Public diplomacy as symbolic interactions: A case study of Asian tsunami relief campaigns

Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 26–32

Public diplomacy as symbolic interactions: A case study of Asian tsunami relief campaigns Juyan Zhang ∗ Communication Department, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch, NJ 07740, USA Received 12 February 2005; received in revised form 24 October 2005; accepted 31 October 2005

Abstract This case study conceptualizes public diplomacy as a symbolic interactionist process, in which nations actively participate in constructing and negotiating meanings of symbols and performing actions based on the meanings. The international relief efforts for the Asian tsunami are used as a case to examine the conceptualization. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Symbolic interactionism; Public diplomacy; Tsunami

1. Introduction Symbolism is inseparable from diplomacy, particularly public diplomacy, which essentially involves the use of symbols to cultivate and maintain national identity and to facilitate state policy agendas. In this process, the meanings of symbols are interpreted and negotiated by participants in the international community through continuous interactions. Goffman (1967) noted that individuals participate in social interactions through performing in a “pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself.” Although nations are not necessarily magnified individuals, they still need to present themselves to the world community and manage impressions in a similar symbolic interactionist pattern. This research uses the international relief efforts for the Asian tsunami as a case to examine how the nations use verbal and nonverbal symbols to express their views of the situation and evaluate the participants, especially themselves, through interactions. Specifically, it looks at how the nations interpret the symbols communicated by other participants and how they perform actions based on their interpretations; at how the meanings of the symbols emerged, are negotiated and transformed through interactions; and at the power relations underlying the symbolic interaction process, which constitutes the dynamics of the interactions. In international relations, nations always compete to maximize their power (Morgenthau, 1978). National image is considered a nation’s soft power (Nye & Owen, 1996). Philanthropic programs are one of the means that nations have to cultivate their images. The U.S. projected its power around the globe through various philanthropy foundations (Berghahn, 1999). The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) foreign aid programs have played an important role in combating the Soviet Union and the effectiveness of its programs directly affects the U.S. image overseas (Peterson, 2002). ∗

Tel.: +1 732 263 5554; fax: +1 732 524 3609. E-mail address: Juyan [email protected].

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.10.004

J. Zhang / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 26–32

27

Otto von Bismarck once said that there is no altruism between nations. This may no longer hold true in a complex interdependent world, but it is undeniable that there are always self-serving purposes within the various international philanthropic programs. The world major nations’ relief efforts for the Asian tsunami are no exceptions. As the British newspaper The Independent noted, the world major powers saw opportunities in the relief efforts for exercising “soft power” (“George Bush understood that this global disaster also offered a global opportunity,” 3 January 2005). The Singapore Press commented that “on a different level, the responses [relief efforts] also illustrate the geopolitical positioning of the world’s political players, particularly in Asia” (“Nations turn aid bidding into a political contest,” 12 January 2005). The U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell frankly admitted that “. . . [Relief] supports are not only our national security interest but the national security interests of the countries involved” (“Powell hopes aid will boost U.S. image,” 6 January, 2005). Thus, analyzing how image has become a concern and how symbols are communicated and meanings constructed during a catastrophic disaster may provide us with more insight into the process and dynamics of public diplomacy. 2. Theoretical framework 2.1. Symbolic interactionism Symbolic interactionism as a school was created in the early 20th century (Forte, 2003). It examines how individuals and groups interact, focusing on the creation of identity through interaction with others (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1994). Specifically, it looks at the symbols and the interactions; how meanings emerge, are negotiated, established and transformed; how people do things through joint action; and how interaction strategies organize such meanings at all levels of collective life (Plummer, 1991). According to the tradition, the meaning comes from the interpretation, and the way people think about themselves tend to be a reflection of other people’s assessments (Cooley, 1902). In addition, human beings’ actions are based on their interpretation of the meaning of events. The characteristics of symbolic interactionist approach include (a) human interaction; (b) interpretation; (c) response based on meaning; (d) use of symbols. Symbolic interactionism is used not only in interpersonal interactions, but also in research on collective behavior and organizatoins communications (Howard & Hollander, 1997). For the purpose of this research, the symbolic interactionist dimensions examined include identity, symbols, interactions and power relations. 2.2. Public relations and symbolic interactionism Only recently has symbolic interactionism been applied to public relations research. Gordon (1997) conceptualized public relations as the active participation in the social construction of meaning, in which the organization is cast as one player among many in a larger social dynamic that continually forms meanings. Leiss, Kline, and Jhally (1997) suggest that the role of marketing communication in modern industrial societies is to verbalize and to imagine the possible meaning of things, and to facilitate the exchanges of meanings occurring in social interactions. Anderson (2003) found that the Major League Baseball (MLB)’s public relations strategies to build and maintain the image of baseball mirrored the symbolic interactionism philosophy. Saxer (1993) argues that both public relations and symbolic politics develop and use symbols to achieve their purposes. Thus, from a symbolic interactionist perspective, public relations and symbolic politics are both a meaning-construction process through use of symbols, interactions and interpretations. 2.3. Dimensions of public diplomacy in symbolic interactionist perspective Public diplomacy involves such elements as image, symbols, communication and interpretation of meanings (Martin & Nakayama, 2003). From a symbolic interactionist approach, it can be conceptualized as the active participation by nations in the construction of meanings, in which each nation is one of the many players in the international community that continually interacts through exchanging symbols, forming and negotiating meanings, and performing acts based on their respective meanings. The dynamics underlying the symbolic interaction are the power relations among the nations. The following are the key constructs of the conceptualization.

