Un-American Books

Greetings, manICateers. No doubt there's much been rending of garments and wailing and gnashing of teeth due to my extended absence from the blogosphere, for which I apologize. A combination of a hellacious virus and an equally grueling finals season have kept me away from the blog for a while, but I'm hoping to pick up again over the winter break.

Today's topic comes courtesy of the New York Times, thanks to alert reader (and fellow blogger) Jaxiecracks. The article discusses the crusade of foreign cultural institutes and publishers to get American readers to pick up books from their countries.

Hoping to increase their minuscule share of the American book market — about 3 percent — foreign governments and foundations, especially those on the margins of Europe, are taking matters into their own hands and plunging into the publishing fray in the United States. Increasingly, that campaign is no longer limited to widely spoken languages like French and German. From Romania to Catalonia to Iceland, cultural institutes and agencies are subsidizing publication of books in English, underwriting the training of translators, encouraging their writers to tour in the United States, submitting to American marketing and promotional techniques they may have previously shunned and exploiting existing niches in the publishing industry.

This isn't simply a marketing gimmick, but a cultural diplomacy strategy, one that underscores a major difference between U.S. diplomacy and that of other countries--namely, the U.S. tendency to overlook culture in general. As John Brown argues in "Arts Diplomacy: The Neglected Aspects of Cultural Diplomacy," the United States does not promote its high culture abroad the way other countries do. This could be a result of national psychology--a remnant of puritanical heritage that sees art as an indulgence--but the end result is that USPD tends to emphasize education over culture, which is why the CIA had to conduct covert high culture ops during the Cold War. U.S. pop culture has the strength of the market behind it, but high culture--like foreign literature--lacks that support.

As a recovering English major whose foreign literature collection takes up significantly more than 3 percent of her shelves, I support this push for literature diplomacy. Some things will inevitably be lost in translation, but I think there's a lot more to be found.

Unlikely Ambassadors

While scrounging for information on Japan's public diplomacy, I came across this odd little article on three cultural ambassadors who dress in the style of anime/manga heroines to promote the concept of kawaii, or cuteness. The decision seemed only marginally less bizarre than naming Hello Kitty an ambassador. But that's one of the things that I love about cultural diplomacy: the inevitable wackiness that ensues when governments try to highlight both the uniqueness and universality of their cultural heritage.

Cultures are inherently different from one another. They have different expectations and objectives and behaviors. And the act of cultural diplomacy must tread a fine line between celebrating those differences and building bridges. The fact of the matter is that a lot of cultural diplomacy programs navigate that in-between space, and so it's inevitable that they'll look out-of-place. But some of the weirdest ideas end up being extremely successful, and that's the beauty of cultural diplomacy.

Below, I've drawn up a list of some unlikely cultural ambassadors. It's neither comprehensive nor authoritative, but includes the names of several cultural ambassadors who have navigated the brackish cross-cultural seascape.

1. Shirley Temple Black -- Shirley was a traditional ambassador, not simply cultural, and she was probably a fine one, but there's something about this photo that just seems incongruous to me.
   
2. Rain -- Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of this video (not to mention this one). But Rain's appeal is his pop music. So why was he chosen as an athletic ambassador? And does it matter? He's insanely popular.
   
3. Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong -- Ellington and Armstrong were two of the American jazz musicians the United States sent abroad as cultural ambassadors. Jazz was incredibly popular both at home and abroad, so choosing the men was a no brainer. What's more surprising is that their international service occurred years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
   
4. Rihanna -- The pop star was appointed a Culture and Youth Ambassador for her native Barbados, but critics complain that the skills that have made her famous aren't representative of her home culture.
   

So that's my list, or at least the start of it. I'm sure I've missed dozens of obvious choices. Whose name would you add?

Happiness: A Private Matter?

Last night I turned in my final paper--three memoranda addressing U.S. public diplomacy for the twenty-first century.

Among the many changes I proposed with all the audacity and brio of a first-year M.A. candidate was the establishment of an independent body, along the lines of the Goethe Institut or the British Council, to oversee cultural diplomacy. Several students made similar recommendations, and in our final class, we discussed our suggestions and debated their merits and disadvantages.

Even though I supported the establishment of a non-governmental American Cultural Center, I'm a little leery of letting the private sector assume the mantle of U.S. cultural diplomacy, particularly after seeing how little they've accomplished at the Shanghai Expo. Is the free market really equipped to promote public and cultural diplomacy?

