politscienceПолитическая наукаPolitical science1998-1775ИНИОН РАН10.31249/poln/2023.04.10politscience-998Research ArticleПЕРВАЯ СТЕПЕНЬПубличная дипломатия: проблема интерпретации и операционализации понятияPublic diplomacy: a problem of interpretation and operationalisation of the conceptБоюнА. Б.BoyunA. B.

Боюн Александр Борисович, соискатель Института международных исследований (ИМИ)

Москва

Boyun Alexander

Moscow

boyunitf@rambler.ruМГИМО МИД РоссииРоссияMGIMO UniversityRussian Federation20232111202304Политическая наука в условиях социальных и технологических изменений252273Copyright © Боюн А.Б., 20232023Боюн А.Б.Boyun A.B.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.politnauka.ru/jour/article/view/998

В условиях геополитического противостояния России и США возрастает роль публичной дипломатии в сохранении внешнеполитических контактов между странами. Этот вид дипломатической практики позволяет государству напрямую доводить свою позицию до зарубежного общества, а также формировать положительный имидж и выстраивать долгосрочную коммуникацию, зачастую минуя препоны местного правительства. В статье анализируются основные подходы современных исследователей к определению понятия «публичная дипломатия» и классификации систем ее конкретных измерений. Если во второй половине XX в. публичная дипломатия рассматривалась американскими экспертами как инструмент информационного противоборства в холодной войне, то после распада биполярной системы концепция претерпела существенные изменения и продолжает трансформироваться в ответ на новые угрозы и вызовы. На конкретных примерах продемонстрирована разница подходов к определению акторов данного процесса и основных направлений их деятельности. В поиске ответа на вопрос «В чем американская публичная дипломатия результативнее российской в постсоветских странах?», автор предпринимает попытку разработать критерии сравнительного анализа данного инструмента внешней политики. Базируясь на существующих теориях, а также сведениях из ежегодных докладов Агентства по глобальным медиа и Консультативной комиссии США по публичной дипломатии, отчетов Россотрудничества и медиагруппы «Россия сегодня» за 2014–2022 гг., автор предлагает оригинальный подход к квантификации оценочных индикаторов и эмпирической операционализации явления. Статья носит методологический характер и представляет собой дизайн будущего сравнительного исследования публичной дипломатии России и США на постсоветском пространстве.

Amid the backdrop of geopolitical tensions between Russia and the United States, the role of public diplomacy in maintaining foreign policy contacts between the countries are increasing. This type of diplomatic practice allows a state to convey its position straight to foreign society, as well as to form a positive image and build a long-term communication, often bypassing the obstacles of the local government. The article analyses the main approaches of modern researchers to defining the concept of public diplomacy and classifying the systems of its specific dimensions. Even though in the second half of the twentieth century public diplomacy was considered by American experts to be a tool of information confrontation in the Cold War, the concept has undergone significant changes since the collapse of the bipolar system and continues to transform in response to new threats and challenges. Specific examples show the difference in approaches to the definitions of the actors of this process and the main directions of their activities. In search of an answer to the question «In what way is American public diplomacy more effective than Russian public diplomacy in post-Soviet countries?» the author makes an attempt to develop criteria for comparative analysis of this foreign policy instrument. Basing on existing theories, as well as information from the annual reports of the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, Rossotrudnichestvo and media group «Rossiya Segodnya» reports for 2014–2022, the author proposes a quantification of evaluation indicators and empirical operationalization of the phenomenon. The article is methodological in nature and represents a design for future comparative study of public diplomacy of Russia and the United States in the post-Soviet space.