28

J. Zhang / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 26–32

2.3.1. Identity Identity refers to who or what one is and the meanings attached to oneself by the self and others (Goffman, 1967). Image is a key aspect of identity. One of the major goals of public diplomacy is to build, maintain and improve national identity (Serajnik-Sraka, 1999). RQ1. How has image become a concern for the major powers in a catastrophic disaster? 2.3.2. Symbols Symbolism is widely used in diplomacy, in which symbols such as rhetoric, anniversaries and locations are woven (Schirch, 2005). The meaning of a symbol is negotiated, formed and transformed, and is associated with interpretation, action, and interaction (Anderson, 2002). RQ2. What symbols are marshaled by the major powers to maintain their images and how are their meanings interpreted, negotiated and transformed? 2.3.3. Interactions The symbolic interactionism suggests that an image is created through interactions, and symbolic images “are always open to reappraisal and further adjustment” (Anderson, 2002). In addition, actions are not individual actions. Rather, the mutual response and adjustment of the actor and others considered are joint (Plummer, 1991). RQ3. How do the nations construct meanings out of the actions of others and react to the actions based on their interpretations? 2.3.4. Power relations Weston and Rofel (1984) examined how power defines the situation, as well as how power defines the meaning of personal relationships in symbolic interactions. Gordon (1997) argued that symbolic interactionism casts a different conceptualization of the power of organizations and a new perspective upon persuasion. RQ4. What power relations are manifested through the image maintenance efforts by the major powers in the relief campaign? 3. Methods A tool of symboloic interactionsim can be anlaysis of text (Howard & Hollander, 1997). This research examines the news media’s coverage and interpretation of the international relief efforts for the tsunami, bacause news stories document facts, construct and interpret meanings of events through various news frames (Gitlin, 1980). Entman’s (1993) model to identify frames, which locates frames by examining generalization, categorization, identification and agency of responsibility, was adapted for the research. Element frames are merged into major frames. News stories on international relief efforts of the tsunami were obtained from the Lexis Nexis database. The time frame that the data is collected from is 26 December 2004 when the disaster began to 25 January 2005 when the news coverage of the disaster ebbed. 4. Findings 4.1. Image concerns in tsunami relief National image is of great concern for the major nations in their tsunami relief efforts. The United States is the only nation that candidly admitted that its relief campaign is associated with image building and maintenance. Colin Powell, the then U.S. Secretary of State said that the U.S. humanitarian aid would “give the Muslim world and the rest of the world an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action” (“U.S. hopes relief effort will boost image among Muslims: Powell,” 4 January 2005). He further admitted that the U.S. relief effort is to rebuild America’s reputation, particularly in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, whose people overwhelmingly opposed the invasion of Iraq (“Bush plea tries to rebuild U.S. image,” 4 January 2005).

