Soft power in global politics? diplomatic partners as transversal actors

Abstract

The extent to which diplomatic partners act as transversal actors, exercising soft power in global politics, is explored in this research paper. Diplomatic partners are found to be key actors operating on every level—the personal, the social, the political and the international—furthering the interests of their official partners, and the state. Although located in the private sphere, male and female diplomatic partners are conditioned by a gendered norm that incorporates them into their official partners’ profession. As a consequence of this incorporation, diplomatic partners become instrumental (transversal) actors in the international public sphere of the diplomatic service. A feminist ontology that theorises the dynamic relationship between the public and private spheres is shown to be necessary for an accurate and comprehensive understanding of global politics.

Notes

¹ Gender is defined as asymmetrical social constructs of masculinity and femininity, as opposed to sex which is biological. Peterson (1992, 73) argues that considering gender ‘decenters biologistic explanations’ and enables us to understand ‘how women (and men) are “made not born” ’.

² As Devetak (2001, 184) explains, genealogy challenges the idea of history as a unified story and writes counter-histories, which expose hidden meanings and processes of exclusion; its political purpose is to problematise prevailing identity formations that appear natural.

³ Pateman (1988, 2) asserts that an original sexual pact or contract, expressed through the marriage contract, established men's political right over women, in a patriarchal sense, but also in the sense that they have ‘orderly access’ to women's bodies.

⁴ Although Sylvester focuses on the marriage contract, I assert that de facto relationships would probably engender obligations just as binding. This would be an interesting hypothesis for future research to test.

⁵ Personal interview, 4 September 2003.

⁶ This paper is not concerned with proving this claim.

⁷ Personal interview with the Family Liaison Co-ordinator at MFAT, 2 September 2003.

⁸ For example, a directory of diplomats for staff of the Foreign Office in Britain (FCO 2004) shows in an illustrative way just how crucially the state views the participation of diplomatic partners. Where one might expect to see the names of Heads of Mission followed by Deputy Heads, the spouses of Heads are listed instead.

⁹ Personal interview, 20 September 2003.

¹⁰ Personal interview, 28 September 2003.

¹¹ Personal interview, 18 September 2003.

¹² Personal interview, 4 September 2003.

¹³ Personal interview, 31 August 2003.

¹⁴ Personal interview, 28 September 2003.

¹⁵ Personal interview, 29 September 2003.

¹⁶ Personal interview, 4 September 2003.

¹⁷ Personal interview, 7 October 2003.

¹⁸ Personal interview, 7 October 2003.

¹⁹ Personal interview, 29 September 2003.

²⁰ Personal interview, 19 September 2003.

²¹ Personal interview, 31 August 2003.

²² Personal interview, 18 September 2003.

²³ Personal interview, 31 August 2003

²⁴ Personal interview, 14 October 2003.

²⁵ Personal interview, 3 September 2003.

²⁶ Personal interview, 19 September 2003.

²⁷ Personal interview, 3 September 2003.

²⁸ Personal interview, 4 September 2003.

²⁹ Personal interview, 3 September 2003.

³⁰ The English School appears able to recognise the impact that actors other than those representing states have within a context of international society or public diplomacy (Dore 1984, 414). Yet, as True (2004, 151–62) points out, although it recognises the importance of the informal culture of diplomacy, the English School's analytic exclusion of the private sphere means that important cultural actors, ie diplomatic partners, are excluded.

³¹ Personal interview, 7 October 2003.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tania Domett

Tania Domett is writing her Master's thesis on work–life balance and its implications for gender equity in New Zealand. An earlier version of this article won the 2004 Women in Politics prize awarded by the Australasian Political Studies Association in association with the Institute of Public Administration of Australia. She is greatly indebted to Dr Jacqui True for her intellectual guidance and constant encouragement, and to the judges of the 2004 Women in Politics prize, particularly Associate Professor Deborah Brennan.