Skip to main content

Secretary Rice Visits the Middle East

An US Department of State press release posted on January 9, 2007 announced that Secretary Rice wil be visiting the Middle East from January 12 through January 19, 2007 and will meet regional leaders to discuss the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, upcoming strategies for Iraq, and other issues of regional importance.

In an article published in the Journal of Communication Inquiry titled "US public diplomacy in the Middle East," I point out that historically, public diplomacy efforts targeted at the Middle East have been driven by manipulative tactics. The goals of these diplomacy efforts have been to use persuasion strategies that would shift public opinion in the Middle East. This top-down approach reflects one-way communication and has only created grounds for further conflict. Fundamental to this approach is the idea that there's something wrong with the intended audience of the message. Further, current public diplomacy efforts in the Middle east suggest that this audience needs to be (and can be) changed through public diplomacy efforts.

I suggest the culture-centered approach as an alternative to these top-down methods of communication in public diplomacy. The culture-centered approach is committed to listening to other voices and ultimately is open to changes in policies based on what emerges from the dialogue. Culture-centered listening is in essence different from mere talk of listening that we are currently seeing in US public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East that simply use the language of listening to further co-opt the agendas of the target audience and use listening as another persuasive tool to convince the target audience. Such facades of listening are inherently dishonest and I would argue, become clearly evident to the intended audience of the message.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &

Activism, Communication and Social Change

Now days I am trying to engage myself with various issues related to indigenous communities. As a part of academia it is a constant quest for all of us, how can we engage ourselves to make the world a better place to live. All the reading of this week addressed the aspects of reflexivity and engagement; and, one of them is an article by Zoller (2005) that discussed many aspects of activism, communication and social change. Though in his article he focused mainly on the health and related issues; I think we can use this framework (along with other frameworks like CCA) in other broad contexts, such as the context of indigenous lives, indigenous knowledge, science, technology, art, craft, and other infrastructural issues. Zoller (2005) perceived activism as a means for social change by challenging existing power relation. He mentioned different approaches of participation and emphasized on the aspects of community group mobilization for collective actions. In this context he discussed var