[Commlist] CFP: Soft Power and Public Diplomacy in the Age of AI

*CALL FOR PROPOSALS*
*Soft Power and Public Diplomacy in the Age of AI*
*Anthem Studies in Soft Power and Public Diplomacy* is a comprehensive 
multidisciplinary corpus of work, incorporating titles addressing actors 
and issues; political, economic, social and cultural aspects; 
technological and normative aspects; evaluation, training and policy 
development. The series promotes innovative and consequential work in 
the conjoined areas of soft power and public diplomacy, by scholars in 
fields or disciplines including anthropology, cultural studies, 
economics, geography, law, history, international communication, 
linguistics, media, museum studies, philosophy, security studies and 
sociology.

/Anthem Studies in Soft Power and Public Diplomacy/ series editor, Naren 
Chitty, is developing an *Anthem Handbook of Soft Power and Public 
Diplomacy in the Age of AI *with Craig Hayden, Hendrik Ohnesorge, and 
Chenjun Wang._[i] <#_edn1>_ We are presently seeking chapter proposals 
from potential contributors. Thoughts about the Handbook are laid out 
under the textbox (below) that outlines the Anthem Studies series. We 
are seeking proposals (500-word max with ten keywords) and biodata (250 
words max) by the _end of September 2024_. The intention is to 
commission chapters by the end of the year or earlier. Book chapters 
will be limited to 6000 words all inclusive. While not essential, it 
would be of value if chapters could lead to proposals of expansions as 
books for the /Anthem Studies in Soft Power and Public Diplomacy./
/
/
Critical perspectives that examine dangers and benefits to society and 
individuals are welcome as well as administrative ones that go beyond 
celebrating performative excellence or prescribing ways of implementing 
successful public diplomacy and/or soft power generation programs, 
through critical commentary. Critical perspectives may relate to 
discussion of theories, methods, technology deployment, state policies 
and strategies, campaigns, human rights, and influencer suppression to 
name a few possibilities. On occasion chapters on public diplomacy feel 
as if they serve the public diplomacy of states, something we would like 
to discourage in the edited volume.  Our preference is critical inquiry 
that goes beyond observing what actors do, to consequences and 
recommendations.
_Questioning the relationship between soft power and public 
diplomacy._ The series’ aims (in the textbox above) speak of ‘the 
conjoined areas of soft power and public diplomacy’. A theoretical 
question that will benefit from discussion is whether these areas 
continue to be enjoined or if not, what is their relationship. Recent 
theorisation within soft power publications, of influence through 
attraction (such as in experiential theory that has a philosophic base) 
have themselves critiqued aspects of soft power conceptualisation._[ii] 
<#_edn2>_ Additionally the emergence of a rapidly growing digital space 
for communication action has led to inquiry and theorisation on digital 
diplomacy. There would be merit in exploring whether recent research on 
public diplomacy in the digital sphere, such as digital diplomacy, and 
recent scholarship on influence through attraction are of relevance to 
each other._[iii] <#_edn3>_  Research on concepts that overlap with soft 
power such as charisma also need further exploration. _[iv] <#_edn4>_
_How elastic is the term public diplomacy?_ Public diplomacy has 
atomised, branched, metastasized, or segmented, as the case maybe. It 
can be subsumed by diplomacy, implemented in parts through international 
public relations, strategic communication, and place-branding._[v] 
<#_edn5>_emphasize cultural diplomacy and intercultural relations as 
significant parts or things apart, focus on digital diplomacy – to 
mention areas that come to mind. The term also figures in discussions of 
propaganda that include Ellulian notions of technique, and digital 
rhetoric in analysis of content._[vi] <#_edn6>_What are the 
relationships among these and between them and attraction-based 
influence? In what ways are content fabrication (the innuendo is 
intended) affected by digital technology for the various subsets or 
parallel sets of public diplomacy?
_Actors and factors:_ Contributors may consider several types of actors, 
domains of digital diplomacy, and stances of communication, and 
audiences.  Prominent among actors are states and interstate 
organizations. States and organizations tend to be strategic with a 
preference for measuring outcomes. Soft Power ranking tables have become 
a fixture and have attracted serious inquiry._[vii] <#_edn7>_Some state 
agencies advocate a ‘hands off approach’ that resonates with Joseph 
Nye’s observation that ‘public diplomacy is done more /by/ publics, 
government find themselves caught in a dilemma about control’._[viii] 
<#_edn8>_This statement is also open to debate. However, there are 
various non-state actors including diasporic communities, intentional 
influencers, and publics whose responses to content entangle with 
algorithms in ways that impact the calculus of states. Potential domains 
of digital diplomacy increase by the day on the Internet-of-Everything.
_State strategy and demotic disruption._ The proposed volume will 
present contributions capturing disruptive transformations in how 
international actors engage publics in pursuance of foreign policy 
objectives, at home and abroad, in the context of an increasingly 
overlapping and contested information environment. Both case studies and 
analytical approaches are welcome. Contributors may present findings 
from studies of state strategies to leverage the potential of platforms 
to enable new forms of outreach and influence, as well as counter the 
malign efforts of competing actors using similar technologies. While the 
volume does not envision a deterministic approach to how technology 
changes state influence campaigns, it invites consideration of how 
technologies such as social media and AI open-up new opportunities for 
statecraft – and demotic influences.  Studies of international 
communication and technology have centred on these questions for some 
time. Long before soft power became popular in policy parlance, new 
communication technologies were prompting prognostications on the 
affordance of these technologies to be technologies of freedom._[ix] 
<#_edn9>_
_AI governance, soft power, and public diplomacy._ The ways in which 
states have turned to different applications of artificial intelligence 
signal new lines of effort seen as necessary to ministries of foreign 
affairs, and, herald new challenges for any form of public diplomacy in 
a contested information space._[x] <#_edn10>_ The ‘coming out’ by 
generative artificial intelligence (AI) of the developer’s closet has 
prompted debates on benefits and threat posed by AI – while also 
revealing crucial assumptions about the requirements of influence, not 
just for advancing policy objectives, but for a broader conception of 
national security and attraction-based influence. As scholars move to 
capture developments in digital influence practices, the broader 
theoretical and analytical implications of technological affordances 
remain open to further contributions beyond previous attempts to link 
affordances to practice._[xi] <#_edn11>_ The bearing of AI governance 
initiatives in influential jurisdictions, national and international, on 
soft power and public diplomacy in the networked AI era would also be of 
interest.
Theoretical discussions as well as case studies are invited in the 
following and any other area pertinent to the Handbook title:

