The role of media in contemporary international relations: culture and politics at the crossroads Hamid Mowlana

The role of media in contemporary international relations: culture and politics at the crossroads Hamid Mowlana

International Communication Program, School of International Service, American University

The purpose of this article is to reflect on the role of media in contemporary international relations and the ecological aspects of international communication in the technological age through the life and work of Edgar Snow, an American pioneering writer on China–US relations and an exemplary internationalist. The article postulates that the battlefield of international politics has shifted from geographical and physical levels to cultural and communication levels with modern media playing a crucial role in perceptions and image-making. Consequently, we are increasingly removed from experience and becoming overly dependent on the representations of reality that come to us through media. We have often lost our place within an actual community and our touch with a particular natural landscape that had always grounded us. The article therefore posits that a new paradigm and an ethical way of communicating across cultures for mutual dialogue, respect, and dignity are required if we desire to move toward a more equitable and just global community. We must learn to seek out and intentionally create expectations of morality and conduct especially at the international level. As Snow understood long before it became clear to most anyone else, the Western concept of reductionist science and its linear and short- term communication approach to our environment also need to be augmented by the holistic and organic notion of communication and science emanating from the East.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 5 March 2015 Accepted 17 March 2015

KEYWORDS China–US relations; communication technology; culture; Edgar Snow; global communication; international relations

Edgar Snow (1905–1972) lived in a vastly different world than what we find ourselves in today. Yet issues in international relations are set in a strikingly similar framework of inter- action between the political realm and developments in international communication. Gratefully, we have heroes of the past who, by their example, can help guide the course of the future and what we contribute to it. We can not only commemorate the life and work of one pioneering writer and internationalist but also think together about what shape our world is taking. We can look at how international communication and international relations interact to inform us of how we can better reflect the principles and priorities that Edgar Snow worked so hard to promote. An examination of the current international setting, and the communication realities that emanate from and shape this setting, will show the importance of understanding the role of international communication.

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

CONTACT Hamid Mowlana [email protected]

JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES, 2016 VOL. 11, NO. 1, 84–96 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2015.1032296

International communication as a process has occurred ever since people organized themselves into communities and began to exchange ideas and products. Yet, inter- national or global communication, as we discuss here, is a twentieth-century phenom- enon. There are many factors that have contributed to the emergence and progression of international communication as an important area of public policy as well as academic study (see Fortner 1993; Frederick 1993; Mody 2003; Mowlana 1990a, 1996, 1997a, 2012; Tehranian 1997, 1999; Thussu 2006; Weaver 2014). In international relations and in inter- national communication disciplines, our conceptual sterility has often been the conse- quence of a failure to seek out new evidence, fearing that it may cause psychological discomfort to some of our set theory. Consequently, in the area of international and inter- cultural relations, the technical, political, and economic aspects of the field, which are rightly important areas of investigation and discussion, have overshadowed cultural and human components of international and societal relations. Many alternative perspectives in the study of international relations and international communication still remain untapped (see Acharya 2011, Acharya and Buzan 2010; Asante 2014; Chin 2004; Chitty 2010; Gunaratne 2009, 2013; Mowlana 1990b, 1991, 1994a, 1994b, 2003; Tehranian 2014; Thussu 2012, 2013; Yin 2007a, 2007b).

Culture, communication, and society in transition

For all human history, societies were built predominantly on physical foundations of tan- gible objects and assets. Geography, mountains, rivers, oceans, mineral resources – all these protected and defined the reach of a society. Physical infrastructure – such as libraries, file cabinets, newspapers, and archives – served as a second important layer, acting as a mechanism of information storage and transmission of knowledge. But some- thing unique and very profound has happened during the last several decades. Society’s physical foundations have been gradually eroding as intangible assets such as knowledge, information, and especially data, have become more and more dominant. New technol- ogies, which have led to a huge increase in data storage capacity, may be paradoxically producing a society without memory. We know that the invention of writing and the spread of literacy led to an obvious leap forward in collective memorization. But we do not know if the same will be said of the more recent technological advances we are wit- nessing. And there are numerous other changes and challenges brought about by the characteristics of today’s information age (see Fortner 1993; Frederick 1993; Mody 2003; Mowlana 1996; Tehranian 2014; Thussu 2006).

