A New Roadmap for the Study of Digital Diplomacy
Throughout the 1980s, historian Eric Hobsbawm delivered a series of lectures examining the work of historians and the state of social history, his chosen discipline. Hobsbawm’s lectures coincided with tectonic shifts in global politics and rapid technological advancements as this decade witnessed the end of the Cold War, the false promise of neo-liberalism championed by the likes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the invention of the personal computers, video games and fax machines, the birth of the 24-hour news cycle thanks to CNN as well as environmental catastrophes such as Chernobyl. It was, as Hobsbawm remarked, a decade of profound social, political and economic change.
Hobsbawm’s (1997) analysis of the work of historians offers important insight into the history of digital diplomacy. For example, Hobsbawm argued that many historians focus on moments of great eruption such as the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century or the Bolshevik revolution of the 20th century (1997, p.118). The reason being that times of revolution offer a plethora of source materials for historians including pamphlets, letters, newspaper articles, political speeches and show trials. Yet by so doing historians limit their field of inquiry and fail to examine those countries and regions that did not experience great eruptions or revolutions. History suffers from a selection bias.
This is also true when examining the history of digital diplomacy scholarship as the vast majority of studies focus only on those technologies that diplomats and MFAs have adopted. We know very little about the technologies that diplomats chose not to adopt and why they did so. Diplomats migrated to social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, yet they did not migrate to Reddit. Diplomats experimented with virtual worlds but chose not to leverage virtual reality. Embassies are not housed in “smart buildings”, diplomats are not aided by humanoid robots and very few MFAs employ in-house coder writers. Some of these technologies may be irrelevant to the work of diplomats, while others may be too costly. Yet we do not really know why diplomats rejected these technologies, nor are we familiar with MFA decision making processes regarding which technologies to adopt and which to reject.
Hobsbawm’s second argument is that historians often engage in comparative analysis, be it at a societal, national or regional level (1997, p.106). Yet Hobsbawm asserted that such comparisons are highly problematic. In his eyes, one could not compare Japanese and English societies in the 1930s, or compare 19th century England with 19th century Russia, given great differences in the size and complexity of these societies, as well as differences in social norms, values, customs and histories. The fabric of a nation or a society is a mosaic of histories, customs and relations that yields distinctness, and which may preclude simple comparisons.
The history of digital diplomacy scholarship is marked by frequent comparisons between diplomats and MFAs from different countries. Countless studies are based on comparing the digital activities of different MFAs and Embassies such as contrasting the US State Department’s use of Twitter with that of the British Foreign Office. Yet studies also suggest that each MFA is a world unto itself. MFAs are national institutions, social bodies and political organs and each MFA is characterized by distinct features such as communicative cultures, hierarchical relations, professional norms, risk tolerance and historical roles within governments which have evolved over centuries. The conclusion is that different MFAs may thus adopt different technologies in different ways leading to digital diplomacies (plural).
For Hobsbawm, history and economics were intrinsically linked. Citing Marx, Hobsbawm asserted that history could not be decoupled from economics, and vice versa (1997, p.105). Nor could history ignore technological advancements. Hobsbawm concluded that social and cultural transformations derive from economic and technological developments. Yet at the same time, technological developments are shaped by cultural transformations given the formation of new ideas and metaphors on how societies should function (ibid, p.90). Key to his argument was that the financial logic of new technologies can reshape societies.
The history of digital diplomacy studies suggests that diplomacy is also shaped by economic transformations. Specifically, the financial logic of digital technologies often determines how they are leveraged by diplomats. The financial logics of social media is based on the constant sharing of personal information, which is converted into data that can be monetized thanks to algorithms, and that individuals must command the attention of their peers in what has been dubbed “The Attention Economy”. Studies have shown that these financial logics drove diplomats to enact performances of transparency online including the live tweeting of diplomatic summits. Financial logics also account for MFAs’ invocation of humor, satire, pop culture references and incivility online which are all used to summon the attention of digital publics and the media. Assessing the impact of new technologies on diplomacy, ranging from AI to humanoid robots, thus demands that scholars first explore these technologies financial logic.
