Cultural diplomacy promotes freedom of expression and empathy. It brings out the innately social nature of people across borders. How can the EU utilise culture as a smart power to counteract negative political trends?
The rise of extremist populism, the slide away from democracy in several countries, and the backlash against globalisation all point to the need for a stronger commitment to cultural and intercultural dialogue. To be sure, the world has generally moved towards more democratisation over the past century. The ideal of democratic governance has clearly been accepted internationally, especially through the United Nations, and is regarded as the shared goal for all states. However, in recent years, there have been growing threats to the notion of a liberal world order. In light of this, it is important to cultivate people-to-people understandings across borders.
And arguably, it is necessary to have a stronger EU in the international system. Indeed, one of the EU’s greatest accomplishments is its track record of spreading and consolidating democracy in line with international norms. The EU approaches culture in a broad sense: everything from arts and literature to tourism, education and research. And this is increasingly important in today’s context because the core principles that underpin culture as expressed in the EU’s 2016 Joint Communication – human rights, freedom of expression, diversity, and mutual understanding – naturally work to counter the negative trends away from democracy. Without the EU’s role, norms that we all take for granted could be fundamentally destabilised, not just in rising powers, but in the West itself with alarming developments like the election of Trump and Brexit.
Without the EU’s role, norms that we all take for granted could be fundamentally destabilised.
In the past couple of years, in particular, cyber and network propaganda have become a major concern. Trolls, bots, and foreign governments have purposefully tried to divide people and incite fear, and to some extent they have been successful. With the advent of individualised propaganda and companies like Cambridge Analytica and AggregateIQ engaging in new ‘psy ops’ strategies, citizens can be gradually swayed towards antidemocratic tendencies. And to make matters worse, citizens are directly and easily reachable through platforms like Google and Facebook. Cultural diplomacy is one of the main ways in which countries can combat this form of hybrid warfare and protect against the ravages of insularity, bigotry, and fanaticism.
Soft und smart
What role can cultural diplomacy play in surmounting these serious challenges? Longterm engagement provides a buffer for crises, and it means that people are less vulnerable to propaganda. A strong programme of cultural exchange can help to counteract extremism and an ‘us versus them’ mentality.
I would argue that in these challenging times, it is necessary to think of cultural diplomacy as a source of soft power, and to a limited extent, smart power. We like to think of cultural diplomacy as purely benign. Indeed, the EU’s cultural diplomacy is not fundamentally about propaganda or imposing its own version of culture on outsiders. Rather, cultural diplomacy is about the EU communicating its values, its own internal cultural diversity, and the many forms of expression that come with this to the outside world.
Many would prefer not to think of cultural diplomacy in power terms at all. But the EU already does relatively well in the soft power domain of cultural exchange. As an actor, it is not afraid to encourage cultural expression in an open-ended way, even if the results of cultural programmes end up being critical of the EU itself. Showing that the EU is able to accept criticism and debate is a strong source of soft power attraction in its own right.
The EU should seek to influence, particularly in the name of democracy. And it should use a broad range of tools to do so.
Given that the EU’s international impact is largely benign, and it generally strives to be a force for peace, development, and stability, I would argue that the EU should seek to influence, particularly in the name of democracy. And it should use a broad range of tools to do so. A stronger EU would be welcomed by the democracies of the world given current challenges. The political crisis in the US following the election of Donald Trump is chief among these challenges for the EU. Trump’s presidency has undeniably led to a transatlantic rift, at least at the leadership level, and this poses potentially serious problems for the EU on multiple levels, but especially when it comes to its goals of cultural diversity and democratic norms.
Culture as a weapon
Increasingly, much of what divides people across the globe is put in ‘cultural’ terms, and the relationship between the US and EU is no exception. American entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, the founder of Breitbart (launched in 2012), said that he created this far-right website, ‘to take back the culture’, by which he meant to wage a ‘cultural and political war’ against mainstream understandings of politics and values. When Steven Bannon took over Breitbart, he also opened a UK website in 2014, and now has plans to launch them in both France and Germany.
The EU should stand up to those who seek to weaponise culture, says author Mai'a Davis Cross, illustration: Gary Waters via ikon images/picture alliance.
Carrying on the legacy of the website’s founder, Bannon explicitly talks about the spread of Breitbart as part of a cultural and political war. He speaks of ‘weaponising’ the narrative. Now that Bannon has left the White House, he can arguably do even more to influence the American public, thereby exacerbating tensions among a range of people.
This illustrates why the EU needs smart power to be a key actor in today’s more turbulent times. Smart power is defined as the strategic combination of hard and soft power. While soft power is about attracting others to your point of view, hard power is about getting others to do what they would not otherwise do. Given this definition, it should be clear that hard power is not only about using military force or economic sanctions, as many tend to assume. Rather, it is also about standing up and insisting on one’s principles on the world stage.
When it comes to cultural diplomacy, a smart power strategy may include arguing, making bold statements in opposition to others, and denying how others wish to define culture. Thus, a smart power approach to cultural diplomacy means that the EU needs to stand up against those who would try to weaponize culture or engage in cultural war. If the other side sees culture as a weapon in war, there’s no choice but to see cultural diplomacy on some level as a form of resistance.