Two decades ago, the industrial and business worlds did not know that the little known technology of the Internet would be the central concern of global communication experts and information users. Perhaps most importantly, Internet technology was created by the government rather than industry and business. In academia, including some of the major universities around the world, professors paid little attention to the emerging technology of the Internet that was going to revolutionize the way we gather and disseminate infor- mation and run our bureaucracy, mediacracy, democracy, and commerce.

Today, information infrastructure and the information society are a part of every major global agenda. In both developed and developing nations, a satisfactory communication system is considered a necessary prerequisite to re-accomplish the world’s economic balance. It is also seen as a catalyst for fresh possibilities for education, participation,

JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 85

and understanding within the so-called global village. One important change brought about by the constant development of communication technologies is their relation to power structures.

The emergence of new communication technologies has given rise to centralized, pyr- amidal, hierarchical systems or super systems with an inherent risk of manipulation and total control. On the other hand, because of the development of group and network tech- nologies, decentralization, pluralism, and participation are also favored (Tehranian 1997, 1999). In short, international communication developments during the last several decades have altered existing power structures. The most important question now is: Whose interests are served by the new infrastructure and environment of international communication?

Power issues also are seen in how communication factors influence the global economy. Communication and economic factors can be broken into two categories: those that occurred before and those that occurred after World War II. Communication technologies that emerged at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, such as the telephone, the telegraph, photography, wireless ser- vices, radio, and mass media, helped European hegemony. Their use of communication technologies increased the global power of the industrial countries, especially to maintain colonies and empires. Industrialization, combined with communication institutions, resulted in Western influence over Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America (Gunar- atne 2009; Mowlana 1998; Thussu 2006). The growth of the earliest international organiz- ations such as the International Telecommunication Union, Universal Postal Union, and the World Intellectual Property Organization further legitimized international communi- cations. European and American news agency growth, the spread of competing political and economic ideologies, the revolutionary movements around the world, and the rise of international propaganda and public opinion, combined with acceleration in modern transportation such as railroads, all made international communication a new phenom- enon in world politics and international development (Frederick 1993; Mody 2003; Tehra- nian 1999). Since World War II, other contributing factors further altered the shape of international communication with the growth of new technologies such as television, sat- ellite, computers, and the Internet, the increased numbers of nation-states in the global sense, as well as the emergence and the collapse of the cold war as an ideological and communication system.

International tourism has become a major channel of interpersonal contact between and among nations, cultures and peoples (Mowlana 1997a). It not only has become the number one business item of volume and expansion, but also one of the main factors in our understanding, perceptions and misperceptions of other people. According to UNESCO estimates, international tourism will reach one billion tourists by the end of the current year, and will increase to one billion six hundred and two million tourists by the year 2020 with 80% of the total tourists coming from 28 mostly industrialized nations. Economic growth, financial conditions, and trade development have had pro- found impacts on the quantity and patterns of tourism. For example, China and the USA, the two leading recipients of tourism in the coming decades, were at the bottom of the list of international tourism three decades ago. It is also interesting to note that Hong Kong and the Czech Republic, with fairly small populations and economic bases are among the leading tourist destinations.

86 H. MOWLANA

Let me summarize the three important developments that are shaping the current and future states of international communication. First, the growth of human movement across national boundaries and around the globe has led to a major development in the area of communication. The revolutionary nature of the global economy, the changing nature in geopolitical structure, the redefinition of virtually all social institutions, all have altered our perceptions about the world in which we live. The so-called communication revolution has meant the spread of technology and systems innovation, and increased speed and quantity of messages. However, the real revolution is seen in a quest for satis- factory human communication, rather than a communications revolution viewed through the lens of technological and institutional spread and growth. This new revolution shares an alternative vision of human and societal development. It seeks dignity through dialo- gue. It is the quest for dialogue that underlies the current revolutionary movements around the world (Mowlana 1984a, 1992b, 1997a).

