By Chester Cabalza
(Copyright @ 2015 by Chester B Cabalza. All Rights Reserved).
It is no wonder that
anthropologists may best serve as effective diplomats in the theatrical stage
of international community. It is through the wisdom of scholars who study and
understand peoples’ culture and society can better conduct the art of diplomacy
to address transnational issues confronted by citizens of humanity.
Two anthropologists can
best exemplify the argument I am trying to expound in my essay. They are
Filipino anthropologist Mario Zamora and American anthropologist Liisa Malkki.
The late Dr Mario D
Zamora, an Indologist or someone who specializes on Indian affairs has
expressed his love affair with India since the inception of his teaching career
that resulted to fieldworks and immersion producing numerous writings, a
dissertation, and research works on India and the Philippines.
Manifestations of
interests on Indian culture and society are found in his works such as his
first edited book in 1959, entitled, An
Indian Village Council Development; later he specialized in the
subcontinent of India for which he wrote a dissertation on The Panchayat: A Study of the Changing Village Council with Special
Reference to Senapur, Uttar Pradesh in 1963. Based from the abstract of his
study, he wanted to know and understand the Panchayat system in India from the
Vedic Age until 1962. He aimed at describing the changes undergone by the
Panchayat, an ancient Indian institution, and to point out some constant
features in its historical transition. In his observation, the Panchayat is
vital and still part of the existing culture apparent to present India.
His fieldwork in India had
been documented in his book on Fieldwork:
The Human Experience in 1963 where his article, together with some articles
penned by Asian and American anthropologists. They wrote extensively
experiences in their chosen fieldwork areas. Professor Zamora concentrated his
experiences studying the inner workings in Indian society.
He ascended to later
become the Chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of the
Philippines in Diliman from 1963 to 1969. His six-year stint as chair of the
Anthropology Department brought him to higher post as Dean of the University of
the Philippines at Baguio City. He then taught at American universities latter
in his teaching career.
While Dr Liisa Malkki,
an American anthropologist, immersed herself extensively in various fieldworks
in Africa particularly among Hutu refugees in Tanzania and Hutu exiles from
Burundi and Rwanda. Because of her romance with refugee camps, she was able to
write books and articles about her fieldwork and embraced interesting research
interests on the politics of nationalism, internationalism, cosmopolitanism,
and human rights.
She started as
assistant professor of anthropology at the University of California in Irvine
where at that time she was doing extensive fieldwork in Tanzania and wrote her
first book on Purity and Exile: Violence,
Memory, and National Cosmology among Hutu Refugees in Tanzania in 1995. Her
exposure to inhumane conditions of refugees during civil war led her to explore
political violence and exile which she thought may produce transformations on
historical consciousness and national identity among displaced people.
Because of this
extensive fieldwork in Tanzania, she was able to produce article essays and
books banking on her personal experiences and results of her observations in
refugee camps. For example, in her article, Citizens
of Humanity: Internationalism and the Imagined Community of Nations in 1994,
she wrote a slice of her experience and ethnographic fieldwork among Hutu
refugees from Burundi living in a refugee camp in western Tanzania. She
chronicled various issues and concerns happening inside Mishamo camp by
displaced people; the dynamics of ‘politics’ among foreign experts who are cast
by the refugees as representatives of the “international audience”; and the political
role of international organizations like the United Nations.
In her engaging article
Refugees and Exile: From ‘Refugee
Studies’ to the National Order of Things written in 1995, she again discusses
the processes of national identity, historical consciousness, and social
imagination of enemies constructed in the process of their everyday lives in
refugee camps.
Today, she works as an
Associate Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University. Her research interests include: the
politics of nationalism, internationalism, cosmopolitanism, and human rights
discourses as transnational cultural forms; the social production of historical
memory and the uses of history; political violence, exile, and displacement;
the ethics and politics of humanitarian aid; child research; and visual
culture.
Anthropologists as Bearer of Peace and
the Prospects of Cultural Diplomacy
The
advantage of anthropologists of becoming better torchbearers of peace among
nations is their vast knowledge and understanding of the physical and cultural
aspects of humans. Diplomacy, as a term, customarily refers to the whole
process of the political relations of states. Diplomacy is the art and practice
of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups with the purpose
of strengthening the country, nation or organization in the service of relation
to others by advancing the interests of a country’s charge.
