I’m happy to see an elevated discussion developing as a result of my remarks to InfoWarCon last month. Craig Hayden, an assistant professor at American University’s School of International Service (where, coincidentally, I will be teaching undergraduates next semester as diplomat-in-residence), has entered the fray with a thoughtful response – to me, Bill Rugh, and Marc Lynch – on Intermap. It’s appropriately titled, “A Conversation or a War?”

Among other things, Dr. Hayden asks about two possible incompatibilities. The first is that I argue both that the U.S. needs to facilitate a Grand Conversation (such as the State Department’s Democracy Video Challenge) and also that “we can inject our own messages and ideals” into this broad and deep oral and digital engagement. I myself see no contradiction here. Yes, we risk contaminating the conversation so that it won’t be listened to. But I do see the conversation as being a message-bearing methodology. It does not have to bear a message, but it can. Certainly, conversation as valuable for its own sake: when bad arguments are exposed to the light of day, they lose their power.

The second incompatibility that Dr. Hayden claims involves the terms “war of ideas” and “Grand Conversation” themselves. He writes:

“When considering the strategic, orientational metaphors that we have for PD, I think we need to get past Glassman’s ‘War of Ideas.’ We need to do this in part because of the very reasons that he identifies. Under his logic, we need to facilitate conversations that can advance causes that align with U.S. interests (such as the ‘1 Million Against the FARC’). But does this call for martial metaphors? We are either in a ‘Grand Conversation’ or a ‘War of Ideas.’ I think these two metaphors are ultimately incompatible.”

Let me clarify. The “war of ideas” is a counter-terrorism effort — to undermine dangerous ideologies and prevent young people from following a path to violent extremism. A “Grand Conversation” is a means to achieve the ends of that war (or battle or engagement or whatever word you would like to use — I am open to suggestions galore). The “Grand Conversation” has other PD uses as well – in areas that reach well beyond the war of ideas, including educational exchanges, for example.

The bigger issue is that are dealing with a new approach here, and I am aware that I may not have been clear. In fact, in PD 2.0, we are far from reaching the dogma stage. Everything is open for discussion, and I welcome the contention. In fact, maybe this is our own petite Grand Conversation.

What irks me is a lack of intellectual engagement on these important matters. PD, which has for so long been mired its own dogma, its own history, its own high self-esteem, is starting to breathe some new air. It’s a pleasure to see serious academics like Craig Hayden and Marc Lynch getting beyond the discussions that have dominated the alumni associations and the think tanks for so long. Keep the Conversation going!

Tags: American University, Craig Hayden, Marc Lynch, Public Diplomacy 2.0, War of Ideas, William Rugh