РоссияСША«мягкая сила»цифровая дипломатиястратегические коммуникациипропагандагуманитарное влияниеимидж государстванациональный брендингсвязи с общественностьюRussiaUSAsoft powerdigital diplomacystrategic communicationsadvocacyhumanitarian influencestate imagenational brandingpublic relationsReferencesАртамонова У.З. Направления и формы реализации публичной дипломатии // Анализ и прогноз. Журнал ИМЭМО РАН. – 2021. – № 2. – С. 49–56. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.20542/afij-2021-2-49-56Anholt S. Public diplomacy and place branding: where's the link? Place branding. 2006, N 2, P. 271–275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pb.6000040Бахриев Б.Х. Публичная дипломатия в современном исследовательском дискурсе // Вестник ТГУПБП. – 2017. – № 1. – С. 131–147.Artamonova U.Z. Fronts and forms of public diplomacy. Analysis and forecasting. IMEMO Journal. 2021, N 2, P. 49–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20542/afij-2021-2-49-56 (In Russ.)Долинский А.В. Эволюция теоретических оснований публичной дипломатии // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. – 2011. – № 2. – С. 275–280. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2011-2-17-275-280Bakhriev B.Kh. Public diplomacy in contemporary research discourse. Bulletin of the Tajik State University of law, business and politics. Series of social science. 2017, N 1, P. 131–147. (In Russ.)Лебедева М.М. Концептуальные перевоплощения публичной дипломатии // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. – 2020. – № 13 (5). – С. 293–306. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-5-74-293-306Cowan G., Arsenault A. Public diplomacy moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration: the three layers of public diplomacy. The annals of the American academy of political and social science. 2008, Vol. 616, N 1, P. 10–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311863Радиков И.В., Лексютина Я.В. «Мягкая сила» как современный атрибут Великой державы // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. – 2012. – № 2. – С. 19–26. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2012-2-19-26Cull N.J. Public diplomacy: taxonomies and histories. The annals of the American Academy of political and social science. 2008, Vol. 616, N 1, P. 31–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311952Сутырин В.В. За пределами «мягкой силы»: гуманитарное влияние и сотрудничество во внешней политике // Международная жизнь. – 2020. – № 9. – С. 44–57.Cull N.J. Public Diplomacy before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase. In: Snow N., Taylor P.M. (eds). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. New York: Rougledge, 2009 a, P. 3–23.Цветкова Н.А., Ярыгин Г.О. Публичная дипломатия ведущих государств: традиционные и цифровые методы. – СПб.: Северная Нива, 2014. – 234 с.Cull N.J. Public diplomacy: lessons from the past. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 2009 b, 62 p.Публичная дипломатия: Теория и практика: Научное издание / под ред. М.М. Лебедевой. – М.: Издательство «Аспект Пресс», 2017. – 272 с.Cull N.J. From soft power to reputational security: rethinking public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy for a dangerous age. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2022, N 18, P. 18–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00236-0Dolinskii A.V. Evolution of public diplomacy theoretical grounds. MGIMO review of international relations. 2011, N 2, P. 275–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2011-2-17-275-280 (In Russ.)Dolinskii A.V. Evolution of public diplomacy theoretical grounds. MGIMO review of international relations. 2011, N 2, P. 275–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2011-2-17-275-280 (In Russ.)Easton D. An approach to the analysis of political system. World politics. 1957, N 9, P. 383–400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2008920Easton D. An approach to the analysis of political system. World politics. 1957, N 9, P. 383–400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2008920Gilboa E. Diplomacy in the media age: three models of uses and effects. Diplomacy and statecraft. 2001, Vol. 12, N 2, P. 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290108406201Gilboa E. Diplomacy in the media age: three models of uses and effects. Diplomacy and statecraft. 2001, Vol. 12, N 2, P. 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290108406201Gilboa E. Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The annals of the American academy of political and social science. 2008, Vol. 616, N 1, P. 55–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312142Gilboa E. Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The annals of the American academy of political and social science. 2008, Vol. 616, N 1, P. 55–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312142Kelley J.R. Between «take-offs» and «crash landings»: situational aspects of public diplomacy. In: Snow N., Taylor P.M. (eds). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. New York: Rougledge, 2009, P. 72–85.Kelley J.R. Between «take-offs» and «crash landings»: situational aspects of public diplomacy. In: Snow N., Taylor P.M. (eds). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. New York: Rougledge, 2009, P. 72–85.Lebedeva M.M. (ed.). Public diplomacy: theory and practice: scientific publication. Moscow: AspektPress, 2017, 272 p. (In Russ.)Lebedeva M.M. (ed.). Public diplomacy: theory and practice: scientific publication. Moscow: AspektPress, 2017, 272 p. (In Russ.)Lebedeva M.M. Conceptual transformations of public diplomacy. MGIMO review of international relations. 2020, N 13 (5), P. 293–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-5-74-293-306 (In Russ.)Lebedeva M.M. Conceptual transformations of public diplomacy. MGIMO review of international relations. 