H, anonymous
EVEN the least thoughtful of diplomats must look nowadays with dismay upon the field of his professional activity. If it is the purpose of diplomacy to develop and diversify international relationships, to avoid international conflicts, to foster understanding and thereby promote confidence, tolerance and mutual esteem, then clearly it has failed and failed miserably. And today, to make its tasks still more difficult, new causes of conflict between nations are being added to those which the past has accustomed us to consider as usual, if not inevitable.
We have often relied upon the play of divergent and conflicting currents of opinion inside a given country to temper that country's foreign policy and mitigate whatever asperities it might from time to time display. In other words, we placed a certain measure of confidence in the ability of individuals to reason for themselves and to offer independent criticism. Such a view implied, of course, that a considerable number of persons had received an adequate education and as a result were capable of offering resistance to irrational emotionalism. In the world in which now we are living that conception of the rôle of the individual is no longer as generally valid as it used to be, and in large and important areas it is energetically repudiated. Education, far from taking as its essential purpose the development of an autonomous personality, is becoming a factory process for the wholesale manufacture of standardized automatons conditioned to respond to emotional appeals. In many lands, propaganda is substituted for education and a crude emotionalism has usurped the place of those qualities, moral and intellectual, heretofore intimately linked with the very idea of the human personality. Nor is the child the only victim. The adult is preyed upon by the same forces, and thanks to a directed press and the influence of the motion picture and the radio shows unmistakable signs of becoming incapable of independent thought and action...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
IN the postwar decade the United States has been deeply concerned with problems of international communication and particularly with the flow of information and ideas from this country abroad. Our efforts in this field have had two principal objectives. The first has been to counter Soviet propaganda and bring other countries to a fuller and therefore, we hope, more friendly understanding of the United States and its policies. The second has been to make technical knowledge available as a means of assistance in economic development abroad.
Despite virtual invisibility outside the diplomatic community and antipathy on the part of many within, public diplomacy--the dissemination of America's message abroad--may become Washington's major growth industry over the coming four years. A neat congruence of personality, technology and history makes this a reasonable prospect.
THE idea that the United States of America ought to have a professional service for the performance of diplomatic and consular functions abroad had its origins in the final years of the last century. By 1914 it had already found recognition in the creation of separate career services for these two main branches of activity. Its fruition was reached in the mid-twenties with the passage of the Rogers Act, which combined the two existing services into a single "Foreign Service of the United States." High hopes prevailed at the outset for the future of the new combined service.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.