J. Zhang / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 26–32

29

Other nations, though not as candid as the U.S., have concerns with their images as well. China’s active participation in relief is to enhance its image as a friendly regional power (“China boosts friendly image,” 6 January 2005). India lost more than 10,000 people, but it turned down international offers of help and instead provided relief for other nations, because it is keen to enhance its image in an attempt to win a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and “[T]here is . . . a sense of being able to dine at the high table” (“Nations turn aid bidding into political contest,” 12 January 2005). Thailand turned down Europe’s offers of debt relief for fear that it could hurt its credit rating (“The shifting politics of global giving,” 6 January 2005). Japan is one of the biggest relief donors because it wants to enhance its image in its bid to win a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (“Nations turn aid bidding into political contest,” 12 January 2005). As can be seen, the nations have explicit image concerns in the tsunami relief efforts. 4.2. Symbols marshaled Perhaps the most important symbol in the relief efforts is the donations pledged by the nations. The U.S. donation pledged increased from US$ 15 million to US$ 35 million, and finally to US$ 350 million. China’s donation was increased from less than US$ 3 million to US$ 60 million, and then to US$ 83 million. The meanings of the actors’ donations are subject to continuous negotiation and transformation, and are associated with interpretation, action, and interaction by others. China is the first to abruptly increase its donation by 23 times and became the top donor, because its initial pledge was considered too little for the regional power. But the act forms a stimulus to the U.S. who immediately upped its pledge by 10 times on the following day. China is considered a potential challenger to the U.S. influence in Asia and thus there is competition between the two powers. The media commented that “to some extent, the relief effort has turned into a bidding contest,” and the U.N. had to press countries to live up to their pledges (“Nations turn aid bidding into political contest,” 12 January 2005). As can be seen, donation, to an extent, became a competition of mere symbols. This is the case because donors promised more than US$ 1 billion after an earthquake killed 26,000 people in Iran in December 2003. However, a year later Iran only received US$ 17.5 million (“UN will audit aid pledges,” 11 January 2005). Following are some important symbols marshaled by nations and the news media’s interpretation of their meanings (Table 1). 4.3. Symbolic Interaction in public diplomacy During the relief campaigns, the nations actively construct meanings out of actions of others and react to the actions based on their interpretations. The U.S. and China’s actions well demonstrated the symbolic interaction process. When the tsunami occurred, President Bush was on vacation and only released a brief statement expressing condolence and Table 1 Media interpretations of public diplomacy symbols Important public diplomacy symbols

Media interpretation of the meaning

U.S. troops delivering supplies and medical help to survivors

A welcome contrast with negative pictures in Iraq; The “good GI” from WWII comeback Could help shape the image of the U.S; the President cares enough to send his own brother; Inclusion of Clinton could take partisan edge off the debate over the U.S. relief and reconstruction role China was not chosen because the U.S. was attempting to check China’s influence in the region; Washington remains unrivalled in the region Bangkok was motivated by diplomatic concerns – to burnish China’s image – rather than practical need India seeks for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council; “Long gone are the days when India might have been dependent on handouts from the US or the West” One more opportunity for China to enhance its image as a friendly regional power; China seeks to play a leading role in the relief and reconstruction efforts Part of its “good neighbor” policy to allay fears of its growing might; China tries to reassure the rest of the world that it will be a good global citizen

Bush expresses sympathy; the US flag was lowered to half-mast; president visits embassies to offer condolences; the president’s brother toured the disaster zone The U.S. announces the formation of a “core group,” including Japan, India and Australia, to coordinate the crisis Thailand accepted China’s offer to conduct DNA testing to identify victims India, as a victim, provided relief to neighboring countries

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s presence at Jakarta summit; Beijing will host a regional meeting setting up a tsunami warning system China has mounted its biggest foreign relief operation to date

