Uluslararası İlişkilerde Yumuşak Gücün Temel Bir Birleşeni Olarak Kültürel Diplomasi ve Kültürel Etki Stratejileri

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı, küreselleşme koşulları altında kültürel diplomasi ve yumuşak güç (soft power) kavramları arasındaki bağları irdelemek ve kültürel diplomasi alanını kavramsal açıdan incelemektir. Küresel ve bölgesel ölçekte birçok ülkenin uyguladığı kültürel etki politikalarına bakıldığında, gücün yirminci yüzyılda tanık olunan dönüşümüne koşut olarak uluslararası planda bir etki sorunsalı karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Ancak, genel olarak, bu sorunsalı meydana getiren analitik unsurlar arasındaki ilişkilerin kapsamı ve bilhassa etki kavramının diplomatik-stratejik düzlemde taşıdığı anlamlar Uluslararası İlişkiler literatüründe göz ardı edilmektedir. Buradan hareketle, bu makale, küreselleşme çalışmaları kapsamında kültürel diplomasi-yumuşak güç bağlantısına kavramsal düzeyde açıklık getirmeyi ve literatüre bu yönden katkıda bulunmayı hedeflemektedir. Günümüzde yumuşak güç unsurları dış politika stratejilerinin ana eksenini ve küresel düzlemde etki kavramının içeriğini belirlemeye devam etmektedir. Bu çerçevede, Uluslararası İlişkilerdeki güç kavramıyla birlikte, yumuşak gücün gelişimi ve küreselleşme koşulları altında kazandığı yeni anlamlar giderek artan ölçüde önem kazanmaktadır. Burada, yumuşak gücü kullanan dış politika aktörleri ve bu kavramın dayandığı temel kaynaklar açısından Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininde genel anlamıyla kültür ve kültürel diplomasi arasındaki etkileşimler incelecektir. Son olarak, bu çalışma, neoliberal Uluslararası İlişkiler perspektifinden hareketle ve eleştirel bir literatür taraması etrafında, kültür, etki ve diplomasi kavramları arasındaki çeşitli metodolojik çıkarımları mercek altına alacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kültürel Diplomasi
• Yumuşak Güç
• Etki
• Uluslararası İlişkiler
• Küreselleşme
• Cultural Diplomacy
• Soft Power
• Influence
• International Relations
• Globalization

Cultural Diplomacy as a Basic Component of Soft Power in International Relations and Strategies of Cultural Influence

Abstract

The aim of this article is to examine the links between concepts of diplomacy and soft power under the conditions of globalization and examine conceptually the field of cultural diplomacy. When looking at the policies of cultural influence implemented by many countries on a global and regional scale, we face an international problematic of influence in parallel with the transformation of power in the twentieth century. However, in general, the extent of the relationships between the analytical elements that make up this problematic and especially the meaning of the concept of influence on the diplomatic-strategic context are mainly ignored in the International Relations literature. From this point of view, this article aims to clarify the conceptual relationship of cultural diplomacy-soft power in the context of globalization studies and contribute to the literature in this respect. Today, elements of soft power continue to determine the main axis of foreign policy strategies and the content of the influence on the global level. In this context, with the concept of power in International Relations, the new meanings that soft power gained under the conditions of development and globalization are becoming increasingly important. Here, in terms of foreign policy actors who use soft power and the basic sources on which this concept is based, the interactions between culture and cultural diplomacy in the International Relations discipline will be examined. Finally, this study will focus on a variety of methodological implications between the concepts of culture, influence and diplomacy, from a critical literature review based on a neoliberal perspective of International Relations.

Keywords

• Cultural Diplomacy
• Soft Power
• Influence
• International Relations
• Globalization

References

1. Arsenault, A. 2009. Public Diplomacy 2.0. Philip Seib (dir.) Toward a New Public Diplomacy Redirecting U.S. Foreign Policy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 135-153.
2. Baldwin, D. A. 2016. Power and International Relations. A Conceptual Approach, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
3. Berridge, G. R. 2010. Diplomacy theory and practice, 4th Edition, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Berridge, G. R.; Lloyd, L. 2012. The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionnay of Diplomacy, New York : Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Cull, N. J. 2013. “Foreword” in Mai’a K. Davis Cross et Jan Melissen (ed.), European Public Diplomacy Soft Power at Work, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, vii-xiii.
6. Cummings, M. C. 2003. Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey, Washington: Center for Arts and Culture.
7. Freeman, C. W. 2000. Arts of Power Statecraft and Diplomacy, Washington, D.C. : United States Institute of Peace Press.
8. Holsti, K. J. 1995. International Politics a Framework for Analysis, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc.