Second, I doubt whether the so-called globalized economy and society that is evolving will necessarily be a homogenous one. I see many more challenges ahead of us. If the ‘communications revolution’ and the ‘explosion of information’ are undeniable, their nature, causes and consequences are less certain.

Thirdly, at least two opposing viewpoints have been prevalent during the last half- century (Mowlana 1984b). The first sees the development of modern communication tech- nology and the international flow of information as ordinary and evolutionary processes, similar to the process through which Western societies have frequently passed in this century. The second view is more pessimistic. It sees the current crisis of the world, not only as the death agony of the dominant industrial powers, but also as the less industri- alized countries totally dominated and overtaken by the industrialized world. Both of these diagnoses are incomplete and rather simplistic. Contrary to the optimistic view, the present crisis is not ordinary but extraordinary. Unlike the second view, the present crisis is not merely an economic or political maladjustment. It simultaneously involves nearly all the main sectors of industrialized culture and society.

The point is that the fundamental form of industrial culture and society, dominant for centuries, is now in a stage of transition, as well as being a basically transitory and pene- trating force in less industrialized societies. What we are witnessing may be one of the turning points of human history, where one fundamental form of culture and society is declining and a different form is emerging. The Western concept of reductionist science and its linear, short-term communication approach to our environment need to be aug- mented by the holistic and organic notion of communication and science emanating from the East (see Dissanayake 1988, 2009; Gunaratne 2009, 2010, 2013; Kincaid 1987; Kumar 2014; Miike 2009, 2010, 2014; Mowlana 1991, 1992a, 1994b, 2014a; Nordstrom 1983; Shi-xu 2009, 2013, 2014; Yin 2009).

Edgar Snow as a bridge between China and the West

This is something that Edgar Snow understood far before it became clear to most anyone else. He recognized the differences that existed between the USA and China. He pro- ceeded from the reality of the situation, working to narrow the gap of perception and per- spective. Snow was able to reconcile his values to the situation he witnessed in China by accepting practical solutions to the political situation instead of demanding that China

JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 87

copy the USA in its pursuit and enactment of democratic rule. His understanding of news events was greatly aided by his decision to immerse himself in Chinese arts and literature. This helped him understand current events in their historic context, giving him a richer framework through which to write. Reading the scholars behind then current Chinese poli- tics helped Snow convey a more accurate and encompassing picture of the direction Chinese society was headed, and likely contributed to his prescience and insight in accu- rately predicting many major events in Chinese history. In China, Snow was regarded as a bridge between the Chinese people and the West. The Chinese Communist leadership considered him ‘the greatest of foreign authors and our best friend abroad.’ He risked his life and defied difficulties to increase understanding, friendship, and cooperation between the American and Chinese peoples.

Along with his extreme dedication to understanding the Chinese people, Snowwas also tremendously concerned with making his articles about China intelligible and interesting to American audiences. He worked tirelessly to defend his reputation against being labeled a communist in order to retain credibility with American news outlets. But despite concerns about his reputation in America and political pressure in China, Snow was not willing to curb himself in reporting flaws of the ruling government. Nor would he censor himself when other journalists refused to report that the united front was dete- riorating and their ineffective strategy was losing the battle against Japan. Snow deeply desired American acceptance, but not by temporizing his views. He wanted Americans to see what he saw in China, and so he worked harder at explaining himself even though this persistence isolated him from Americans as US sentiment shifted against the Chinese revolutionaries.

