I don’t think we should distinguish cultural diplomacy from public diplomacy. In her article, Cynthia P. Schneider (2009) reiterates that Milton C. Cummings defined cultural diplomacy as “the exchange of ideas, information, art and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples to foster mutual understanding.” It’s about winning hearts and minds by involving emotion and empathy. This sounds very familiar to the objectives of public diplomacy. Bruce Gregory (2008) defines public diplomacy as “the means by which states, associates of states, and non-state actors understand culture, attitudes, and behavior; build and manage relationships, and influence opinions and actions to advance their interests and values.” Both definitions emphasize the need for engagement and mutual understanding. Cultural diplomacy is a means to engagement and mutual understanding of societies and values. This can be done through art exhibits, speaker programs, music exchanges, sports programs, social media campaigns, etc.
All these programs strive to create mutual understanding and spark conversations/engagement. Conversations are fluid, which is why different offices are needed to execute public diplomacy. For example, the Bureaus of International Information Programs and Educational and Cultural Affairs carry out different programs in cultural, sports, and culinary diplomacy, among others. In the end, the goal of cultural and public diplomacy is the same – create mutual understanding. We cannot go about winning hearts and minds with rigid programs, which is why we should not distinguish cultural diplomacy from public diplomacy. If all efforts work towards the same goal, why distinguish.
Dialgoues 