9. Keohane, R. ; Nye, J. S. 2002. “Governance in a Globalizing World” in Robert O. Keohane, Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World, New York: Routledge, 193-218.
10. Keohane, R. O. ; Nye, J. S. 1998. “Power and Interdependence in the Information Age”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 5 (Sep.-Oct.), 81-94.
11. Kessler, M.-C. 1999. La politique étrangère de la France. Acteurs et Processus, Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
12. Kessler, M.-C. 2018. “La diplomatie culturelle” in Thierry Balzacq; Frédéric Charillon; Frédéric Ramel, (ed.), Manuel de diplomatie, Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, 263-274.
13. Kostid, D. S. 2012. “Cultural Diplomacy and the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Practice : the Fortresses on the Danube” in Tuğçe Ersoy Öztürk (ed.) Cultural Diplomacy. Creating the culture of co-existence in the Balkans, İstanbul: TASAM, 41-52.
14. Laidi, Z. (ed.) 1993. L’Ordre mondial relaché sens et puissance après la Guerre Froide. Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques. Lane, P. 2013. French scientific and cultural Diplomacy. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
15. Little, R. 1997. “The growing relevance of pluralism ?” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, Marysia Zalewski (dir.), International theory: positivism & beyond, New York: Cambridge University Press, 66-86.
16. Lombard, A. 2003. Politique culturelle internationale. Le modèle français face à la mondialisation, Internationale de l'Imaginaire Nouvelle Série - No. 16, Paris: Babel Maison des Cultures du Monde.
17. McConnell F., Moreau, T., Dittmer, J. 2012. “Mimicking state diplomacy: the legitimizing strategies of unofficial diplomacies”, Geoforum, 43, 804-814.
18. Melissen, J. 2007. The new public diplomacy soft power in International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Nye, J. S. 1994. “Peering into the Future”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Jul.-Aug.), 82- 93.
20. Nye, J. S. 2002. The paradox of American power: why the world's only superpower can't go it alone. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Nye, J. S., 2003, “U.S. Power and Strategy after Iraq”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 4 (Jul.-Aug.), 60-73.
22. Nye, J. S. 2004. Soft Power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.
23. Nye, J. S. 2005. Power in the global information age from realism to globalization. London: Routledge.
24. Nye, J. S. 2006. “Soft Power and European-American Affairs” in Thomas L. Ilgen (ed.), Hard power, soft power and the future of transatlantic relations, Burlington: Ashgate, 25- 35.
25. Nye, J. 2008. “Public diplomacy and soft power”, The Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science (616), 94-109.
26. Nye, J. S. 2009. “Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 88, No. 4 (July/August), 160-163.
27. Nye, J. S. 2010. “The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 89, No. 6, The World Ahead (November/December), 2-12.
28. Nye, J. S. 2011. “Power and Foreign Policy”, Journal of Political Power, Vol. 4, No.1, April, 9-24.
29. Nye, J. S. ; Welch, D. A. 2011. Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation. An introduction to theory and history, Boston: Pearson.
30. Nye, J. S. 2012. “The Twenty-First Century Will Not Be a ‘Post-American’ World”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 56, 215-217.
31. Nye, J. S. 2013. L'Equilibre des puissances au XXIe Siècle. Géoéconomie, II (65), 19-29.
32. Nowotny, T. 2011. Diplomacy and Global Governance: the Diplomatic Service in An Age of Worldwide Interdependence, New Jersey: Transaction.
33. Pahlavi, P. 2013. “La diplomatie publique” in Thierry Balzacq et Frédéric Ramel (ed.), Traité de relations internationales, Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 553-606.
34. Pamment, J. 2012. New public diplomacy in the 21st century a comparative study of policy and practice. New York: Routledge.
35. Raymond, de J.-F. 2000. L'action culturelle extérieure de la France, Paris: La Documentation française.
36. Serodes, F. 2007. “Le nouveau rôle diplomatique informel des institutions culturelles” in Jean-Michel Tobelem, L'Arme de la Culture les Stratégies de la diplomatie culturelle non gouvernementale, Paris: L’Harmattan, 195-216.
37. Sur, S. 2009. Relations Internationales, Paris: Éditions Montchrestien – Lextenso Éditions.
38. Tuncer, F. F. 2020. “Uluslararası İlişkiler Dijital Dönüşümü: Twitter Diplomasisi” in İsmail Erkan Çelik (ed.), Dijital Dönüşüm, Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Boyutlarıyla, Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi, 195-207.