The Foreign Service Journal, January-February 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JANUARY FEBRUARY 2015 41 ested in nding out what diplomats do—this is a known. ey are a bit more interested in helping diplomats “do diplomacy” better, but this seems to require an understanding of elds other than diplomacy. Moreover, as academics they have no stake in solving the problems of particular diplomatic services and their political masters. Such e orts cross over into the realm of policy advocacy, and there is no shortage of people who already engage in that. What students of diplomacy are interested in is demonstrating why the work of diplomats is so important and ubiquitous—not just to their colleagues but also to the public at large. As long as people live and work in separate groups, each having a strong sense of its separate identity, but each needing relations with others, then these relations will have a distinctive and potentially dangerous character. Experience suggests that such relations are best handled by people steeped in the understandings, conven- tions and rules which have emerged over centuries and continue to develop, and which we associate with diplomacy. is is what is unique to diplomacy, those who study it say. Yet paradoxically, it is not particularly interesting to diplomats because they already know it. (At least if they are any good.) What can diplomats do with the information that their symbolic and representational signi cance is as important, and sometimes more important, than anything they might actually accomplish? And does it really matter to members of the diplomatic corps that their role is one of the very few tangible expressions of the international society or community to which everyone routinely makes reference? Adjusting Expectations e answer to whether or not diplomacy is useful echoes the old defense of the liberal arts. Diplomacy is useful, but only once you take it on its own terms and stop looking for proof of its utility. So, yes, diplomats should continue to glance at academic publications about their profession and attend the occasional international relations conference, hoping not for revelation so much as the odd insightful nugget for future use. ey should also speak up when academics seem to have missed the point, and say that, in their experience, at least, “Diplomacy is not like that at all.” Academics, for their part, should hang out with diplomats once in a while, to remind themselves both of what is special and what is mundane about their profession. Finally, neither party should worry if the relationship between them is not as close as others—often their respective managers, administrators and consultants—press them into expecting it to be. n