30

J. Zhang / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 26–32

pledged to help. Colin Powell pledged US$ 15 million and some military assets towards relief. But this is criticized by the U.N. official as being stingy. On the second day, Powell defended that the U.S. was not stingy, but he upped the U.S. contribution to US$ 35 million. The U.S. troops also began providing massive military assistance (“Tsunami relief efforts: an opportunity for US to rebuild Asian ties,” 4 January 2005). The media noted that the U.S. government was aware that the depth of its compassion was going to be compared with what other nations are spending as well as what Washington spends on lesser disasters at home and what is now being spent in Iraq (“Bush effort in disaster could help,” 31 December 2004). But there is no sign of Bush, while European leaders interrupted their vacations to take the lead in their nations’ relief campaigns. When Bill Clinton became the predominant U.S. voice by calling the disaster a horror movie, Bush was embarrassed, and the White House official had to defend him by telling the media that “He didn’t want to make a symbolic statement” (“Bush under fire over U.S. aid,” 1 January 2005). When other nations, particularly China sharply increased its donation and became a top donor, the U.S. saw power competition and immediately responded by upping its donation on the next day. China first pledged only less than US$ 3 million, but then abruptly increased it to US$ 60 million, and further raised it to US$ 83 million after being criticized (“Tsunami exposes limits on China,” 12 January 2005). When the United States upped its donations to US$ 350 million, Germany upped its donation from US$ 27 million to US$ 680 million, Japan to US$ 500 million, and Australia to US$ 760 million. China could no longer compete because it is still a developing nation. Instead, China stresses that it remains a poor country but is willing to help. Its Premier Wen Jiabao stressed that “The Chinese always mean what they say. Whatever promises we make will be honored,” insinuating that pledged amounts by other nations often end up being much smaller when the money finally arrives (“Nations turn aid bidding into political contest,” 12 January 2005). Thus, as symbolic interactionism proposed, actions are always joint with the mutual response and adjustment of the actor and others considered. For both the United States and China, the meanings of the disaster and the actions of the other players are gradually constructed, and their actions are guided by interpretation of other actors’ action, which is essentially an interactive process. The symbols marshaled by other actors pose stimulus, and their meanings emerge, negotiated, established and transformed. At the same time, the actors sought interaction strategies to organize the meanings. 4.4. Power competition in public diplomacy International cooperation is obviously an important aspect of the power relations in the campaigns. Meanwhile, there is a multi-pronged power competition between the powers, as was commented by a U.S. expert: “we are seeing some healthy competition” (“The shifting politics of global giving,” 6 January 2005). The first prong of power competition is between the United States and China. The United States perceives China as one of its top challengers in the 21st century (Woodward, 2002). There is a variety of geopolitical competition between the two in the Asia-Pacific region. Even before the tsunami, the United States has already been concerned with China’s big public diplomacy push to market itself and its language across Southeast Asia and the Pacific and worried that America was losing its influence in the region. The New York Times quoted a former USIA officer as saying that “The Chinese are actively expanding their public diplomacy [in South Asia] while we are cutting back or just holding our own” (“Chinese move to eclipse U.S. appeal in South Asia,” 18 November, 2004). This explains why the United States abruptly raised its donation immediately after China raised its donation. The power competition becomes more explicit when the United States announced the formation of the “core group” to coordinate international relief efforts, which included the United States, Japan, Australia, and India, but excluded China and Indonesia, respectively a regional power and a victim of the disaster. China responded by stressing that the United Nations should be the only leader of the relief efforts. A former U.S. senior official put the power competition between the United States and China straight: “This [tsunami relief] gives us an opportunity to remind the countries in the region that there are things that we can do that no one else can do—and, in particular, China can’t do” (“U.S. tsunami aid may help image,” 4 January 2005). The second prong of power competition is between the U.S. and the EU. The relations between the two were soured by the Iraq War. When the United States announced the formation of the “core group,” the European nations immediately opposed it by stressing that “The natural place to coordinate aid is the United Nations” and the “European

J. Zhang / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 26–32

31

Union is in a position where relief efforts should be concentrated on one union, not two” (“EU takes negative stance on U.S.-centered aid to tsunami disaster,” 3 January 2005). The third prong of power competition is the U.S. anti-terrorism war. Since September 11, the United States has significantly increased program funding and the number of Foreign Service officers in South Asia and the Near East (US General Accounting Office, 2003). The Bush Administration has engaged South Asia as a second front for its global war against terrorism (Gershman, 2002). This is why Powell called the U.S. relief “an investment in national security” and stated that the U.S. relief effort “dries up those pools of dissatisfaction which might give rise to terrorist activity” (“U.S. hopes relief effort will boost image among Muslims: Powell,” 4 January 2005). The forth prong of power competition is that the tsunami has handed India the opportunity to establish itself as a regional power. As Business Week noted, India is now “a donor country . . .. The Indian army and navy are engaged in relief operations in Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Indonesia. India is joining Australia, Japan, and the U.S. in setting up and monitoring a tsunami early-warning system in the Indian Ocean” (“India pulls together amid disaster,” 11 January 2005). These four prongs of power competition constitute the dynamics of the symbolic interactions of public diplomacy between the nations. 5. Discussions and conclusion Using the case of the international relief efforts for the Asian tsunami catastrophe, the research confirmed the conceptualization of public diplomacy as symbolic interactionist process, in which nations actively participate in constructing and negotiating meanings of symbols and performing actions based on the meanings. The tsunami is a crisis for the involving nations and there are many uncertainties in the relief efforts. The actors had to observe and interpret meanings of other participants’ acts and perform acts based on the interpretations. Although the United Nations coordinated the relief efforts, there is not enough communication among the relief-providing nations. The already existing power competition in the region added to the uncertainty and the lack of effective communication. Thus, any act performed by a participant is likely regarded as a meaning-laden symbol, particularly to its competitors. The unique scenario of the natural disaster and the international power competition makes symbolic interactionism an effective interpretive tool to explain the interactions between the nations in their relief efforts. Furthermore, symbolic interactionism has been criticized for marginalizing macro-level power relations, but this research showed that power relations could be an intrinsic component in symbolic interactions. There are questions that this research did not address but are worthy of further exploration, such as the role of the news media in the actors’ interpretation of the meanings, the gaps between an actor’s intended meaning and the meaning constructed by other actors, including the media. Such gaps may have added to the misunderstandings and the power competition. References Anderson, W. (2003). Crafting the national pastime’s image: The history of major league baseball public relations. Journalism and Communication Monographs, 5(1), 5. Berghahn, V. (1999). Philanthropy and diplomacy in the “American century”. Diplomatic History, 23(3), 393. “Bush effort in disaster could help.” (31 December 2004). The International Herald Tribune, p. 6. “Bush plea tries to rebuild U.S. image: White House Presidents make joint appeal for disaster funds.” (4 January 2005). The Guardian, p. 2. “Bush under fire over U.S. aid.” (1 January 2005). Courier Mail, p. 29. “China boosts friendly image.” (6 January 2005). The Straits Times (Singapore), p. 1. Cooley, C. (1902). Human nature and the social order (pp. 179–185). New York: Scribner’s. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. “EU takes negative stance on U.S.-centered aid to tsunami disaster.” (3 January 2005). Kyodo News. At: http://www.japantoday.com/e/ ?content=news&cat=7&id=323717. Accessed on 16 January 2005. Forte, J. A. (2003). Applied symbolic interactionism: Meanings, memberships, and social work. In L. T. Reynolds & N. J. Herman (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism (pp. 915–936). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. “George Bush understood that this global disaster also offered a global opportunity.” (3 January 2005). The Independent (London), p. 22. Gershman, J. (2002). Is Southeast Asia the Second Front? Foreign Affairs, July/August 2002. Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/ 20020701faessay8520/john-gershman/is-southeast-asia-the-second-front.html. Accessed on Nov. 12, 2005. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior (p. 5). Chicago: Aldine.

