, it presents the world community with fait accompli. In America, public diplomacy tradition in pursuing cultural ideals worldwide got through the particulars of the historical development of the country (Melissen, et al., 2007). As was aforementioned, the country’s identity stands on different pillars. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2008, p. 37) provides observers with the so-called “hexagon of competitive identity” perceived in the sum of people, tourism, culture, brands, investment, and policy. These figures should be estimated in their relation to the rest of the world. In other words, these are the stakeholders for the competitive approach within the cultural identity of a state. To say more, the scientific research and the way of how people strive toward knowledge within the country also characterize the cultural identity thereof. In this case it is necessary to mention that due to such shifts in the life of people whole civilizations grew and reached their apogee at some point of their development. Admittedly, the Western civilization seems to overwhelm general interest in it on the part of other people belonging to different lifestyles and cultures. The thing is that it is a manner of developed countries to get engaged into their own cultures so that to find out a solution and sticking point in their relations (Cowan & Cull, 2008). Continuing on the idea of prevailing influence of the country, it is vital to note that theorists are likely to diversify the cultural world into some standpoints. Some among them define the structural entity of the community where some culture took place; others depend on the current stage of development within the country referred to its historical heritage. Snow & Taylor (2008, p. 4) are straight-forward as of this point of view as they admit the following consistent pattern, namely: What gives any country a soft power advantage is measured by several dimensions: 1 when culture and ideas match prevailing global norms; 2 when a nation has greater access to multiple communication channels that can influence how issues are framed in global news media; and 3 when a country’s credibility is enhanced by domestic and international behaviour. Globalization and mass production as well as the people’s dependence on brands and other things proclaim the reason why so many countries seek to be recognized in the world. The US, the UK, Germany, or Japan is definitely among the leaders in this issue. However, looking at the new markets the vision of the “cultural monopoly” falls under a particular diversification. One of the good examples is how things go on in the Middle East and in the Arabian countries, such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia or Qatar. Investing huge amounts of financial resources, these countries do everything to promote their culture in terms of hospitality, economic convenience, rationality, and strict norms of law. Nevertheless, it serves a good stimulus for the rest of the world to pay attention to these countries. It goes without saying that even those countries full of their own culture and its influence on the rest of cultures feel a mutual overlap. Apparently, allegedly “civilized cultures” feel a lack of other “less civilized” ones. It is all about the involvement of the British culture into the Indian one. Conversely, one may say about the interrelation between the white Australians and Aborigines, etc. Given that, culture should not be a means for separation but for further stability of relations between two or more cultural groups. Speaking about the US, it cannot be identified in some definite culture but in a blending of different ones due to the century-long history of migration to this country. International phenomenon of foreign publics presupposes the idea of statecraft (Cowan & Cull, 2008). In this wide-open array of interaction Snow & Taylor (2008, p. 86) are inclined to state that the main power of cultural development grounds on the relational background, namely: “Within the relational framework, education and cultural exchange programs, cultural institutes and cultural relations represent a category of initiatives that use culture as a vehicle for building relationships.” Nevertheless, the national interests of the country are also a so-called vehicle toward separation of a definite culture in its uniqueness and originality. In this case it is all about an agenda-driven culture seeking just a promotion, but not a peaceful as well as rational consideration. Bearing in mind that each country is obviously participating globally, one should realize the pursuit of such competition through the above mentioned factors of the hexagon model. Besides, it is the responsibility of each country to get well in showing their identities in the world arena. The best offer of the humanity on the whole is to share various experiences by means of the cultural exchange and cooperation: The only sort of government that can afford to ignore the impact of its national reputation is one that has no interest in participating in the global community, and no desire for its economy, its culture or its citizens to benefit from the influences and opportunities that the rest of the world offers them (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2008, p. 43). The point is that each country should first try to maintain a free way of the internal cultural development so that burst it out externally. Otherwise, the mismatch might happen full of prejudices and other harmful impacts destroying the traditional as well as social state of affairs. By and large, people now feel their connection in the way they have the knowledge of the whole world. Once the country reached cultural supremacy, it should make out the supremacy of other cultures even though there are some missing points in economic or political life within this or that country. There should not be categorical or strict judgments on those lagging behind socially or economically. Alternatively, an adequate dialogue should be set in order to preserve cultural diversity within the national concerns. What makes the difference is how a country takes care of the century-long traditions and rites within the community, either monolithic or multinational. The political culture makes the growth of the national prestige going both high and down. This is why so many people can or cannot believe in the breakthrough which is about to come. Good governance is what can do that in the short as well as in the long run. However, the rulers and the officials can rarely prove it right: “Think of the challenge of good governance in developing countries, where it is the nature of the political culture – as much as organisations and laws – that makes the difference” (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2008, p. 45). Hence, law and order as well as the up-to-date governance and mentality of people can do a miracle for the growth of the national interests within the community, first, and then overseas. People are always wondering why this or that national promotion of the culture is higher than theirs own. This question arises from the bottom of people’s hearts. When it has no connection to the idea of pure inclination and drive toward perfection, they face a dead-end in their minds. However, it is easy as two and two makes four. The concept of the culture can be divided in some sub-concepts. Snow & Taylor (2008, p. 87) redefine it out of the opinion by Edward T. Hall in the following way: He described low-context cultures as placing little meaning in the context or setting and instead focusing on the code or message. For high-context cultures, he said, “most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message.” Hereby, there is a strong connection between cultures regarding the type of the message in it and its ability to get heard and used by others. High or low context – it is not just a mere assumption on the way people go and how they evaluate the environment and other cultures. It is based on the challenge which the society pertains to be set against the social impediments. That is to say, transmitting the message all around strengthens the country in its desire to share it all around the world. Historically, it is seen on the example of the colonization and spread of Christianity worldwide. Making an effort in doing it constantly, Western civilization proved its supremacy in making things easier regarding culture and cultural influence through different means and mass media, in particular. The solution grounds itself in the idea of the collective thinking and collective effort toward the cultural networking and its cross-cultural movement within different countries (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2008). In a multiple approaches toward perfection a country can earn more reputation and save it straight for a long time. Keeping it in mind will definitely be a strong impulse toward cultural reformation in terms of people’s evaluation of it. Networks grow once there is an intention toward collaboration on the basis of a mutual consent. Thus, “cultural relations builds engagement and trust between people of different cultures by exchanging knowledge and ideas and it empowers transnational communities and connects them to networks” (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2008, p. 77). To conclude, a state’s promotion of its culture furthers its national interests and influence on the world stage to the exact extent of networking and collaboration in a transnational world. That is, a state promotion of its culture plays a great role of how valuable and influential the culture is for the rest of the world. The period of cultural wars should be finally finished in the 21st century, and the consensual relationships should take place in the cross-cultural reality. Building more and more networks will preserve strong ties between different cultures. The responsibility of each and every country is to increase the national growth through different cultural identities in a multinational world. Bibliography Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2008. Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World, London: FCO. Cowan, G. & Cull, N. J., 2008. Public Diplomacy in a Changing World (The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Series). London: Sage Publications, Inc. Melissen, J., Lee, D. & Sharp, P., 2007. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations). 1 ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Snow, N. & Taylor, P., 2008. The Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. London: Routledge. Read More