In response to a recent post, Paul Rockower of Levantine sent me this link to a site chronicling the year-long adventures of three Coca-Cola "happiness ambassadors." Their mission, according to the site, is to visit all 206 countries in which the fizzy elixir is sold ("14 more countries than are represented in the United Nations!") and discover "what makes people happy." Presumably in the less-than-48 hours that an itinerary of 206 countries in 365 days dictates.

Among the earth-shattering discoveries uncovered by these intrepid ambassadors are that Czechs enjoy having fun, Rwanda is the spot to see mountain gorillas "kick back," Colombians enjoy living passionately and pursuing their dreams, and the people of San Pedro Sula, Honduras, enjoy running, walking, and maintaining good health and positive attitudes. Evidently the happiness survey didn't target any of the glue-addicted street children I remember from my last trip to San Pedro Sula.

Sarcasm aside, this program exposes one of the main disadvantages of entrusting public and cultural diplomacy to the private sector. Companies are experts are selling images, ideals, dreams. They market happiness, or the illusion thereof. But they're less committed to exposing unpleasant truths, which leaves them open to accusations of propaganda and whitewashing.

My paper's turned in, but my mind's still not made up. I recognize that the private sector and NGOs have skills and resources the government lacks--but their motives and methods are significantly different. So what's the right balance?

In Defense of Culture

The main goals of U.S. public diplomacy are to promote foreign policy and national interests, protect national security, and create harmonious relationships between the United States and citizens of other countries. But it's awfully hard to harmonize if you're the only one singing.

This truism seems to have been overlooked in the strategic PD approach from Judith McHale's office, which emphasizes a uni-directional message approach and gives only passing attention to the importance of collaboration and dialogue with foreign publics. Last week, I mentioned Neal M. Rosendorf's support for cultural public diplomacy, and I'd like to return to his argument here. Rosendorf suggested the following as potential improvements to cultural PD outreach:

• Increase funding to support cultural PD.
• Erase war imagery from official speech.
• Make embassies, consulates and libraries more accessible.
• Make traveling to the United States easier for foreigners.
• Scale back broadcasters with a propagandistic reputation (like Radio Marti) and replace them with a beefed-up version of the VOA, based on a BBC model.
• Re-engage the United Nations.
• Encourage Hollywood to export U.S. values.
• Promote Internet freedom.
• Encourage free travel of journalists.

Some of these bullet points have been addressed since the essay was published. In general, remarks by high-ranking U.S. officials are less bellicose today than they were five years ago. And U.S.-UN relations have certainly grown more collegial. But many of these areas have not yet been addressed. U.S. public diplomacy remains underfunded, particularly in comparison to the nation's military budget. And many foreign embassies, consulates and libraries are still difficult to access. Of course, security concerns prevent these locations from being fully accessible to all people at all times, but greater openness could improve the balance between security and effectiveness. Improving information flows, particularly those related to Internet freedom, is an issue of increasing importance to USPD, and one which has been frequently in the news this year.

Some people will disagree with Rosendorf's prescriptions. Encouraging media companies to export U.S. values, for example, will strike some as inappropriate and potentially propagandistic government meddling in private affairs. And some will argue, justifiably, that the success of such measures is unsure. Even the best public diplomacy cannot satisfy all audiences. For some individuals and groups, opposition to U.S. policy is insurmountable. But the U.S. government clearly recognizes that cultural diplomacy has some value.

Judith McHale's recently published PD strategy acknowledges the importance of personal connections, and recommends the following tactics for improving people-to-people relationships:

•Revitalize and establish American Centers/Corners as spaces for Public Diplomacy activities and engagement. Identify the best means of upgrading and maintaining publicly-accessible, secure American Corners/Centers. Design models for new American Centers as venues for programs beyond fortified compounds and as symbols of our desire to engage.Actively seek private sector partners in making these places showcases for American culture and technology. For example, Embassy Jakarta is developing plans for an American Place in a shopping mall.

•Reinvigorate cultural programming to drive engagement and collaboration. Scale up cultural programming that presents American art, theater, music, dance, and literature to create apolitical space for building relationships and to counter negative stereotypes about American culture. Extend American culture’s collective reach by facilitating the overseas work of other public and private cultural institutions and organizations (e.g. the Smithsonian or regional arts councils), using technologies to multiply linkages (e.g. online arts management courses taught by U.S. experts or online fora for sharing artistic content), and encouraging artistic collaboration as a springboard for enduring relationships.

