United by Difference

Abstract

The last two decades of research on globalization is replete with claims about the power of nonstate actors and the implied demise or transformation of diplomacy.1 Posing the question in these terms, however, begets a more fundamental question: what characterizes diplomacy as a social practice? Answering this question is important if we want to know how diplomacy may be changing as other actors become more active in representing and governing between and beyond states. This is a task thatis less straightforward than one might expect. We may, for example, draw up a list of tasks performed by diplomats and see whether others, too, are performing such tasks: if we can tick a given number of boxes - representation, communication, or negotiation, for example - that then constitutes diplomatic work. Or we can differentiate diplomats from other actors by adding prefixes, such as celebrity diplomacy or NGO diplomacy. But none of this tells us much about the meaning attributed to diplomacy by diplomats and nondiplomats alike. What are the rules of diplomacy and what types of skills are valued? Stripped to its basics, what is it that constitutes diplomacy?In seeking to answer these questions I draw on the analytical framework presented in the introduction - territorial versus nonterritorial representation and representation versus governance - and analyze diplomatic work by contrasting it with humanitarian work. I argue that what unites diplomats is simultaneously what separates them, namely the representation of different territorial units. For this reason, diplomacy is characterized by a thin culture in that it places a premium on communication and the management of friction in the absence of shared values. Humanitarian actors, by contrast, share a thick culture in that what constitutes humanitarian action is defined by a set of substantive values that underwrites their claim to the representation of groups in whose name they act.2Underlying this difference in the constitution of diplomatic and humanitarian work is a more general mechanism: the culture that characterizes diplomatic work and humanitarian work, respectively, flows from the character of the relation that is established and continually reproduced between the actor and the object that the actor either seeks to represent and/ or govern. Diplomats represent territorial units whose existence is given: there would not be diplomats as we know them if the system was suzerain, for example. Humanitarian and other nonstate actors, however, have to construct and continually reproduce the governance object (i.e., suffering individuals, the economy, the environment) that is the rationale for their existence. Humanitarianism is constituted by a set of substantive values whose existence is constitutive of humanitarianism as a social practice. Diplomacy, by contrast, is constituted by a set of procedural values that reflect the defining feature of the object that diplomats represent, namely sovereign, territorial units whose interests may differ.The more general point is that we gain more in terms of understanding diplomacy and its evolution over time by seeking to unearth some of its core features than by drawing up a list of typical diplomatic tasks such as representation, communication, and negotiation. Other actors perform these same tasks, but that does not mean that they engage in diplomacy, nor are such actors fruitfully labelled diplomats. Unearthing the logic of diplomacy in terms of the character of the relation between diplomats and what they represent, then, offers added value for the study of diplomacy and global governance more generally. I argue, for example, that the thinness of diplomatic culture is expressed in how diplomats are attentive to form in a way that other actors are not, and that this feature also helps account for its resilience.I focus on humanitarian actors as a contrast to diplomats for three main reasons. First, humanitarian action has expanded considerably over the last two decades, and diplomats and humanitarian actors engage one another on a range of issues that are high on the international agenda. …