Some current approaches to US cultural diplomacy demonstrate a distinct departure from older models: rather than just present the United States’ ideas, values, and cultures abroad, they actively seek to build mutual and trust-based relationships through two-way communication with the counterpart countries. Under this new relational approach to international cultural engagement, US institutions positively and productively engage with partnering countries by promoting teamwork, building enduring relations, responding to partners’ needs, and involving the public in those countries.
These approaches have recently received increased attention in the field, and several scholars and policymakers consider them the ideal approach to US cultural diplomacy. Yet despite this increased interest and recognition, few studies have examined relational approaches in an in-depth manner. To help fill this gap, this study identifies and analyzes how relational approaches are exhibited in two US international cultural engagement programs, and explores how their practices produce distinctive outcomes and impacts. Further, through investigating how to analyze the current state of relational approaches in US practices, I develop an analytical framework that proved useful in examining two-way exchange in the design, implementation, and assessment of relational international cultural engagement programs. Similarly, I develop a set of indicators to assess and measure the outcomes and impacts of relational approaches.
Specifically, this study conducts an in-depth study of two cases: (1) the Andes Partnership, part of the Andes Exchange: Animating Democracy through Arts and Culture; and (2) Being “We, the People”: Afghanistan, America & the Minority Imprint, a project of Museums & Community Collaborations Abroad (MCCA). A mix of qualitative research methods, including collection and analysis of both informative and evaluative documents and in-depth interviews, is used to examine the intentions and agendas of the US organizations for their respective projects, how those intentions and plans actually played out on the ground, the experiences of involved personnel both in the US and the counterpart countries, and how those personnel evaluated the projects.
The findings indicate that the relational approaches represented in these two cases avoid a message-oriented and one-sided approach and instead seek out mutual interest, adopting a “communicating strategy” and addressing US national interest at the same time. Although the extents of mutual interest, joint coordination, and communal benefit vary, it is evident that in both cases the US representatives did not only seek or impose the interest of the US party, did not manage the program unilaterally, and did not generate benefits only to the US side. Consequently, both cases built international and domestic connections, relationships grew out of these connections, and the interaction generated mutual understanding, trust, cross-cultural friendship, and brotherhood. As a result, social capital was both generated and applied. Based on these positive results, I discuss the implications of my findings and make recommendations for both the US government and its partnering organizations in the private sector, to promote more effective and sustainable international cultural engagement through relational approaches.