From the book 'An Expert's Guide to International Protocol'
 |
| Follow a protocol training by the writers of the book 'An Expert's Guide to International Protocol' |
Read the article below or go to one of the other articles from the book 'An Expert's Guide to International Protocol' at this blog:
- Protocol at the Olympic Games
- Protocol at the United Nations and at Think Tanks
Diplomatic language and formal language: a code with a double meaning, by Olivier Arifon
 |
| This is an article from the book 'An Expert's Guide to International Protocol'. Order this book (now with 20% discount) in our online bookstore |
In
France and, by extension, in other chancelleries until the beginning of the twentieth
century, the language used in diplomacy had its roots in the language of the
court, more specifically that of the court of Louis XIV, which explains the
place of French as the language of diplomacy (Fumaroli, 2003). The present
article attempts to provide a historical and anthropological perspective on the
forms of expression used by diplomats. I shall address why diplomatic language
is both formal and necessary, characteristics that bring it closer to
doublespeak (Delporte, 2009). The notions of ambiguity, context, emotion, and
values shall be dealt with. I shall also try to show why decoding techniques
are necessary to shed light on hidden meanings, the stakes and strategies
involved. Indeed, diplomacy is based to a large extent on language and the
received and perceived meanings of the phrases and arguments put forward. The
language of diplomacy has both an internal–among diplomats—and external—for the
public and the media—dimension. The present work draws upon my experience as
attaché for university cooperation with the ministry of External Affairs,
trainer of French and foreign diplomats in Singapore, and discussions with
foreign diplomats. Finally, it is focused on the French language for two
reasons: first, because it is the ‘historical’ language of diplomacy and
second, because it is my mother tongue. We may argue here that in other
languages too speech acts are subject to similar constraints and formality,
even if accounts suggest that English and the Anglo-Saxon relational style make
for simpler and more direct relations.
Diplomacy and representations
The
general public tends to view diplomacy as the art of dissembling through
the use of speech and a coded or formal language along with the cultivation of
secrecy for the benefit of those in power. From an academic perspective, the
search for invariants in diplomatic practices leads us to define the notions of
borders, immunity, permanence of relations, reciprocity of treatment, the place
and code of information, and finally secrecy. A perusal of studies on
diplomacy, especially international relations, shows the absence of a specific
category for the forms diplomatic language takes and, more importantly, the
absence of case studies. In other words, little has been said about the
language used in diplomacy other than viewing it as a variant of political
language, which it no doubt is, as we shall see later on. More often than not,
the studies identified deal with negotiating procedures, strategy or
on-the-ground experience as elements for the understanding of foreign policy.
In the only French work listed on the subject (Villar, 2006), a linguistic
analysis is confronted with the theories of international action. The author
proposes a semiotic approach around four aspects of diplomatic discourse:
Sincerity - versus - duplicity
Truthful speech - versus - lies
Truth - versus - falsehood
Transparency - versus - secrecy
On the basis of these aspects, it is
possible to consider, in concurrence with discourse analysis studies, that the
language used in diplomacy is an ordinary language and not a technical
discourse (except in some rare cases, such as the negotiations leading to the
Iran nuclear deal of 2015).
Doublespeak as defined in our
research is conceived as a set language consisting of stereotype phrases and
related to political discourse. In everyday language, the term refers to a
constrained manner of expression, generally thought to be pejorative.
Studies on doublespeak highlight the
absence of a precise message, which invades space to prevent any sensitive
discourse, characterised by sincerity. As discourse appears to be powerless to
change the world, the speaker uses language - or rather doublespeak – to
articulate the world in accordance with a given order of power. Accordingly,
language is constrained and its value becomes a substitute for meaning. A
distortion between deeds and words comes into play, as Thomas Legrand observes:
« […], c’est plutôt une mauvaise appréciation de la puissance de son
discours ou de la puissance de la réalité face à sa propre volonté ! »
[It is rather a poor appraisal of the power of one’s discourse or the power of
reality in the face of one’s own desire) (Legrand, 2010: 27). Finally,
doublespeak is different from administrative jargon; the former aims to
convince, the latter incites one to act in a given sphere.