2020, N 13 (5), P. 293–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-5-74-293-306 (In Russ.)Leonard M., Stead C., Smewing C. Public diplomacy. London: The Foreign Policy Centre, 2002, 183 p.Leonard M., Stead C., Smewing C. Public diplomacy. London: The Foreign Policy Centre, 2002, 183 p.Mazumdar B.T. Digital diplomacy: Internet-based public diplomacy activities or novel forms of public engagement? Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2021, P. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00208-4Mazumdar B.T. Digital diplomacy: Internet-based public diplomacy activities or novel forms of public engagement? Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2021, P. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00208-4Melissen J. The new public diplomacy: between theory and practice. In Melissen J. (ed.) The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, P. 3–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554931_1Melissen J. The new public diplomacy: between theory and practice. In Melissen J. (ed.) The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, P. 3–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554931_1Nye J. Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs, 2004, 191 p.Nye J. Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs, 2004, 191 p.Nye J. Public diplomacy and soft power. The annals of the American academy of political and social science. 2008, Vol. 616, N 1, P. 94–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620731169Nye J. Public diplomacy and soft power. The annals of the American academy of political and social science. 2008, Vol. 616, N 1, P. 94–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620731169Ohnesorge H.W. The method of comparative-historical analysis: a tailor-made approach to public diplomacy research. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2022, N 18, P. 261–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00227-1Ohnesorge H.W. The method of comparative-historical analysis: a tailor-made approach to public diplomacy research. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2022, N 18, P. 261–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00227-1Pamment J. Articulating influence: toward a research agenda for interpreting the evaluation of soft power, public diplomacy and nation brands. Public relations review. 2014, Vol. 40, N 1, P. 50–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.11.019Pamment J. Articulating influence: toward a research agenda for interpreting the evaluation of soft power, public diplomacy and nation brands. Public relations review. 2014, Vol. 40, N 1, P. 50–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.11.019Radikov I.V., Leksyutina Ya.V. «Soft power» as contemporary attribute of great power. World economy and international relations. 2012, N 2, P. 19–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2012-2-19-26 (In Russ.)Radikov I.V., Leksyutina Ya.V. «Soft power» as contemporary attribute of great power. World economy and international relations. 2012, N 2, P. 19–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2012-2-19-26 (In Russ.)Ruffini P.B. Conceptualizing science diplomacy in the practitioner-driven literature: a critical review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2020, Vol. 7, N 124, P. 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00609-5Ruffini P.B. Conceptualizing science diplomacy in the practitioner-driven literature: a critical review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2020, Vol. 7, N 124, P. 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00609-5Signitzer B., Coombs T. Public relations and public diplomacy: conceptual convergences. Public relations review. 1992, Vol. 18, N 2, P. 137–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(92)90005-JSignitzer B., Coombs T. Public relations and public diplomacy: conceptual convergences. Public relations review. 1992, Vol. 18, N 2, P. 137–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(92)90005-JSutyrin V.V. Beyond «soft power»: humanitarian influence and cooperation in foreign policy. International affairs. 2020, N 9, P. 44–57. (In Russ.)Sutyrin V.V. Beyond «soft power»: humanitarian influence and cooperation in foreign policy. International affairs. 2020, N 9, P. 44–57. (In Russ.)Tsvetkova N.A., Yarygin G.O. Public diplomacy of leading states: traditional and digital methods. Sankt-Petersburg: Severnaya Niva, 2014, 234 p. (In Russ.)Tsvetkova N.A., Yarygin G.O. Public diplomacy of leading states: traditional and digital methods. Sankt-Petersburg: Severnaya Niva, 2014, 234 p. (In Russ.)Tuch H.N. Communicating with the world. U.S. Public diplomacy overseas. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990, 224 p.Tuch H.N. Communicating with the world. U.S. Public diplomacy overseas. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990, 224 p.Zaharna R. Mapping out a spectrum of public diplomacy initiatives: information and relational communication frameworks. In: Snow N., Taylor P.M. (eds). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. New York: Rougledge, 2009, P. 86–100.Zaharna R. Mapping out a spectrum of public diplomacy initiatives: information and relational communication frameworks. In: Snow N., Taylor P.M. (eds). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. New York: Rougledge, 2009, P. 86–100.Zaharna R. Network purpose, network design: dimensions of network and collaborative public diplomacy. In: Zaharna R., Arsenault A., Fisher A. (eds). Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: the connective mindshift. New York: Routledge, 2013, P. 173–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203082430Zaharna R. Network purpose, network design: dimensions of network and collaborative public diplomacy. In: Zaharna R., Arsenault A., Fisher A. (eds). Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: the connective mindshift. New York: Routledge, 2013, P. 173–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203082430

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.