The document also recommends expanding the ECA budget, increasing cultural and educational outreach, and increasing partnership with NGOs and the U.S. private sector. But the framework, for all its strengths, doesn't emphasize the importance of collaborative partnership with other countries. Whereas Rosendorf's cultural PD strategy focuses on making the U.S. more open and accessible to foreign publics, McHale's strategy emphasizes exporting the U.S. message abroad. The difference lies in their attitudes toward interaction and dialogue, an essential element of PD that is largely absent from McHale's framework.

Dr. Strangelove v. the Culture Club

Are European nations moving beyond a military solution towards Afghanistan, and will a policy of cultural engagement work? Al Jazeera explores the question in this video.

Cultural engagement, of course, is a broad net that covers diverse activities like photography, writing, dance, theater, music, sculpture, architecture, sports and cooking. Some of the discussants also included activities like counseling and hosted dialogue as part of the process. Kenyan youth leader George Gachara reflected on his efforts at cultural engagement following post-election violence:

We came together as young people and decided that as a country we have come to the brink of collapse, we have seen how bad things can get, but then we stepped back and get a chance to rescue and save the soul of our nation. So we decided to come up with very simple and creative projects that create a safe space for engagement amongst young people from different communities where they can reflect, they can dialogue and they can also enroll in activities that reconcile their own activities.

Gachara seemed hopeful that such collaborations would forestall future violence in his country. But will it work in Afghanistan? Ahmad Majidyar suggests that coalition forces could achieve greater success by developing locally-based solutions, instead of importing solutions from D.C. which aren't compatible with the local culture. Robin Davies of the British Council also emphasized the importance of local input. In response to a Facebook query asking why culture, ideas and opinions should be forced on others in a democratic society, Davies noted that cultural dialogue is a multi-directional, collaborative process:

Cultural dialogue and cultural relations is a relationship. It's a two-way process. It is not the imposition of one culture onto another culture.... This is a dialogue, this is mutual understanding, this is educating, sharing and connecting with people.

Neal M. Rosendorf would certainly agree. We recently read "A Cultural Public Diplomacy Strategy" for class. In it, Rosendorf argues that cultural diplomacy is essential to U.S. foreign policy and reputation reform. One point Rosendorf raises that does not come up in this video is the issue of financing. Currently, the U.S. government allocates considerably more money to the nation's military budget than it does to its diplomacy budget, indicating a lack of appreciation for the benefits of skillful cultural diplomacy. But as Rosendorf (and General Stanley McChrystal) would argue, military victory is impossible without the support of the other nation's citizens. Sure, sure, the best things in life are free--but some of the really essential things cost a mint. And they're worth investing in.

Oh, the Weather Outside...

Well, ICkateers, it's snowing in Washington, D.C., which means snowballs are flying, police are packing, and my cozy little ivory tower is frosted over and bitterly cold. It's the perfect day to be anywhere that's not an attic bedroom, and a quick scan of the Washington Post's Weekend Section revealed a fabulous article by the illustrious Michael O'Sullivan on the cultural film offerings available in D.C.

Many of these film series are organized by embassies and cultural centers, a service the United States offers abroad--although not as much as it once did. Like many aspects of modern U.S. diplomacy, cultural outreach programs decreased (as did their funding) in the wake of the Cold War. John Kerry addressed the situation in a February 2009 report titled "U.S. Public Diplomacy--Time to Get Back in the Game," in which he laments the disappearance of the American Centers of yore.

American Centers, for the noncognoscenti, were libraries of sorts that offered book clubs and lectures and civic youth programs and cultural series and English lessons to foreign publics until a trifecta of events conspired to bring about their demise. The end of the Cold War, the information revolution and the mollification of Senator Jesse Helmes led the U.S. Information Agency to be absorbed, like an extra in The Blob, by the State Department. American Centers were gradually shuttered, shrunk and otherwise underfunded until the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon convinced Congress that cultural outreach might have more value than previously assumed.

In subsequent years, the United States has stepped up public and cultural diplomacy efforts once again, but progress is slow and hindered by lack of vision, leadership and resources. This is not to suggest that U.S. public and cultural diplomacy is ineffective or unnecessary, rather that there is a general consensus on the need for reform. The catch is that the consensus is strong among people with the skills to effect reform, but weaker among people with the ability to lead the charge. There's plenty of snow on the hill. What's needed is a few kids with mittens* to set the ball in motion.