In the case of the language of a
totalitarian regime, an idiom pushed to the extreme, the subjugation of
language serves to reduce the critical faculties of the listener. Victor
Klemperer, a philologist under pressure during the Nazi regime, wrote in his
analysis of the language used by it: “… the listener’s emotions (and Goebbels’s
audience always comprises listeners, even if it only reads the doctor’s essays
in the newspaper) never come to reset, they are constantly attracted and
rebuffed, attracted and rebuffed, and there is no time for critical reasoning
to catch its breath” (Klemperer, 1996: 327). From a tool for reasoning,
language becomes an emotion centric discourse. In his book 1984, George Orwell invented Newspeak using single word concepts
with a very restricted meaning.
The language of diplomatic exchanges
and writings is far removed from such extreme approaches. In place of a set
language or emotional logic, we suggest fuzzy logic in a formal framework. Thus,
paradoxically, a positive language embodying the specificities of diplomacy
becomes a part of political discourse and constitutes the art of persuasion in
the uncertain and ephemeral context of diplomatic negotiation. The aim of
course is to enunciate enduring convictions. But as diplomatic language has
political overtones, it shares some of the features of political discourse such
as avoidance, ambiguity (of meaning), understanding (of position) or even
dissimulation. In the eyes of the public
and observers of international relations, it is these aspects that give rise to
the perception that diplomatic language is merely doublespeak.
When diplomacy as a profession began
to expand and become organised in the European courts during the modern era,
some diplomats wrote about the necessary attributes of a good diplomat of which
evidently mastery of language was a part. Under the strong influence of
relations among the European monarchies of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, these attributes were first and foremost signs of good breeding.
One of the oldest works entitled «De
la charge et dignité de l’ambassadeur» by Jean Hotman de Villiers was written
in 1604. It is a pragmatic work in which the author attempts to define the
qualities of a diplomat. Knowledge of history and culture and the ability to
express oneself promote “le contact avec les autres, une communauté
d’apprentissage, alliant les pratiques et les théories, le passé et le présent,
l’expérience, la découverte et l’application personnelles, aussi bien que les
cours formalisés, l’étude et la réflexion.” [Contact with others, a community of
learning, combining practice and theory, past and present, experience, personal
discovery and application, as well as formal classes, study and reflection.]
(Hotman de Villiers, 2003: 20).
In a
similar vein, the Spanish Jesuit Baltasar Gracian published in 1647 « The
Art of Worldly Wisdom ». The book portrays a man who from a courtier
became a diplomat. A short essay by Baron d’Holbach gives a caustic description
of the courtier in the presence of the monarch: “Under the cover of friendship he knows how to lull his enemies, show an open,
affectionate face to those he most detests, embrace with tenderness the enemy
he’d like to suffocate. Finally, the most impudent lies mustn’t produce any
alteration in his face” (D’Holbach, 2010: 18).
Closer
to our times, the works of Norbert Elias incorporate these qualities of the
court system into the mechanisms of self-control and strategic relations
(Elias, 1985). Norbert Elias combines etiquette with the essential motivation
of members of the court, namely prestige and recognition. Thus, “par
l’étiquette, la société de cour procède à son autoreprésentation, chacun se
distinguant de l’autre, tous ensemble se distinguant des personnes étrangères
au groupe, chacun et tous ensemble s’administrant la preuve de la valeur
absolue de leur existence.” [As a matter of etiquette, the court society
proceeds to its self-representation, each one distinguishing himself from the
other, collectively distinguishing themselves from those outside the group and
individually and collectively administering to themselves the absolute value of
their existence.] (Elias, 1985: 97). When all is said and done, a good
ambassador of the classical era was one who possessed a sense of tradition and
had inherited or acquired natural social skills in osmosis with the great
courts of Europe. He was someone who
cultivated style and eloquence, conscious of his values and of pleasing and civil
manners.
