Abstract
In recent decades, states have extended their diplomatic efforts to engage with the international community and their domestic audiences as a tool of legitimization. With the advent of the internet, this trend has culminated in regularized public interactions over social media. While the internet presents yet another avenue for diplomatic agents to communicate benign messages consistent with the aims and scope of traditional diplomacy, social media also offers populist democracies and authoritarian states the opportunity to broadcast politicized, divisive, propagandistic, and personalistic messages aimed at domestic consumption that are incompatible with the purposes of diplomacy. The main goal of this chapter is to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the potential adverse effects of diplomatic agents’ internet and social media usage by exploring the Turkish government’s social media practices. Turkey offers an opportune case study as a state that has exhibited elements of populism, authoritarianism, and personalization of politics, while also showcasing abundant examples of negative diplomatic interactions on social media, stemming from the vicissitudes of its relations with major powers and allies alike.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References and Further Reading
Adesin, O.S., and J. Summers (Reviewing Editor). 2017. “Foreign Policy in an Era of Digital Diplomacy.” Cogent Social Sciences 3 (1).
Aguirre, D.A., and M. Erlandsen. 2022. “Digital Public Diplomacy in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities.” Revista Mexicana De Política Exterior (113): 1–17.
Allcott, H., and M. Gentzkow. 2017. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 31 (2): 211–36.
Andı, S., S.E. Aytaç, and A. Çarkoğlu. 2020. “Internet and Social Media Use and Political Knowledge: Evidence from Turkey.” Mediterranean Politics 25 (5): 579–99.
Arapov, S., T. Dadabaev, and C. Laumulin. 2017. “The Use of Digital Diplomacy as a Tool for Symbolic Violence: Framing Analysis of Russian–Turkish Relations on Twitter: Symbolic Violence in the Context of Social Media Diplomacy.”Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies 1 (March): 1–16.
Aydinli, E., and O. Erpul. 2021. “Elite Change and the Inception, Duration, and Demise of the Turkish–Israeli Alliance.” Foreign Policy Analysis 17 (2).
Benhaïm, Y., and K. Öktem. 2015. “The Rise and Fall of Turkey’s Soft Power Discourse: Discourse in Foreign Policy under Davutoğlu and Erdoğan.” European Journal of Turkish Studies 25.
Berridge, G.R. 2010. “Public Diplomacy.” In Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, ed. G.R. Berridge, 179–91. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bjola, C. 2015. “Introduction: Making Sense of Digital Diplomacy.” In Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, eds. C. Bjola and M. Holmes, 1–10. New York: Routledge.
———. 2018. “The ‘Dark Side’ of Digital Diplomacy: Countering Disinformation and Propaganda.” https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/the-dark-side-of-digital-diplomacy-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda/.
Bjola, C., and J. Pamment, eds. 2019. “Introduction: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy.” In Countering Online Propaganda and Extremism: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy. Routledge New Diplomacy Studies, eds. C. Bjola and J. Pamment, 1–10. London: Routledge.
Bjola, C., J.A. Cassidy, and I. Manor. 2020. “Digital Public Diplomacy: Business as Usual or a Paradigm Shift?” In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, eds. C. Bjola and M. Holmes, 2nd ed., 111–26. London and New York: Routledge.
Brown, R. 2017. “Public Diplomacy, Networks, and the Limits of Strategic Narratives.” In Forging the World: Strategic Narratives and International Relations, eds. A. Miskimmon, B. O’Loughlin, and L. Roselle, 164–89. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bull, H. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bulovsky, A. 2019. “Authoritarian Communication on Social Media: The Relationship between Democracy and Leaders’ Digital Communicative Practices.” International Communication Gazette 81 (1): 20–45.
Burke, R. 2017. “Emotional Diplomacy and Human Rights at the United Nations.” Human Rights Quarterly, 39 (2), 273–95.
Burson, Cohn, and Wolfe, Ltd. 2020. Twiplomacy 2020, November 17. https://tinyurl.com/1tsyzkui
Buzan, B. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., R. Little, and C. Jones. 1993. “The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism.” In The Logic of Anarchy, eds. B. Buzan, R. Little, and C. Jones, 132–53. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cooper, A.F. 2013. The Changing Nature of Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2019. “Adapting Public Diplomacy to the Populist Challenge.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14 (1–2): 36–50.
Danziger, R., and M. Schreiber. 2021. “Digital Diplomacy: Face Management in MFA Twitter Accounts.” Policy & Internet 14 (3): 586–605.
Destradi, S., and J. Plagemann. 2019. “Populism and International Relations: (Un)predictability, Personalisation, and the Reinforcement of Existing Trends in World Politics.” Review of International Studies 45 (5): 711–30.
Duncombe, C. 2017. “Twitter and Transformative Diplomacy: Social Media and Iran–US Relations.” International Affairs 93 (3): 545–62.
Esen, B., and S. Gümüşçü. 2018. “The Perils of ‘Turkish Presidentialism.’” Review of Middle East Studies 52 (1): 43–53.
Evans, N.G., and A. Commins. 2017. “Defining Dual-Use Research: When Scientific Advances Can Both Help and Hurt Humanity.” The Conversation, February 3. https://theconversation.com/defining-dual-use-research-when-scientific-advances-can-both-help-and-hurt-humanity-70333.