Crucially, digital diplomacy scholarship indicates that one of the most important factors in shaping diplomats’ use of technology has been the use of digital technologies by individuals. Once individuals migrated to social media and used social media to discuss issues of mutual concern, diplomats also migrated to social media. Once individuals congregated in virtual worlds, diplomats opened virtual Embassies. Here again one finds that the study of digital diplomacy cannot be confined to the realm of diplomacy but must begin elsewhere, with a societal analysis of new technologies.
Like history, the practice of digital diplomacy is also linked to metaphors. Studies published over more than a decade indicate that diplomats’ use of technology has been shaped by the metaphors that come to be associated with different technologies. When Facebook and the like were viewed as new ‘town squares’, or spaces where connected publics could discuss issues of shared concern, MFAs were encouraged to ‘engage’ with users. Yet once social media were associated with the metaphor of ‘Echo Chambers’ of hate, diplomats were warned of the dangers of feeding trolls. Researching digital diplomacy thus means exploring the changing metaphors with which technologies are associated as well as better investigating the metaphors diplomats use when referring to different technologies.
Hobsbawm’s next argument focused more specifically on the role that technology plays in human history. According to Hobsbawm, major changes in human society were brought about by greater human capacity to control the forces of nature. An obvious example is assembly lines of factories, a technological innovation which allowed mass production and saw a shift in manual labor as people once occupied with cultivating the land were now transformed into factory workers (Hobsbawm, 1997, pp. 207-225). This technological innovation also reshaped the landscape of cities thanks to mass urbanization as individuals flocked to cities hoping to secure jobs in factories. Subsequently, historians of the Industrial Revolution often sought to compare the evolution of the different metropolises that emerged during this period. Yet Hobsbawm argued that cities too cannot be compared, as cities are not independent social organizations. Economically and politically cities cannot be separated from the larger social units of nation states. Indeed, no city is truly self-contained (ibid, 1997).
MFAs are also not self-contained, nor can they be separated from the larger units of governments. Studies have shown that whole-of-government approaches to technology impact which technologies diplomats adopt, and to what end. The Obama administration’s emphasis on using technology for public engagement impacted the State Department’s migration online. Yet the opposite is also true as government bans on technology also shape digital diplomacy. Until recently, Chinese diplomats were absent from Twitter as Western social media platforms are blocked by the Great Firewall. Assessing the practice of digital diplomacy thus also requires that one assess governmental approaches to technology.
What emerges from this analysis is a new roadmap for studying digital diplomacy. First, the field would benefit from in-depth studies of single MFAs with a focus on the processes through which diplomats decide which technologies to adopt and which to forge. Is this a deliberative process? A policy process? A decision made by higher echelons or the result of bottom-up process such diplomats’ experimentation with new technologies. Moreover, in-depth studies should focus on the metaphors diplomats use in reference to different technologies as metaphors may ultimately shape practices.
Second. Digital diplomacy studies must adopt a broader, societal lens. Before assessing how diplomats leverage social media, WhatsApp groups or AI, scholars must examine how these technologies are used by individuals, how they are depicted in the media and the underlying financial logic of each technology. These are essential steps that need to be taken before scholars enter an MFA or Embassy.
Finally, studies should delve deeper into the impact of whole-of-government approaches to technology. For example, it’s possible that among governments that view AI as a national security resources, MFAs will be less likely to adopt AI. The reason being that once technology is viewed through a national security lens; it becomes securitized and thus is utilized by militaries and security agencies as opposed to MFA. The opposite is also true. Governments that wish to lead the global; regulation of AI may demand that MFAs become experts in the development and use of AI. What is clear is that as digital diplomacy scholars, we have just begun to scratch the surface of this field of study.