http://mountainrunner.us/2009/02/guest_post_public_diplomacy_from_a_surprising_quarter.html
One man's 'well worn cliché' is another man's 'much ignored truism'. Clearly the invocation to "stop lecturing the world on what to do" is one sided and ideological (although what isn't?...) but it isn't far removed from the criticism of the blunt-edged 'marketing approach' of PD often made by large parts of the American PD community. The same community, incidentally, that mentions often the need to 'talk less and listen more' (or words to that effect). Well, what happens when you listen to something you don't like? One calls it tired and passé (a well worn cliché), of course, so as not to take it seriously.
That is the difference between 'listening' and 'hearing'. That is what the contemporary PD discourse is missing, from my point of view.
Showing posts with label listening. Show all posts
Showing posts with label listening. Show all posts
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Sunday, 8 February 2009
The PD Discourse Gap
The PD Discourse Gap
Are policy makers capable of overcoming the cognitive dissonance they would experience if they learned Arabic, read some newspapers and spoke to some ordinary Arab people and realised that they're actually intelligent, rational people who mostly dislike US policies rather than US people?
That has got to be quite a shock to the system.
The whole strategic communication system (and more importantly the whole US foreign policy system) is set up on the assumption that they 'just don't get us'. This to-know-us-is-to-love-us thesis allows for the continued belief in both the universality of western ideals and the importance of those ideals to the east/west conflict.
(For the most part) they don't hate our 'freedom', they hate our policies.
Isn't that just the answer nobody wants to hear from a practitioner's perspective? How can you go to your boss and say 'hey, actually we need to stop screwing people around, go and tell Hillary'. It just won't fly very far.
How can anyone genuinely 'listen' (i.e. listen, hear and act) without 'going native'?
Are policy makers capable of overcoming the cognitive dissonance they would experience if they learned Arabic, read some newspapers and spoke to some ordinary Arab people and realised that they're actually intelligent, rational people who mostly dislike US policies rather than US people?
That has got to be quite a shock to the system.
The whole strategic communication system (and more importantly the whole US foreign policy system) is set up on the assumption that they 'just don't get us'. This to-know-us-is-to-love-us thesis allows for the continued belief in both the universality of western ideals and the importance of those ideals to the east/west conflict.
(For the most part) they don't hate our 'freedom', they hate our policies.
Isn't that just the answer nobody wants to hear from a practitioner's perspective? How can you go to your boss and say 'hey, actually we need to stop screwing people around, go and tell Hillary'. It just won't fly very far.
How can anyone genuinely 'listen' (i.e. listen, hear and act) without 'going native'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)