In
fact, the memoirs of ambassadors often emphasized these social skills and ways
of conducting oneself, akin to good breeding. Little is said about language;
instead the stress is on physical behaviour and the degree of individual
freedom a serving diplomat enjoys. This shows the extent to which the context,
the forms, and the structures of the profession condition the modalities of
expression, both verbal and non-verbal, as pointed out by Martine Kingston de
Leusse (1998: 86): “À partir de son entrée en accréditation, l’ambassadeur se
trouve dans un milieu fermé où les actes, les vêtements, les gestes, les formes
de sociabilité revêtent une spécificité qui permet d’en faire le support
institutionnalisé de l’échange diplomatique courtois et pacifique.” [From
the moment of his accreditation, an ambassador finds himself in a closed milieu
where actions, clothes, gestures and forms of sociability take on a specificity
which allow them to become the institutionalized support of courteous and peaceful
diplomatic exchange.] The ambassador effaces himself as a subjective
individual; he marshals his arguments and chooses his words with care, a
reflection of his social skills and the political position of his country.
A
scene from Nicolas Ray’s film 55 Days at
Peking illustrates this clearly. The British ambassador is talking with his
wife when his secretary opens the door and announces a visitor: “Commander
Lewis” (an officer in the American army).
The
ambassador replies: “Keep him waiting for a moment.”
He
turns to his wife and says, “Excuse me. I have to put on my official face.”
The
wife leaves the room immediately, and the ambassador nonchalantly examines a
set of papers and documents on his desk. Finally, he composes himself and says,
“Show him in.”
In
the courts of Europe and later in international organisations, control of
gestures and attitudes is paramount. Kings and emperors, high-ranking
officials, mandarins and diplomats are supposed to remain in control of their
emotions and bodies, regardless of whether this is actually the case or imposed
by social frameworks and cultural codes. As the diplomat moves in circles that
overinterpret signs, he must take into account the effect of his control (or
lack of control) over his words and emotions to describe a situation or the
terms of an exchange. The choice of words is of the essence. And beyond the
mastery of speech, the manner in which he expresses his emotions in an exchange
serves, in turn, to arouse the same feelings in the person he is addressing, in
other words we are dealing with the register of persuasive charm. Though this
could be dangerous, for an expressive man runs the risk of revealing himself: “In order to live at
court one must have complete control over the muscles of one’s face in order to
experience disgust without flinching. A pouter, a man of moods or
susceptibility cannot succeed” (D’Holbach, 2010: 17).
The
expression of ideas and emotions is also limited by the incompleteness of
language, a dimension revealed by linguists (Goldschmidt, 2009) and ethno
methodologists (Lecerf & Parker, 1987). These scholars have shown, often
convergently, how language does not allow for complete expression of ideas and
emotions. Indeed, when the individual who speaks its appropriate language,
there can always be misunderstandings, errors, and shifts in meaning, blanks
and gaps. This creates a distance between the two speakers, a median space
constituting the relationship between the two.
The
essence of diplomacy is to use everyday vocabulary and combine it with a
specific code, namely the code of relations among states and the individuals
entrusted with the task of negotiating with each other. Beyond this code, and
as recommended in the principles of negotiation (Dupont, 1992), the attempt
should be to understate words and emotions.
There
are a number of reasons for this:
· One should maintain one’s rank and
show self-control; expressing disagreement while keeping a smiling face is the
perfect illustration of this.
· One should also not offend one’s
interlocutor, for getting angry can interrupt or even break the dialogue and
thereby the negotiation.
· Caution is the keyword of diplomacy,
and this for two reasons. Both sides must avoid offending each other or saying
too much about their positions; speaking too much can also hamper the smooth
progress of negotiations.
· Finally, one should avoid showing
one’s weaknesses, which may be divided into two categories: insufficient
mastery of subject in case of technical matters, or the desire to stand on
prestige and symbolic power (here, any sign of weakness on the part of the
other may be interpreted as a factor favorable to one’s interests).
In
conclusion, the forms of expression used in diplomacy reflect the respect given
to the representative of a state. The types of expressions and emotions help in
perpetuating relationships, both human and political.
