In an effort to go ahead in understanding the phenomenon of public diplomacy and soft power explained by Joseph Nye in his book Soft Power, The Means to Success in World Politics, I would like to share with my classmates the concept of “echo back power” that I have elaborated in order to improve our understanding. Constructive critiques are welcomed.
According to Nye, the soft power of a state includes the ability to shape the preferences of the public opinion through attraction, such as using the attractiveness of its culture, political ideals, and policies, rather than through coercion or payments. And, if we take into account –again according to Nye- that Public Diplomacy is supposed to be the long term action of a country communicating on a permanent basis with the purpose of informing and influencing the public opinion targeted abroad, then it is valuable to understand and explore the importance that the resonating capacity of the message has on the receiver, based on the soft power of the sender, and in the tuning and rapport* created by the sender or by the content of the message itself, which could be called “echo back power”.
*This a concept used in the field of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, which explore the relationships between how we think (neuro), how we communicate (linguistic) based in our patterns of behavior, emotion and subjective experience.
Agustin Fornell
Echo Back Power. I like it. What we do today echos through eternity. This is certainly true, as our actions (and inactions) are remembered by the generations that proceed us. This, as you mention, we need to ensure that are actions--especially our culturally diplomatic ones, are continuously made instead of "going in, getting it done, and pulling out".
ReplyDeleteMy my do I hear a journal article or dissertation being written? I think this a well thought out concept, though shouldn't we also take into conception the environment/context message is sent through/ received in and the position of the receiver? I think you mention this in your mention of "subjective experience" but I think its worth noting again, that a person or nation in a situation of lower standing may have more to lose by giving negative feedback. So I feel there may be a bias even in Nye's concept. Though this concept certainly fits the lacking power of the United States with its 2nd lose of hosting the FIFA cup.
ReplyDeleteI think the concept of "echo back power" sounds similar to "feedback" and I was wondering if you could just clarify the difference between the two. I understand that the meaning given to the message by the receiver is most important (especially in trying to influence), which is complicated by the fact that we give meanings to messages, not messages to meanings.
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks Melissa to share with me the opinion that it is necessary clarification.
ReplyDeleteThinking in the best way to approach to the nuances of the concepts in analysis, I was thinking –as an example- that is appropriate to say to you “thanks for your feedback”, but not “thanks for your echo back power” based on the following reasons.
We can start saying that Feedback is information given in response to a message used as a basis for improvement and Echo is a sound caused by the reflection of sound waves. That is why I proposed the definition of echo back power as the resonating capacity of the message on the receiver, based on the soft power of the sender, and on the tuning and rapport created by the sender or by the content/structure of the message itself. Understanding this phenomenon is relevant and valuable because identifying the “resonating capacity” of the receiver or of a given segment of public opinion, it would help the sender to elaborate the message to reach such a fertile land that “echo back” to the public sphere.
The fact is that when the message is delivered and reaches the receiver, we could say -if there is tuning and rapport- that there is a resonating capacity with a favorable predisposition on the receiver to the sender or to the content/structure of the message based in factors like: shared values or believes; shared intellectuals devices to process information; subjective experience; framing; common analogies and/or schemas; good enough doses of visual, kinesthetic or auditory language; costumes and traditions; shared generalizations (when sender and receiver have common specific experiences and generalize them to make them true, outside of their particular context); cognitive dissonance; use or appropriate metaphors or rhetoric, etc.
Agustin Fornell
This whole concept seems a bit like brainwashing or using subliminal messages over the long term to convince people to think, act, or react a certain way. The creation of a "rapport" between the sender and receiver can only be created if trust can be gained from the receiver by the sender. In doing so, it seems best for the sender to use any way necessary to create that kind of relationship so that the sender gets the results he's looking for in the long run.
ReplyDelete