TOO MUCH GOOD STUFF…CAN’T BLOG ON ALL OF IT
Lots of great things to comment on – too many in fact – and it’s a hell of a nice summer day outside. So, I’m taking the kids to a nearby festival with a petting zoo and overpriced concessions.
Be back online tonight.
BEACON SOFT POWER AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY SERIES:DAY 5
For Thursday’s segment of the series, Paul Kretkowski’s Beacon features a post by the eminent scholar Joseph S. Nye, Jr., father of the “Soft Power” concept itself and the former Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Dr. Nye has also served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of the National Intelligence Council, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology.
A excerpt from Professor Nye’s guest post:
“Public Diplomacy Dateline 1958: Perestroika Begins When a Soviet Visits Columbia UniversityI think the single best episode of public diplomacy of which I am aware was the U.S.-Soviet exchange program that brought Alexander Yakovlev to study at Columbia University in 1958. He was greatly taken by the theories of pluralism taught by Professor David Truman. He applied these ideas as a key exponent of perestroika and glasnost after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the 1980s. This helped to accelerate a peaceful end to the Cold War and to the Soviet Union. Although it took two decades to pay off, it is difficult to think of a greater impact than that. (I describe the event in more detail in Chapter 2 of Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.)”
Read Dr. Joseph S. Nye’s post in full here.
1958 must have been quite a year at Columbia for future Soviet bloc historical figures. That year also saw as exchange students the future KGB General Oleg Kalugin and Hafiazullah Amin, the bloodthirsty Marxist Prime Minister of Afghanistan who was toppled and murdered in the Tajbeg Palace by special KGB commandos in the Soviet invasion of 1979.
Blogging Note:
More to come tonight…..
THE COGNITIVE STIMULUS OF AMBIGUITY
The Eide Neurolearning Blog, one of my favorite stops in the blogosphere, had an important post for those concerned with creativity, learning and cognition. “Beyond Black & White: Learning to Tolerate Ambiguity “. An excerpt:
“The picture below shows an interesting view into the biology of perceiving ambiguity – when decisions about categories are not so clear. And, it shows that frontal striatal circuits play an important role in recognizing ambiguity.
… In fact, ambiguity is not well-recognized as an important part of nearly all creative processes (some examples below). In brainstorming sessions, innovative work teams may practice with ambiguity exercises like those posted in the bottom link. There’s a book called The First Honest Book About Lies* that we like…at the bottom of the cover it says *You always have to read the asterisk. It has its humorous side, but about ambiguity – it hits the mark. The book starts out with optical illusions (these are ambiguous, aren’t they?), then moves on the topics like white lies and propaganda. In a gentle way, it introduces the idea that real life lived is filled with ambiguity and nuance – and you may find it a valuable starting point for discussion.”
Zen, particularly the practice of meditating upon the meaning of koans, riddles that are constructed paradoxically or seemingly irrationally (” what is the sound of one hand clapping?”) that are meant to be understood not by reasoning, but by insight, relies heavily upon ambiguity as a trigger. Some aspects of Sufi stories or parables also demonstrate this cognitive quality.
My speculation here is that the use of ambiguity prevents the brain from engaging in a kind of autopilot filing process and instead has to try and ” search” among a variety of possible contextual meanings, leading to new connections.
BEACON SOFT POWER AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY SERIES:DAY 4
For Thursday’s segment of the series, Paul Kretkowski’s Beacon features a post by Dr. Nancy Snow. Professor Snow is a senior fellow at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. An excerpt:
“Soft Power: Fulbright’s International Character Keeps Paying Dividends
As for soft power, I am eternally biased in favor of the Fulbright program. I knew Senator Fulbright personally and I’ve yet to come across an octogenarian who could elicit Rock Star status with international Fulbright scholars as I saw on many occasions during my graduate school days living in Washington, D.C. Fulbright was very realistic about his namesake’s appeal: it must not come across as propaganda or appear too linked to government public diplomacy goals. It must stand on its own attractiveness (beauty for beauty’s sake) as an important tool in building mutual understanding. That’s soft power at its best, for I do believe that the United States still holds great pulling power as a seat of outstanding education and openness in the pursuit of ideas. (Or at least I would hope so!)
The beauty of Fulbright is that it is a truly international program that works with nongovernmental organizations and governments throughout the world in the furtherance of such openness. Its very mutuality in structure is what makes it a soft power all-star for a multitude of countries but with an American heritage.”
Read Professor Snow’s post in full here:
I have to add that a recently retired colleague of mine was a Fullbright scholar and I observed that her overseas experience was less a snapshot in time than the establishment of ongoing relationships. Not certain if that was typical of the Fullbright program but I strongly suspect it is.
CASTING A GLITTERING EYE ON SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND 4GW
Dave Schuler, who I have discovered has a polymathic grasp of most subjects, had an important post at The Glittering Eye that I would like to direct to the attention of those readers inclined to strategy and military affairs. I have reproduced Dave’s post in it’s entirety:
The adaptive functionality of limitations on war
“At Gene Expressions, matoko-chan has posted a consideration of just war theory from an evolutionary standpoint, reflections on a give-and-take we’d had in the comments of one of my posts on just wars.
It’s important that we not lose track of the fact that human social systems and the laws and rules of ethics that come with them are technologies, tools for living happier and more satisfying lives. The ethical and legal principles governing the decision to go to war and how war should be conducted most definitely has benefits. They enable members of societies that practice them to specialize and, as has been known for nearly 300 years, that has economic benefits—we’re more prosperous as a result and live healthier, more fulfilling lives as a result. Practicing such principles allows the societies to avoid certain costs.
I am concerned that what we’re seeing in the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, both on the part of the Israelis and on the part of Hezbollah, will become the future way of war in a post-Westphalian world. This is the world being created by the radicals and ideologues who have degraded the role of states in human society by attempting to reduce the role of states and treating non-states as though they were states. That is the nature of radicals and ideologues: they hurry to discard social technologies without understanding the purpose and workings of the technology they’re discarding. I think it’s a world that will be poorer and meaner.
If you want to understand the social, economic, and psychological costs of this new world, look to Israel. They’ve been adapting to them for the last 50 years.”
I’m reserving comment for the moment hoping that those of you who have been deeply engaged in thinking about emerging military theories ( or, alternatively, attacking them) will offer your views on Dave’s post either here or at The Glittering Eye.
Zenpundit is a blog dedicated to exploring the intersections of foreign policy, history, military theory, national security,strategic thinking, futurism, cognition and a number of other esoteric pursuits.
Customized Web Site & Blog Design
