Putting Interfaith Dialogue on the Public Diplomacy Radar: Goals, Power, Strategies, and the Influence of Worldviews

Abstract

Putting Interfaith Dialogue on the Public Diplomacy RadarGoals, Power, Strategies, and the Influence of Worldviews Juyan Zhang (bio) introduction Since the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions, interfaith dialogue has gained traction in world affairs. It has become a domestic concern for countries with different religious faiths and the need to promote inter-faith understanding and harmonious coexistence.1 It has become a diplomatic instrument as states increasingly realize the role of religion in shaping international relations.2 The beginning of the twenty-first century saw even more interest in interfaith dialogue. Rapid growth of communication technology and increased international migration have brought people of different religions into closer contact.3 States have tapped religion as a source of soft power, and religious organizations have actively expanded their influence in the world arena. At the same time, religious hostilities are on the rise.4 Research has shown that interfaith dialogue can contribute to personal, relational, and structural changes.5 On the micro level, members of interfaith groups experience relational, personal, and transformative learning.6 On the macro level, interfaith dialogue brings about positive changes to global affairs. For example, after the Second Vatican Council made positive statements about other religions and recognized the unity of humankind,7 the Roman Catholic Church redefined its position by focusing on religious freedom, poverty, engagement with various cultures, and nuclear disarmament.8 Against such a backdrop, nation states have shown increasing interest in using interfaith dialogue for diplomacy. In the post-September 11 world, policymakers have recognized that religion continues to be a strong source of personal motivation and that foreign policy and security analysis need to incorporate an understanding of religion.9 Accordingly, faith-based diplomacy has been recognized as an essential area of expertise.10 [End Page 216] congruence between public diplomacy and interfaith dialogue Interfaith dialogue at the international level shares significant similarities with public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is defined as a relationship management function that promotes strategic people-to-people communication to establish a sustaining relationship.11 Similarly, interfaith dialogue is “an intentional encounter between individuals who adhere to differing religious beliefs and practices in an effort to foster respect and cooperation among these groups through organized dialogue.”12 Public diplomacy is regarded as a dialogical form of international political communication aimed at creating mutually beneficial relations.13 Similarly, interfaith dialogue is regarded as one of the most important political instruments for reaching across borders and building bridges of peace and hope.14 There is also significant congruence between public diplomacy and interfaith dialogue in terms of the changes they bring about. Neufeldt observed three approaches regarding how change occurs through inter-faith dialogue. The theological approach aims at understanding each other’s doctrines, worldviews, and personal experiences. The political approach aims at generating social coexistence and legitimizing or delegitimizing a political process or actor. The peacebuilding approach aims at developing a joint platform for conflict resolution.15 Among the three approaches, the theological approach matches cultural diplomacy, which refers to long-term public diplomacy that promotes understanding of a nation’s culture; the political approach matches engagement diplomacy, which aims at creating shared resources and fashioning a common language;16 and the peacebuilding approach matches conflict resolution in public diplomacy. Such congruence makes it possible to examine how interfaith dialogue fits into public diplomacy. dialogue as two-way symmetrical communication Interfaith dialogue is often portrayed as an effort to foster respect, cooperation, tolerance, and collaboration. Real-world dialogue, however, is a more complicated process. An organization may engage in sham dialogue and have no intention of conceding,17 while well-intentioned dialogue may generate no results. James E. Grunig’s excellence theory, the most influential theory in the field of public relations, can greatly inform our understanding of the dynamics of interfaith dialogue. The theory’s [End Page 217] notion of two-way symmetrical communication has been equated with dialogue.18 In the two-way symmetrical model, organizations use communication to adjust their ideas and behavior to those of others. Grunig argues that the model represents the most ethical and effective public relations. Critics argue that the model is unrealistic because organizations hire public relations people not as...