A
diplomat’s experience is directly related to his practice and the extent of his
resources: similarities with other situations, quality of his information,
training, and culture. Such experience helps him adapt to different contexts
while remaining effective, for deciphering and adapting to changing situations
is what the profession is all about. The trick is to have the cognitive,
cultural, and communicational resources to apply them on the one hand and on
the other, accept a certain amount of incomprehension and uncertainty in the
situation as well as the social, political, and communicational elements that
make up diplomacy. We are of the view that these frameworks of experience
(Goffmann, 1996) constrain the diplomat and his language. And in the public
mind, this is no different than doublespeak.
Diplomatic
language is a subset of political language that thus relies on the same
categories such as rhetoric, persuasion and manipulation, attention to the
signifier and the signified… Historically, the West developed early on the art
of oratory. Rhetoric, born in Greece at the beginning of the fifth century
B.C., is part and parcel of democratic, legal, and commercial systems. Even
today, this discipline is considered the art of acting through speech on
opinions, emotions, and decisions.
One of
the attributes of a diplomat is the ability to interpret vague and ambiguous
elements to give him some leeway to maneuver. This vagueness is embodied in the
words and forms of the discourse and has several names. It may be perceived as
or called a euphemism. In the same vein, the French language uses the litote, a
figure of speech that, by attenuating the expression of one’s thought, lets one
suggest more than what it actually said.
One
little-discussed aspect of diplomatic discourse, namely ambiguity, needs to be
stressed here. There is a distinction between semantic ambiguity (a single
statement with several meanings) and strategic ambiguity, a voluntary act
between statement, speaker, and recipient. For the analysis of acts of
communication of diplomacy, the notion of ambiguity is essential, as it allows
one to decipher the roles and behaviour of the actors. The French language is
replete with synonyms and expressions which bring out the depth of this notion:
ambages, allusions, demi-mots, contenus
latents, sens cachés, sous-entendus, arrière-pensées [beat about the bush,
allusions, hints, hidden agendas, hidden meanings, innuendos, ulterior motives.]
The processes of language, the ways they are understood, in a word, the
analysis of the situations of discourse, silences, and assertions is an ability
every diplomat must possess. Indeed, there is frequent uncertainty between
cultural systems and value systems among diplomats. This is fully reflected in
the strategies and skills of negotiators. “La stratégie de communication
ambiguë permet en effet de maintenir le doute chez l’interlocuteur. Certes, la
communication est parfois rendue plus claire en cas de réaction favorable, mais
bien souvent elle est laissée en l’état pour maintenir l’autre dans le doute.
Elle permet aussi d’influencer l’impact final des signaux afin de gagner un
plus grand contrôle sur les images que d’autres ont de l’émetteur.” [The
strategy of ambiguous communication helps keep one’s interlocutor in doubt.
Certainly, at times communication is made clearer in case of a favorable
reaction, but very often it is left in such a state as to keep the other in
doubt. It also helps in influencing the final impact of the signals in order to
win greater control of the images others have of the speaker.] (Villar, 2006:
175).
However,
it is not always a question of sidetracking or impressing one’s interlocutor.
Formal language has its usefulness in diplomacy: words help neutralise or
soften what they describe. Examples of such words are enlightening. Thus, when
a diplomat is “surprised” at something, he is in point of fact expressing his
dissatisfaction or disagreement about the ongoing situation. When he “denounces,”
it means things are going badly. When he “condemns,” the situation is thought
to be very serious[1].
Similarly,
when he “regrets not being able to respond favorably to the request,” it is an
elegant (and classic) way of indicating refusal to one’s interlocutor.
“The
negotiations were frank and must be pursued further” indicates nothing
substantial was achieved but that the partners decide to continue meeting each
other so as not break the contact.
In
this regard, one of my interlocutors told us of an interesting case. On 1 April
2000, the secretary-general of the French ministry of Foreign Affairs, the
second in command after the minister, wrote a diplomatic telegram. This
contained all the forms and rituals of language a diplomat normally uses, the
author delighting in playing on the ambiguities allowed on account of it being
April Fool’s Day in France. Sadly, I was unable to obtain a copy of it.