The
domain of diplomacy and promotion of peace are not new to anthropologists and
around their community. In fact, Zamora wrote Anthropological Diplomacy: Issues and Principles in 1982 aimed at
dissecting the culture of diplomacy in the promotion of peace and prevention of
war by knowing, understanding, and appreciating the basic affirmations of
society. On the other hand, Malkki beautifully wrote Things to Come: Internationalism and Global Solidarities in Late 1990s in
1998 to look at the prospects of how international community works and unites
to aspire for world peace; and her engaging article on Citizens of Humanity: Internationalism and the Imagined Community of
Nations in 1994 brought readers to take a glimpse about the lives and works
of top diplomats in the United Nations (UN), as part of the scenarios she
constructed to appeal for world solidarity as a global family.
Hence,
the UN is a global arbiter of disputes founded in 1945, after the Second World
War, by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security,
developing friendly relations among nations, and promoting social progress,
better living standards, and human rights. Because of its unique international
character and the powers vested in its founding Charter, the organization can
take action on wide ranging issues and provide a forum for its member-countries
to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the
Economic and Social Council, and other bodies and committees.
Among
the various pillars of international and regional organizations like the UN,
European Union (EU), and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), there
are three pillars common to all, namely: security, economic, and political. The
newly added pillar would be cultural.
Cultural
diplomacy has become a buzzword in the last decade for governments around the
world. While there is no universal definition for cultural diplomacy, it has
generally come to connote conscious efforts to promote cultural exchange among
nations and peoples, with a view to foster mutual understanding (Cummings 2003,
as cited in U.S. Department of State 2005). The relations forged by cultural
diplomacy are therefore of a deeper nature, among peoples more than among
governments or policies.
Because
cultural diplomacy operates in the public sphere rather than in conference rooms,
it is inextricably linked to public diplomacy (Bound et al. 2007,
Ryniejska-Kieldanowicz 2009). It might be said that cultural diplomacy sets the
tone for public diplomacy, which is a more policy-oriented approach to
influencing public opinion. What is clear is that cultural diplomacy is a
long-term, relationship-building process. Culture then acts as the advance
party of sorts, setting the foundation for mutually beneficial future relations
among states.
By
definition, cultural diplomacy combines two fields of study. It necessarily
contains an international relations aspect, its functions being linked to
Joseph S. Nye Jr.’s (2003, as cited in U.S. Department of State 2005) concept
of soft power, or being able to achieve one’s goals through attraction of
persuasion. Simply put, the understanding fostered by cultural diplomacy is a
means to political end. But the other, arguably more crucial aspect is culture.
Because cultural diplomacy is “international communication”
(Ryniejska-Kieldanowicz 2009), some understanding about what comprises the
culture of a particular state must be arrived at, and what aspects of it should
be communicated to the world.
Discourse
on cultural diplomacy has likewise taken root in countries less prominent on
the international scene. For instance, in Poland the concept is fairly new in
government pronouncements. Ryniejska-Kieldanowicz (2009) found cultural
diplomacy to be integral to a country’s branding efforts, or how a country
intends for others to perceive it. She claims soft power to be more relevant
today than military “hard power”. Cultural diplomacy, therefore, enables
non-powers (in the international relations) to make a play on the world stage.
Compared
to other countries that have steadily pursuing cultural diplomacy thrusts for
years now, the Philippines might be considered a laggard. Only in 2011 did the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) created a Cultural Diplomacy Unit (CDU) via
Department Order 15-11. Cultural diplomacy is now the unofficial “fourth pillar”
of foreign policy, alongside, national security, economic diplomacy, and
assistance to Filipino nationals.
The
formation of the CDU is the latest development in what it seems to be a renewal
of cultural thrusts by the Philippine government, punctuated by the passing of
the country’s National Cultural Heritage Act in 2009 or Republic Act No 10066.
The law seeks to protect national heritage by affording special protections to
materials or work deemed National Cultural Treasures or Important Cultural property.
Both
Department Order 15-11 and RA No. 10066 call for the establishment in other
countries of a Sentro Rizal, an institution intended to be a repository of
resources on Philippine culture. The Act mentions the education of Filipino
children living abroad as the main purpose of the Sentro Rizal. However, its
inclusion in the CDU directive signals a cultural diplomacy function, and that
the materials to be sourced in the Sentro Rizal may be used to promote
Philippine culture to host countries. This is a function similar to the British
Council, China’s Confucius Institute, and other cultural organizations.