After China was closed to Westerners, Snow continued trying to help Americans under- stand China. He sought to provide perspectives that Americans were unable to find for themselves, and to tip the scales of perception into balance. But with the sentiment of the day he found this very difficult. He once wrote to friends that spanning ‘the ocean of prejudice and lack of interest at home’ was ‘terrible.’ And yet he fought on to do just that. Because of Snow’s unbending support of the Chinese people in an unfavorable pol- itical climate, his books (Snow 1933, 1936, 1938, 1941, 1944, 1947) were removed from many libraries and stores in America, and he could find little outlet for articles he wrote during the 1950s and 1960s. This caused him significant financial difficulty. He eventually moved to Switzerland and purchased a home there-half way between the USA and China – where he lived until his death. He described himself as a citizen of the world, revealing both his sense of estrangement and the worldview he had developed since leaving Mis- souri as a young man. He was a friend of Mao Tse-tung, and simultaneously a sought-after adviser in the American government. He was interested in thinking globally when other Americans were unwilling to apply their ideals abroad. He sought international under- standing, and was able to grasp the main stream of historical development.

Snow’s original meeting with Mao came about because the Chinese revolutionaries sought him out, trusting the independence of his reporting to be fair, and trusting his reputation for independent reporting to gain a good audience for his reports. Snow’s careful reporting is evidenced in the infrequency of errors found in his work (see Snow 1957, 1958, 1962, 1970, 1972), which is a testament to his judgment and cautious journalist instincts, and to his independence. He believed that writing justifies itself when ‘its results add even a very small net contribution to man’s knowledge,’ and that this could not be

88 H. MOWLANA

done without ‘advancing the interests of the poor and oppressed of this world, who are the “vast majority” of men.’ He understood the revolution in China in terms of the needs of the Chinese people, as an expression of a historic need, long suppressed and denied, to live free from oppression.

Snow’s professional integrity and dedication, along with his personal investment in the needs of those around him, are a standard to which modern-day journalists should aspire. In Snow’s reporting, he sought truth in facts, giving both praise and criticism. He was, from the very beginning of his time in China, not willing to curb his reporting to bow to political or social pressure. He left the safety and comfort of port cities, going where foreigners had not established themselves, as he sought out the true experience of the Chinese people – under Nationalists, under Japanese Imperialists, as well as under the Communists – in order to report it to the world. At the height of his popularity, Snow refused a number of prestigious positions with domestic news organizations and government posts that would have kept him from going out and doing his own investigating and reporting. He wanted to be the one telling the story, not interpreting or analyzing it from the comfort of an American radio studio or office. He frequently put himself in situations that others considered too dangerous to venture into themselves. Surely his quest for adventure helped motivate this, but a desire to see and share the truth was certainly the overarching goal that drove him.

Snow sought to use his access to Chinese leaders and years of experience in the country to go beyond reporting the Chinese, to explaining China. It was his natural inclination to ‘write the long perspective’ instead of focusing on immediate politics, knowing that the character of a nation is more important than current events. He saw his role as one of span- ning the ocean of prejudice and lack of interest between the two countries. Snow argued against seeing the world in strictly East–West terms. Snow himself became a symbol of international dialogue. He had been the last American journalist in China before the Cul- tural Revolution, and he was the first to return. The Washington Post reported that the visit signaled Chinese interest in developing contacts with the USA. The American consul in Hong Kong cabled Washington that the visit was a ‘favorable portent for Sino–USA relations.’ The Chinese used Snow’s presence as a visible symbol of interest in renewing Sino–USA relations.