A smart power approach to cultural diplomacy means that the EU needs to stand up against those who would try to weaponize culture or engage in cultural war.
Such efforts can also help to combat radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism. And in light of the current pervasiveness of psychological or cognitive warfare, smart power in the form of counterpropaganda, i.e. using language and narrative, is necessary. The EU can reclaim the meaning of culture even if this means taking a stronger stance to do so.
Maintaining strong perceptions of the EU
The need to take a strong stance is no more urgent than during times of crisis. In my recent book, The Politics of Crisis in Europe (Cambridge University Press, 2017), I show that the EU is particularly vulnerable during times of crisis because of the damaging effect of the media in inciting a kind of societal panic surrounding the integration project. There is a kind of popularity in engaging in Europe-bashing, and an overarching meta-narrative that the EU is hard to understand. Time and time again these perceptions, amplified in the media, have taken on a self-fulfilling prophecy dynamic. What might have started out as a relatively routine policy challenge ends up growing into a crisis that seemingly threatens the very existence of the EU. It only takes a brief perusal of the covers of The Economist over the past sixty years to see that ‘end of Europe’ has been repeatedly and erroneously proclaimed.
In response to crises, the EU has engaged in short-term crisis public diplomacy. Crisis public diplomacy tries to correct the narrative through media, societal and academic engagement. But public diplomacy should not only kick in when a crisis strikes. It requires a long-term foundation to be effective. Crucially, long-term public diplomacy is cultural. It is about developing a deeper understanding that can withstand unexpected crises. It creates a buffer for the media narrative and frenzy surrounding the possible demise of the EU.
With the benefit of a strong basis of cultural exchange, people are more likely to stay with their long-term understandings than be swayed by short-term sensationalising. Thus, long-term cultural diplomacy creates both resilience and image resilience for the EU. While resilience is about bouncing back from crises, image resilience is about maintaining strong perceptions of the EU, so that foreign publics do not automatically buy the narrative that the EU is continually on the verge of falling apart.
Creating hubs for cultural relations
On 8 June 2016, the EU launched the joint communication entitledTowards an EU strategy for international cultural relations. The EU has long had soft power through its culture and history, but this joint communication means that the EU is making a stronger effort than in the past to achieve image resilience. Through this new initiative, it is important to recognise that culture is not simply an end in itself, but it also has strong ties to economic competitiveness and sustainable development, both key foreign policy goals of the EU. In addition, there is an explicit strategic dimension to the joint communication as it calls for the mainstreaming of cultural relations into EU foreign policy, the European External Action Service, cultural institutes, and strategic partners. It advocates creating hubs for cultural relations to take advantage of existing structures. The principle of ‘Promoting culture and inter-cultural dialogue for peaceful inter-community relations' involves new narratives to counter radicalisation and promote mutual understanding.
So far the joint communication’s activities have been diverse and important, involving art, photography, music, film, world heritage, and dialogue. But there are still potential areas to strengthen, using a broader range of tools. Key questions to address include: how can this initiative go beyond hubs to impact broader society? And how can it be more strategic?
I would advocate a kind of strategic flexibility that would allow the EU to capitalise on trends and developments as they occur in our fast-paced world. For instance, the Pulse of Europe movement that has spread to thousands of cities across Europe in open defiance of far-right populist parties could be a tremendous source of support for the EU integration project. Another example where strategic flexibility would be helpful is in the relationship between culture and politics. How might such an initiative provide more awareness of the dangers of propaganda during specific election campaigns?
The pro-European movement ‘Pulse of Europe’ is active in thousands of cities across Europe. Here at a campaign at St Paul's Church in Frankfurt ahead of the 2016 European elections, photo: Michael Probst via AP/picture alliance.
The joint communication is a strong platform to begin to think more strategically about going beyond hubs and creating broader resilience to negative political trends. Cultural diplomacy is important for Europe because culture is so central and valuable to the human experience itself. It promotes freedom of expression, empathy, and brings out the innately social nature of people across borders. Although sharing culture can either unite or divide, humans tend to try to find commonality. We are fundamentally social beings and in many ways culture emphasises our shared humanity.
If the EU has to use a strong narrative to fight propaganda and preserve the cultural domain then it must be prepared to do so.
Thus, engagement through culture is important, and when directed at external publics, it plays a dual role with both soft and smart power capabilities. Given that culture matters, there is a need to ensure that it is prevented from being weaponised. This requires more strategic thinking, and to some degree, a willingness to engage in a more argumentative approach in order to protect the domain of culture from propaganda. If the EU has to use a strong narrative to fight propaganda and preserve the cultural domain then it must be prepared to do so.
About the Author
Mai'a K. Davis Cross
Political Scientist
Mai'a K. Davis Cross is Professor of Political Science, International Affairs and Diplomacy and Director of the Center for International Affairs & World Cultures at Northeastern University. She holds a PhD in politics from Princeton University. Her expertise includes transnational networks, space diplomacy, public diplomacy, EU and transatlantic relations, human ultrasociality, and soft/smart power.
Culture Report Progress Europe
Culture has a strategic role to play in the process of European unification. What about cultural relations within Europe? How can cultural policy contribute to a European identity? In the Culture Report Progress Europe, international authors seek answers to these questions. Since 2021, the Culture Report is published exclusively online.