Fortunately for D.C. residents and Beltway outliers, our town is hopping with options for the foreign film enthusiast, and I encourage you to check out the article and take full advantage. Alas, I've got too much reading this weekend to join you. Eat some popcorn for me! I'll be bundling up in my tauntaun sleeping bag until the weather turns.


* A totally irrelevant aside: Why does a google search for "congressional mittens" turn up more pictures of Mitt Romney than any other U.S. politicians? Can anyone help?

Reel (Un)american Heroes

Bouncing off my earlier post, I've started thinking about cultural exchange in reverse -- not just great models of American values, but immigrants to the United States who win us over, occasionally by employing traits characteristic of their national cultures, but more commonly by employing alarmingly high levels of Pluck and Determination and Charm. Running the gamut from silly to tragic, the immigrant movie generally follows the story of an individual or group that struggles to adjust to American society. Either they learn to acculturate and blend their cultural legacy with rapid adaptation to U.S. norms or they go down like a sack of cement. (See Bread and Roses, Coming to America, The Godfather, Goodbye Solo, El Norte, and, oh, so many more....)

The bronze medal in this category goes to Ariel, the youngest daughter of an Irish immigrant family in 2002's In America. Pound-for-pound, she packs more Irish charm into every frame than any other character in the movie.

On the silver podium, Tarek, in The Visitor, softened Professor Vale's shriveled prune of a heart with his sunny outlook and enthusiastic percussion stylings. If only they'd had the same effect on the NYPD....

But the gold in this category has to be reserved for E.T. Despite some unusual customs and the odd glowing appendage, E.T. managed to fit right in with a typical American family -- until those creepy guys in the exterminator suits showed up. His childlike appreciation for life's simple pleasures (by which I mean television and candy) endeared him to a generation of young Americans. I can't be the only one who burnt my fingers on piping hot E.T. Shrinky Dinks.

Once again, I'm opening the floor to additional commentary. Which other movie characters have won the hearts and minds of American audiences?

Reel American Heroes

One of my friends, teaching English in Thailand, watched the latest Twilight movie with her students, and afterwards one of them asked her, very solemnly, if people in the United States are "like that?" Assuming he wanted to know whether all Americans were vampires, she burst out laughing, but she quickly realized his actual question was whether people in the United States really kiss before they get married. Because everything -- even cute anecdotes -- gets me thinking about international communication these days, her story made me think about cultural diplomacy and how it's frequently inundated by the tsunami of pop culture materials generated by the U.S. entertainment industry.

Frankly, I'm not sure I want Edward Cullen representing our country as a cultural ambassador. His eyebrows alarm me, for one thing. And then there's the whole undead influenza victim thing. My prejudice against the broody hemophile got me thinking about which film characters I would want to represent the country and I came up with three. They're fairly different from one another, but I think each embodies a particularly "American" character. Here they are, in no particular order:

1. Atticus Finch: Finch comes in at the top of the AFI's list, for obvious reasons. He's wise, steady, courageous and passionate for justice.

2. "Cool Hand" Luke Jackson: Granted, he was arrested for public drunkeness and vandalism, but Luke was a man who refused to stay down, even after he'd lost the fight.

3. Norville Barnes. His story follows the traditional American rags to riches cycle, with a few Coen-esque twists. What he lacks in savvy he makes up for in spades with innovation and enthusiasm. At the end of the day, he's a great role model. You know, for kids.

4* Dottie Hinson (A League of Their Own): Not only is Dottie a farm girl who supports the troops, she's an incredible athlete who supports the war effort by hitting fast balls in a short skirt. She's got brains and heart and cat-like reflexes. What's not to love?

5* Diana Guzman (girlfight): Not to inundate the list with athletes, but there's something about the sports movie that lends it to American Dream narratives. Guzman scrabbles to the top with little more than hard work and determination. She may lack Dottie's easy charm, but she trumps her in toughness.

This isn't a comprehensive list, by any stretch of the imagination. But it's late and I'm tired, so I'll pose the obvious question: Which character would you add?


* Predictably, I received a few comments regarding the absence of any women on my list, so after a cup of coffee and some inspired reflection, I've added two names to the list.