In the reading, "Diplomacy: A Special Case of Intergroup Communication", written by William B. Gudykunst and taken from Communicating for Peace, Gudykunst outlines his theory of anxiety/uncertainty management applied to the area of diplomatic relations. He begins by addressing the complexity of developing a theory and cites attempts from the areas of international relations, political psychology, and communication researchers.

Gudykunst, a communications researcher, outlines the fallacies of previous research: concentrating on ambiguity, technical vocabulary, rhetoric dimensions, and the nature of diplomatic reporting. He claims, "A communication theory that integrates interpersonal and intergroup levels of analysis can provide the foundation for a theory of diplomatic communication." He expands this view by defining and making a distinction between interpersonal and intergroup interactions within diplomacy. Intergroup behavior accounts for the majority of diplomatic communication. Stephenson (1981) takes another stance on this issue by comparing the levels of intergroup salience and interpersonal salience. He arrives at two conclusions: 1) generative mechanism for intergroup communication is social identity. The mechanism for interpersonal communication is personal identity. 2) Intergroup and interpersonal factors are both salient in every encounter to some degree.

Gudykunst's theory maintains that individuals attempt to reduce uncertainty in initial interactions with strangers by creating proactive predictions and retroactive explanations about other's behavior. Diplomats act under levels of uncertainty regarding other diplomats, their environment, and whether their particular decision is "correct". His hypotheses are:

Ethnolinguistic identity influences attributional confidence

If diplomats are secure in their national identity, then they will be more inclined to work with outgroups ("enemies").

Ethnolinguistic identity affects second language competence and expectations.

If diplomats are close to their own country and see another as a superior, they will feel negatively about that country and not learn their language.

Second language competence is linked to knowledge of other group and attributional confidence.

Language incompetence limits diplomats' ability to understand and predict. The use of a translator can take from the pragmatic meaning of the interaction.

Shared communication networks increase positive expectations and attributional confidence.

In order to be confident about their predictions of behavior of representatives and nations, diplomats must perceive similarity between themselves and other representatives.

Interpersonal salience influences attributional confidence.

Isolationist attitudes in leaders are associated with hostility toward foreign nations.

The conclusion of the article by William B. Gudykunst emphasized the importance of viewing this theory in diplomatic relations as a work in progress. It draws attention to the fallbacks of the theory ( Click here to read Greg's Critique of AUM.) and also offers insights into future study and theory. He states, "the present analysis should be viewed as an initial attempt to apply a current communication theory to diplomacy.

Interpretation

I felt that Gudykunst's theory had some value in diplomatic relations. In accordance with some of his proposed hypotheses, I could see some definite correlation between what he said and instances that I am aware of about diplomatic relations. For example, with his first proposal- ethnolinguistic identity influences attributional confidence, Gunykunst cited President Nixon's progress with the People's Republic of China and President Reagan's arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union. In times of great distress and fear of these communist countries, two, very conservative, presidents were able to open the doors to communication. They felt confident in their own ethnolinguistic identity and related strongly with their nation. This led them to feel confident and take strides toward the "enemy".

This theory will also have an impact on relations within our own nation. We are a nation of many ethnicities and backgrounds. We assume that our nations of residence are an individual's ingroup, this may not be true, especially in the United States. Understanding Gudykunst's theory of diplomacy may help us explain and predict our own interactions within our own nation.

Evaluation

I felt that this proposal for a diplomatic communications theory was complex and confusing. The majority of this article was reviewing other studies and approaches and defining terms. I had a hard time deciphering what was important to the theory and what was background information. Honestly, I read the report a few times before I was able to grasp what was Gudykunst's material and what was not.

I do have to say, though, that I thought this was a good attempt at an explanation of communication in diplomatic relations. By reading Gudykunst's ideas on diplomacy I was able to grab some concepts that I would have otherwise overlooked. I also appreciated the inclusion at the end of the article regarding future studies and theory. I feel that Gudykunst also realized the theory's shortcomings. I appreciated his acknowledgement that this was in no way a complete work or explanation. In the end, I feel that I learned new information about diplomatic communications and also have a better understanding of anxiety/uncertainty management.

Home

Griffen, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Take a deeper look into diplomatic relations.

Still Interested?

Cultural communication is a very important part of communication theory. Many theorists have made attempts to better the understanding and use of communication across cultures. Another group from my class has put together a very useful guide to Speech Codes Theory and its application across cultures.
Click Here to see Kyle's Homepage about Speech Codes Theory.