Finally,
Marcel Proust expresses the same thing in his inimitable style while referring
to the Marquis de Norpois, a diplomat: “Miserly in the use of words, not only
from a professional scruple of prudence and reserve, but because words
themselves have more value, present more subtleties of definition to men whose
efforts protracted over a decade, to bring two countries to an understanding,
are condensed, translated – in a speech or in a protocol – into a single
adjective, colorless in all appearance, but to them pregnant with a world of
meaning.” (Proust, 1993: 91).
This
brings us to the heart of diplomacy. As the custodian of good manners and a
negotiator conscious of the historical ties with his partners, the diplomat is
at times obliged to remain vague. In fact, the essence of political discourse
is to create spaces, usable at any moment and in multiple forms, to maintain
the relationship, the negotiation, and in the end, power. These spaces form the
median space between two individuals, allowing for the construction of a
dialogue, the very core of the interaction and mediation process.
A language both internal and external
These
variances and representations only strengthen the public view of diplomacy as a
distant and set profession, the very criteria attributed to doublespeak.
Indeed, an ambassador always functions within an official framework. While
working together, a diplomat made the following remark: “Ce collègue (d’un
autre pays) est un vrai ami. Je peux parler de tout avec lui.” [This
colleague (from another country) is a true friend. I can talk to him about
everything], implying that he could drop his diplomatic discourse and that
representation was a constitutive dimension of diplomacy.
We
would like to conclude with the work of Charles Cogan (2003) on the French
style. The ambassador identified six strategic and communication
characteristics of a French diplomat: deductive approach, logic of arguments
(built on the belief in Reason), care given to clarity of expression in order
to convince, knowledge of history, Latin panache and the awareness of the need
to stick tenaciously to one’s position (based on Reason!). Thus, “For the
French, it is in the order of things to find a philosophical framework first,
to establish a vision of things, before entering into practical matters”
(Cogan, 2003: 44).
An
interesting illustration of this is the famous speech by Dominique de Villepin,
the then minister of foreign affairs, during a meeting of the UN Security
Council on 7 March 2003. While presenting the French position in the face of
the planned intervention of the United States and their allies in Iraq, the
minister argued in favour of extending the mission of the UN inspectors. This
is how the speech concluded: “In a few days, we must
solemnly fulfill our responsibility through a vote. We will be facing an
essential choice: disarming Iraq through war or through peace. And this crucial
choice implies others. It implies the international community's ability to
resolve current or future crises. It implies a vision of the world, a concept
of the role of the United Nations.”
At
the end of the speech, those present in the room rose to give Dominique de
Villepin a standing ovation, unprecedented in the history of the Council. It
marked a break from normal practice in the Council. Clearly, such a
demonstration in this polite, even regulated space was indeed unusual. A
comparison of these elements with the tenor, style, and form of Dominique de
Villepin’s speech is enlightening, as Charles Cogan notes with finesse:
“Conceptions of honour are closely associated in France with the highly
esteemed notion of glory (la gloire), which in turn is seen as a close
companion to such French concepts as élan, panache and cran, all of which stand
in contrast to the (nevertheless secretly admired) British phlegm” (Cogan,
2003: 45). He goes on to add: “French negotiators pride themselves on their
eloquence and their ability to present a logical, carefully ordered argument.
The worst insult that can be laid at the foot of a French negotiator, according
to several French interlocutors, is that of incoherence” (Cogan, ibid: 137).
The
concern for precision and beauty of expression is typically French, though I
lack the space here to expand on it any further. This leads some to say that
French by its very structure is the language best suited to diplomacy. And so
we come back to our starting point: the historical context, the political dimension,
along with the common perception of the French abroad, the feeling of
superiority and arrogance are the elements that make up the modalities of
expression and communication of French diplomacy.
Conclusion
Diplomatic language must be viewed from two perspectives.