32

J. Zhang / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 26–32

Gordon, J. (1997). Interpreting definitions of public relations: Self assessment and a symbolic interactionism-based alternative. Public Relations Review, 23, 57–66. Howard, J., Hollander, J. (1997). Gendered, situated, gendered selves (p. 92). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. “India pulls together amid disaster.” (11 January 2005). Business Week. At: http://netscape.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2005/nf20050111 8508 db087.htm. Accessed on 16 January 2005. LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. C. (1994). Symbolic interactionism and family studies. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 135, 163). New York: Plenum Press. Leiss, W., Kline, S., & Jhally, S. (1997). Social communication in advertising (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Martin, J., & Nakayama, T. (2003). Intercultural communication in contexts (pp. 204–206) (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Morgenthau, H. (1978). Politics among nations (3rd ed, pp. 5, 7, 39). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. “Nations turn aid bidding into political contest.” (12 January 2005). The Business Times Singapore, p. 1. Nye, J., & Owen, W. (1996). America’s information edge. Foreign Affairs, 75, 20–36. Peterson, A. (2002). Foreign aid reform is crucial to the United States’ campaign against terrorism. CSIS Prospectus, vol. 3, no. 1. Available at: http://www.csis.org/pubs/prospectus/02spring peterson.htm. Plummer, K. (1991). Symbolic interactionism (Vols. 1 and 2). Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated, ix. “Powell hopes aid will boost U.S. image.” (6 January 2005). Business Day, p. 1. Saxer, U. (1993). Public relations and symbolic politics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(2), 127–151. Schirch, L. (2005). Ritual and symbol in peacebuilding. Kumarian Press. Serajnik-Sraka, N. (1999). Slovenia’s promotion through mass media. In A. Chong, & J. Valencic (Eds.) (pp. 39–41). The image, the state and international relations. London School of Economics and Political Science. “The shifting politics of global giving.” (6 January 2005). Christian Science Monitor, p. 1. “Tsunami relief offers an opportunity for US to rebuild Asian ties.” (4 January 2005). AFX. “US hopes relief effort will boost image among Muslims: Powell.” (4 Jan 2005). Associated Press. “U.S. tsunami aid may help image.” (4 January 2005). USA Today. At http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-01-04-tsunami-aid-analysis x.htm. “UN will audit aid pledges.” (11 January 2005). Houston Chronicle, p. 1. US General Accounting Office (2003). U.S. public diplomacy: State Department expands efforts but faces significant challenges. Available at:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03951.pdf. Weston, K. M., & Rofel, L. B. (1984). Sexuality, class, and conflict in a lesbian workplace. Signs, 9, 623–646. Woodward, B. (2002). Bush at war (p. 35). Simon and Schuster: New York.