  * Relationship between soft power and public diplomacy
  * Content fabrication (the innuendo is intended) and subsets of public
    diplomacy
  * Elasticity of the term public diplomacy
  * Actors and factors in public diplomacy
  * States’ strategic public diplomacy and demotic disruption
  * AI governance, soft power, and public diplomacy.

Interested parties are invited to consult with Naren Chitty  
<(_naren.chitty /at/ mq.edu.au) <mailto:(naren.chitty /at/ mq.edu.au)>_> regarding a 
topic before preparing an abstract.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
_[i] <#_ednref1>_ Naren Chitty AM is Professor Emeritus and Foundation 
Chair in International Communication at Macquarie University, Sydney; 
Craig Hayden is  Associate Professor of Strategic Studies at the Marine 
Corps University Command and Staff College, Quantico; Hendrik Ohnesorge 
is Managing Director of the Center for Global Studies (CGS) at the 
University of Bonn; Chenjun Wang is a Researcher at the Soft Power 
Analysis and Resource Centre (SPARC) at Macquarie University, Sydney.
_[ii] <#_ednref2>_ Chitty, Naren (2023) “An Experiential Theory of 
Attraction-Based Influence (Unintended and Intended).” In /The Routledge 
Handbook of Soft Power/, 2nd ed., 6–34. Routledge.
_[iii] <#_ednref3>_ Bjola, C. & Manor, I. (2024) /Oxford Handbook of 
Digital Diplomacy/. Oxford University Press.
_[iv] <#_ednref4>_ Ohnesorge, Hendrik (2023) “The gift of grace: soft 
power, charisma, and transatlantic relations.” In /The Routledge 
Handbook of Soft Power/, 2nd ed., 35–46. Routledge.
Ohnesorge, HW 2020, /Soft Power: The Forces of Attraction in 
International Relation/, Springer Nature, Cham.
_[v] <#_ednref5>_ Golan, Guy, Sung-Un Yang, and Dennis Kinsey, eds 
/International Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Communication and 
Engagement./ New York, NY: Peter Lang. 2015. 458 pages.
Pamment, James (2014) Articulating influence: Toward a research agenda 
for interpreting the evaluation of soft power, public diplomacy and 
nation brands, /Public Relations Review,/ 4,1., pp. 50-59.
Pamment, James (2013) /New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A 
Comparative Study of Policy and Practice/, Routledge.
_[vi] <#_ednref6>_ Chitty, Naren (2021) World propaganda and personal 
insecurity: intent, content, and contentment, In /Edward Elgar Handbook 
of Political Propaganda /(Eds. Gary Rawnsley et al) Edward Elgar, p. 7-27.;
Crowley, S. (2003). Composition is not rhetoric/. Enculturation/, 
[online] 5(1). Available at: 
http://www.enculturation.net/5_1/crowley.html [Accessed 18 Nov. 2020];
  Ellul, Jacques. (1973). /Propaganda: the formation of men’s 
attitudes/. New York: Vintage Books.
_[vii] <#_ednref7>_Wang, Chenjun (2023)  A study of soft power rankings: 
concepts, method(ology), and evaluation In /The Routledge Handbook of 
Soft Power/, 2nd ed., 190–212. London & New York: Routledge.
_[viii] <#_ednref8>_  Nye, Joseph (2011)/ The Future of Power. /Public 
Affairs, New York, p. 109/./
_[ix] <#_ednref9>_ Sola Pool, Ithiel de. (1983) /Technologies of 
Freedom/. Harvard University Press.
_[x] <#_ednref10>_ Huang, Z.A. (2024) “Terminology, AI bias, and the 
risks of current digital public diplomacy practices.” /Place Branding 
and Public Diplomacy/. _https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-024-00324-x 
<https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-024-00324-x>_
_[xi] <#_ednref11>_ Hayden, Craig (2018). “Technologies of influence: 
The materiality of soft power in public diplomacy.” In /The Routledge 
Handbook of Soft Power 1st edition/, (eds) Naren Chitty, Lilian Ji, Gary 
Rawnsley & Crag Hayden. Oxon: Routledge.


---------------
The COMMLIST
---------------
This mailing list is a free service offered by Nico Carpentier. Please use it responsibly and wisely.
--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit http://commlist.org/
--
Before sending a posting request, please always read the guidelines at http://commlist.org/
--
To contact the mailing list manager:
Email: (nico.carpentier /at/ commlist.org)
URL: http://nicocarpentier.net
---------------