The first is the paradox of a formal language, necessarily presenting
ambiguities. As we have seen, this language with its specificities is at the
service of diplomats to build relations and communication among themselves. It
is thus for internal usage, and a diplomat’s experience enables him not to be
misled by his colleagues. However, the opaque meaning of words, associated with
the classic image of diplomacy, makes the public discredit this language, as it
lacks transparency and does not correspond to what “true” communication should
be. As such, the diplomat’s discourse may be described as doublespeak on
account of the formal framework in which it is delivered. However, diplomatic
language also has a political dimension; it is addressed to citizens and the
media and in a democracy everyone is keen to understand the meaning of what is
being said, which gives it an external character. For this purpose, in a
society of communication decoders, journalists and specialists are major and
essential players whose work is to decipher the internal codes so that they
become accessible to the public at large.
 |
|
Olivier
Arifon, born in Paris,
is Professor at the Université libre de Bruxelles in charge of the chair in
Communication. He teaches Influence, Lobbying and Communication, Competitive Intelligence
and Public Diplomacy” with a European perspective, introducing experts and case
studies as well as theoretical elements. From 1997 to 2011, he was an associate
professor at the University of Strasbourg (France) on the same topics. Besides
academic activities, he led a communication company for five years, was an
expert in training of diplomats and managers in Poland, Croatia, France, and
Singapore, and fulfilled the position of high education attaché for the French ministry
of Foreign Affairs in Germany for two years. In his research, he examines how
companies and civil society are developing successful strategies, considering
Brussels’ activities as a model. In a comparative perspective between Europe
and Asia (India), he identifies methodological approaches and communication
policy for European or Indian protagonists of civil society. He is the author of more than fifty
papers, book chapters, and articles in mostly academic journals.
|
Bibliographical references
Chosson,
Martine, Parlez-vous la langue de bois?
Points, Paris, 2007.
Cogan, C., French negotiating Behavior, Dealing with la
Grande Nation, Washington, Institute of Peace Press, 2003.
D’Holbach, Essai sur l’art de ramper à l’usage des
courtisans, Paris, éditions Allia, 2010.
De Wilde
d’Estmael, T. Liégeois, M. Delcorde, R. La
diplomatie au cœur des turbulences internationales, Presses universitaires
de Louvain, 2014.
Delporte, C., Une histoire de la langue de bois,
Paris, Flammarion, 2009.
Dupont,
Christophe, La négociation, Paris,
Dalloz, 1992.
Elias, N., La société de cour, Paris, Champs
Flammarion, 1985.
Fumaroli, M., Quand l’Europe parlait français, Paris,
Poche no. 15418, 2003.
Goffman, E., La mise en scène de la vie quotidienne,
Paris, Éditions de minuit, 1996.
Goldschläger,
A., Le discours du pouvoir, Belin,
Paris, 1983.
Goldschmidt,
G.-A., A l’insu de Babel, Paris, CNRS
éditions, 2009.
Hotman de
Villiers, J., De la charge et dignité de
l’ambassadeur, Paris Cergy, Essec Iréné, 2003.
Kingston de
Leusse, M., Diplomatie, une sociologie
des ambassadeurs, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1998.
Klemperer,
V., LTI, la langue du IIIe Reich: carnets
d'un philologue, Paris, Albin Michel, 1996.
La langue confisquée, Victor Klemperer et la
LTI, exhibition
catalogue, European Centre of Deported Resistance Members, Bibliothèque
nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg, March 2009.
Lanzac, A.,
Blain, C., Quai d'Orsay, Dargaud,
Paris 2 vol., 2010-2011 (Comic)
Lecerf, Y.,
& Parker, E., Les dictatures
d'intelligentsias, Paris, PUF, 1987.
Legrand,
Thomas, Ce n’est rien qu’un président qui
nous fait perdre notre temps, Stock, Paris, 2010.
Lemaire,
Jacques, La langue de bois, De Boeck,
Brussels, 2001.
Proust,
Marcel, A l'ombre des jeunes filles en
fleurs T1, Flammarion, Paris, 1993, p. 91
Tavernier
B., Quai d'Orsay, 2013, (Movie)
Villar, C., Le discours diplomatique, Paris,
L’Harmattan, 2006.
Comments