Yudhishthir Raj Isar

Cultural Diplomacy: Beyond the National Interest?

The field of cultural diplomacy, which looms large in present-day cultural policy and discourse, has been insufficiently analysed by the cultural disciplines. This special issue engages with the task of filling the gap. The present essay sets out the terms in which the authors have taken up this engagement, focusing principally on Australia and Asia. Distinguishing between cultural diplomacy that is essentially interest-driven governmental practice and cultural relations, which is ideals-driven and practiced largely by non-state actors, the authors pursue a twofold aim. First, to demystify the field, especially when it is yoked to the notion of ‘soft power’; second, to better understand how actually-existing discourses of cultural diplomacy and/or cultural relations operate in different national contexts. The essay seeks in particular to scrutinize the current confusion surrounding cultural diplomacy and, in the context of the changing role of the nation-state, to explore its possibilities as an instrument for going beyond the national interest.

‘Culture in EU external relations’: an idea whose time has come?

This chapter analyses the emergent cultural diplomacy discourse and practice of the European Union (EU) institutions, which has differed from that of nation-states. In semantics to begin with, since a far broader notion of ‘culture in EU external relations’ is EU usage. Yet Bhabha’s theoretical distinction between the ‘pedagogical’ and the ‘performative’ functions of nation-state narrative strategies holds at the supra-national scale as well: the author will explore the ways in which these functions have been appropriated by non-state actors. In EU cultural diplomacy as a ‘cultural policy of display’ in Raymond Williams’ sense, the agenda setting process has thus been marked by a polyvocal process of appropriation by different stakeholders. They have recently taken the discourse ‘beyond cultural diplomacy’ and expedient ‘soft power’ considerations, in a spirit of global cultural citizenship that privileges intercultural dialogue, mutuality and reciprocity. How this vision will be applied, however, is yet to be seen.

‘Culture’, ‘sustainable development’ and cultural policy: a contrarian view

Abstract This essay offers a critical analysis of the ‘culture and sustainable development’ discourse, notably among cultural activists and in actually existing cultural policy. It interrogates the utility of the narrative, seeks to uncover the semantic manoeuvres it employs and challenges the conventional wisdom it represents. The essay first explores the itinerary of the ductile notion of ‘sustainability’, the ways in which it has been stretched far beyond the original intent of those who coined the term, and identifies the conceptual discontents that this semantic multiplication has entailed. It hypothesizes that precisely because the term ‘sustainable’ and its derivatives are so acceptable and malleable at the same time, they have been easy to yoke to the bandwagon of the many-faceted and totalizing process that is ‘development’, allowing many different actors to project their interests, hopes, and aspirations under this composite banner. The essay then analyses the campaign to make culture ‘the fourth pillar of sustainability’ under the banner of the movement called ‘Agenda 21 for Culture’. It concludes with a plea for a return to the original ecological focus of the term ‘sustainability’ – notably as regards climate change – and outlines some cultural policy responses such a focus can and should generate.

Cultural diplomacy: India does it differently

Abstract This article reviews the singularities of Indian doctrine and practice of cultural diplomacy, beginning with the observation that this term and the notions of ‘soft power’ and ‘public diplomacy’ commonly associated with cultural diplomacy elsewhere do not have much purchase in India, where the spirit and letter of ‘international cultural relations’ are the preferred currency. The essay explores the historical grounding for this preference, as well as the attitudes and practice that flow from it. Another singularity is the role and importance of the Indian diaspora: overseas populations of Indian origin have been both a significant segment of the target audience for international cultural relations – as if a certain idea of India had to be projected abroad to a part of itself – and a significant ‘co-producer’ in projecting that image. A third is the emergence of a new avatar of the diasporic Indian, now identified with capitalist entrepreneurship.

Confusing Culture, Polysemous Diversity: “Culture” and “Cultural Diversity” in and after the Convention

Like all norm-setting instruments elaborated by international organizations, UNESCO’s Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO, 2005a) is based upon concepts that are well-established keywords in the contemporary zeitgeist. However, this international treaty is an intriguing instance not only of how one of those concepts — cultural diversity — has been given a special meaning by an international organization, but also of how different stakeholders, be they governments or non-state actors, greatly stretch the envelope of meanings they in turn assign to it. By yoking, in fact subsuming, cultural diversity to the notion of “cultural expressions”, the drafters of the 2005 Convention sought to impose their selected special meaning in international public discourse. Yet they also felt the need to ensure, discursively, that the language of the Convention provided space for the several other, more common, understandings of the term. This assemblage of meanings includes several strands of the broad “anthropological” idea of cultural diversity, aesthetic readings of it as well as “cultural and creative industries” understandings. This is the principal cause of the semantic confusion that surrounds the 2005 Convention.

Erik Nemeth, Cultural Security. Evaluating the Power of Culture in International Affairs

Bibliography: Isar, Yudhishthir Raj: Erik Nemeth, Cultural Security. Evaluating the Power of Culture in International Affairs, ERIS, 3-2015, pp. 165-168. https://doi.org/10.3224/eris.v2i3.23462

Cultural politics micro and macro

the Internet and in the book’s concluding piece, Sandra Braman nicely wraps up with insightful thoughts on what she refers to as legal globalization (as it appears in the government, governance and governmentality) and the public sphere. The Digital Public Sphere promises ‘food for further thinking and debates’ (p. 18), and it is safe to say that it does indeed account for the acute challenges the field of media policy faces. By setting the framework within the theoretic realm of the digital public sphere, as well as processes of convergence, marketisation and globalization, the editors ask challenging questions regarding the intersection of public(s) and digital public sphere(s). Even though this could have been done more explicitly in the individual chapters, the collection is a valuable contribution to evolving theoretic frameworks, to identifying gray zones within the field of media policy, and to recognizing pressing topics for future research.