Falkner, R., and B. Buzan. 2019. “The Emergence of Environmental Stewardship as a Primary Institution of Global International Society.” European Journal of International Relations, 25 (1), 131–55.
Finnemore, M. 1996. “Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism.” International Organization 50 (2): 325–47.
Heimann, G., and Z. Kampf. 2021. “What Makes Them Tick: Challenging the Impersonal Ethos in International Relations.” Cooperation and Conflict 56 (3): 346–63.
Heine, J. 2013. “From Club to Network Diplomacy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, eds. A.F. Cooper, J. Heine, and R. Thakur, 54–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaliber, A., and E. Kaliber. 2019. “From De-Europeanisation to Anti-Western Populism: Turkish Foreign Policy in Flux.” International Spectator 54 (4): 1–16.
Kampf, Z. 2016. “All the Best! Performing Solidarity in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 93 (5): 47–60.
Kissas, A. 2020. “Performative and Ideological Populism: The Case of Charismatic Leaders on Twitter.” Discourse & Society 31 (3): 268–84.
Kuru, D. 2019. “Back at Home: The Ambassadors Conference as an Interstitial Practice.” Global Affairs 5 (4–5): 295–313.
Lemke, T., and M.W. Habegger. 2018. “A Master Institution of World Society? Digital Communications Networks and the Changing Dynamics of Transnational Contention.” International Relations 32 (3): 296–320.
Manfredi, J.L., A. Amado, and P. Gómez-Iniesta. 2022. “State Disinformation: Emotions at the Service of the Cause.” Communications Society 35 (2): 205–21.
Manor, I. 2017. “The Digitalization of Diplomacy: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Terminology.” Working Paper. Exploring Digital Diplomacy.
———. 2019. The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy. Cham: Springer.
Melissen, J. 2013. “Public Diplomacy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, eds. A.F. Cooper, J. Heine, and R. Thakur, 436–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neumann, I.B. 2001. “The English School and the Practices of World Society.” Review of International Studies 27 (3): 503–7.
Nye, J.S. 2008. “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (1): 94–109.
Ott, B.L. 2017. “The Age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the Politics of Debasement.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 34 (1): 59–68.
Ovalı, A.S. 2020. “Turkiye-ABD İlişkilerinde Twitter Diplomasisi.” Uluslararası İliskiler Dergisi 17 (65): 23–45.
Saka, E. 2018. “Social Media in Turkey as a Space for Political Battles: AKTrolls and Other Politically Motivated Trolling.” Middle East Critique 27 (2): 161–77.
Satow, E. 1979. Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice. 5th ed. London and New York: Longman.
Selçuk, O., D. Hekimci, and O. Erpul. 2019. “The Erdoğanization of Turkish Politics and the Role of the Opposition.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 19 (4): 541–64.
Sofer, S. 2007. “The Diplomatic Corps as a Symbol of Diplomatic Culture.” In The Diplomatic Corps as an Institution of International Society, eds. P. Sharpe and G. Wiseman, 31–38. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2013. The Courtiers of Civilization: A Study of Diplomacy. Albany: SUNY Press.
Sotiriu, S. 2015. “Digital Diplomacy: Between Promises and Reality.” In Digital Diplomacy, eds. C. Bjola and M. Holmes, 33–51. London and New York: Routledge.
Stivachtis, Y.A., and A. McKeil. 2018. “Conceptualizing World Society.” International Politics 55 (1): 1–10.
Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, R. 2021. “The Sociology of Diplomats and Foreign Policy Sector: The Role of Cliques on the Policy-Making Process.” Political Studies Review 19 (4), 558–73.
Surowiec, P., and C. Miles. 2021. “The Populist Style and Public Diplomacy: Kayfabe as Performative Agonism in Trump’s Twitter Posts.” Public Relations Inquiry 10 (1): 5–30.
Taylor, M., and M.L. Kent. 2014. “Dialogic Engagement: Clarifying Foundational Concepts.” Journal of Public Relations Research 26 (5), 384–98.
Terradas, N. 2020. “The Quest for Order in Anarchical Societies: Anthropological Investigations.” International Studies Review 22 (1): 98–121.
Twiplomacy Study. 2020. https://twiplomacy.com/blog/twiplomacy-study-2020/.
Uysal, N., and J. Schroeder. 2019. “Turkey’s Twitter Public Diplomacy: Towards a ‘New’ Cult of Personality.” Public Relations Review 45 (5): 1018–37.
Wajner, D.F. 2021. “Exploring the Foreign Policies of Populist Governments: (Latin) America First.” Journal of International Relations and Development 24 (3): 651–80.
Walker, C., S. Kalathil, and J. Ludwig. 2020. “The Cutting Edge of Sharp Power.” Journal of Democracy 31 (1): 124–37.
Watson, A. 1990. “Systems of States.” Review of International Studies 16 (2): 99–109.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Hicran Erol and Beyzanur Gençer for their hard work and assistance in helping me gather the data for this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Erpul, O. (2023). Digital Diplomacy and International Society in the Age of Populism. In: Hare, P.W., Manfredi-Sánchez, J.L., Weisbrode, K. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Diplomatic Reform and Innovation. Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10971-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10971-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-10970-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-10971-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)