For
instance, in order to align my essay to the works of one of the anthropologists
I am studying, Dr Mario Zamora has been a prolific writer about Indian society
and culture. Being a student of anthropology and a practicing anthropologist
myself, I have written also articles In India about our defense and strategic
partnership with India. I have been documenting India’s contributions to the
Philippines’ emerging frontline service sector in business process outsourcing
in the country. Also, the Philippines established diplomatic relations with
India in November 1949. In commemoration of the 60th anniversary of
Philippines-India diplomatic relations, the month of November has been
proclaimed as “Philippines-India Friendship Month” under Proclamation No. 1924
signed on October 23, 2009 in Malacanan Palace. This amicable gesture cemented
the 57 year old Treaty of Friendship signed in Manila on July 11, 1952 between
the two democratic countries and pre-dominantly English speaking countries in
Asia.
Anthropologists as Leaders in the
International Community
Anthropologists
as thinkers and peace advocates can offer best ideas on how to understand
cultural similarities and differences of humanity and of the international
community. They are a good source in understanding cultures at wartime and
peacetime. For instance, two female anthropologists, Ruth Benedict and Margaret
Mead, shared sphere of influence and expertise after their influential,
popular, and best-selling writings to reverberate the role of anthropologists
in high-level policymaking as their grit for cross-cultural policy
recommendations were observed at war time. Thus, the scholarly contributions of
anthropologists Mario Zamora and Liisa Malkki can also be attributed to the
works of high-profile and respected anthropologists Benedict and Mead.
In current
deterritorialized world, the World Bank president, Korean-born American
physician and anthropologist Jim Yong Kim made as difference as he ensured the
organization’s mission to deliver more powerful results to support sustained
growth and prioritize evidence-based solutions over ideology. He earned a
medical degree from Harvard Medical School in 1991 where he helped set up the
Global Health Delivery Project and a Ph.D in Anthropology from Harvard
University in 1993.
In the end,
anthropologists can also make a difference in the world or the international
community. Their scholarly works, research projects, and commentaries are
primordial in understanding clash of civilizations and soft power diplomacy
that are founded by culture; in hope that we become a unified and harmonious
family of nations. They can contribute extensively on diplomacy, national
security, peace process, and nation-building which are primordial to aspire for
a better world.
References:
Bound,
et al. 2007. Cultural Diplomacy. London:
Demos.
Cummings,
M. Jr. 2003. Cultural Diplomacy and the
United States Government: A Survey. Washington D.C: Center for Arts and
Culture.
Malkki,
L. 1998. Things to Come: Internationalism
and Global Solidarities in the Late 1990s. Public Culture, Volume 10 (2):
431-442.
Malkki,
L. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence,
Memory, and National Cosmology among Hutu refugees in Tanzania. Chicago
University Press.
Malkki,
L. 1995. Refugees and Exile: From
‘Refugee Studies’ to the National Order of Things. Annual review of
Anthropology 24.
Malkki,
L. 1994. Citizens of Humanity:
Internationalism and the Imagined Community of Nations. Diaspora: A Journal
of Transnational Studies, Volume 3 (1): 41-68.
Nye,
J. 2003. Propaganda Isn’t the Way: Soft
Power. The International Herald Tribune, 10 January.
Ryniejska-Kieldanowicz,
M. 2009. Cultural Diplomacy as a Form of
International Communication. Finalist Paper, Institute for Public
Relations, BledCom Special Prize for Best New Research on the Cultural Variable
in Public Relations Practice, Institute for Public Relations.
U.S.
Department of State. 2005. Cultural
Diplomacy: The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy. Report of the Advisory
Committee on Cultural Diplomacy.
Zamora,
M. 1983. Fieldwork: The Human Experience.
New York: Gordon and Breach.
Zamora,
M. 1982. Anthropological Diplomacy:
Issues and Principles. Studies in Third World Societies, Williamsburg, Va:
Department of Anthropology.
Zamora,
M. 1963. The Panchayat: A Study of the
Changing Village Council with Special Reference to Senapur, Uttar Pradash. India.
Zamora,
M. 1959. An Indian Village Council Development. India.