Edgar Snow’s role and significance in China–USA relations

Edgar Snow’s influence arose in part from his emergence onto the journalistic scene during such a significant time of development for international communication. He was a central node amidst the expanding network of information flow between the East and the West. Snow became the unofficial mediator and go-between for those interested in visiting China or involved in political issues with the country. While he considered his influence marginal and preferred writing about China to mediation between Americans and China, his name itself was able to open doors, and he did what he could to make a difference. He also saw himself as an unofficial envoy, the eyes and ears of average Amer- icans. He agonized over the responsibility, asking people in both American and foreign governments what he could do to help the situation. Snow said that he had tried to avoid power throughout his career and that he could not speak for the American govern- ment. At the same time, he acknowledged that, ‘No one can entirely avoid responsibility

JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 89

for power.’ His actions, and the seriousness with which he approached his work, reflect this acknowledgment.

Edgar Snow used his own influence to try to tip the balance of the powers that were toward a healthier more realistic understanding of each other, and to serve the interests and needs of the people. Snow cared deeply about the Chinese people’s struggle against both foreign and domestic oppression, and he believed that unfettered capitalism had undermined democracy in China’s treaty ports, creating a situation in which socialist revo- lution was very positive. He used his position as a journalist to try to benefit the situations in which he found himself. He used his role as a journalist, a significant aspect of inter- national communication, to affect the power structure of his time. Because he had such extraordinary access to Chinese sources, Snow’s writing took on a great deal of authority. He felt an enormous sense of responsibility for his status as the foremost authority on Chinese Communism. His work was given serious consideration by President Roosevelt and the American Embassy in China. President Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes stayed up all night reading Red Star Over China, and brought the book to the President’s attention. Snow was a celebrity in the USA, meeting with movie stars and political figures, including Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, to promote his ideas for effective US policy toward Asia. During the Vietnam War, he was asked to meet with various US Senators and other government officials to advise them on relations with the Far East.

Edgar Snow’s role and significance in Sino–US relations emanates largely from his pos- ition as a member of the news media. The news media not only transmit information news but also frame and interpret messages, operating within the contexts of shared cultural meaning just like other social actors (Mowlana 1997b). Despite the fact that the media reflect and have functional relationships to public controversies, both within and among nations, their role in conflict management is, at least, a tenuous one. The crucial question in the analysis of the media in USA– China relations during the cold war was not so much what the media could or should have done but rather how the media did operate under certain structural conditions and in response to particular environmental factors.

Such an issue arose in 1956 when the Chinese government invited 15 American corre- spondents to visit Mainland China for the first time since US correspondents had been evicted from the People’s Republic on 8 October 1949, 1 week after its founding. The debate which ensued was unique because it directly pitted the mass media, which wanted to accept the invitation, against the Department of State and its strong-willed Sec- retary, John Foster Dulles. This foreign policy issue and the way Dulles handled it was all the more interesting because it struck two very sensitive nerves within the American polity: freedom of the press and the stated US government post-war policy on ‘free flow of information doctrine,’ and the blatant use of the media as an instrument of the cold war. At a time when the Chinese were in a seemingly amenable mood, Dulles main- tained a stubborn opposition to what, in the words of one foreign policy observer, ‘might otherwise have become a significant breakthrough in Sino-American relations’ (Dulles 1972, 169), and another expert called it, ‘one of the great diplomatic tragedies of our time’ (Greene 1964, 294).

American perceptions of Chinese enmity hardened over time and the lobby of pro-Tai- wanese congressmen and supporters discouraged any positive move toward China.

90 H. MOWLANA

Extreme anti-communists received wide support by the political moods generated with McCarthyism, leaving scars particularly on the State Department. The subservience of the media before the Eisenhower administration was inapplicable in that context since those invited to and asking to go to China represented the most prestigious news organ- izations in the USA: the New York Times, the Associated Press, the Christian Science Monitor, U.S. News and World Report, NBC, CBS, International News Service, the New York Post, United Press International, and the New York Herald Tribune.

Even though the majority of the American people at the time were still behind non-recog- nition of the People’s Republic, George Gallup reported in July of 1956 that a majority of the American people were in favor of allowing US journalists to visit Mainland China (Ashe 1967, 23–24; Guhin 1972, 104). This controversy should also be viewed as having two levels. The initial issue was the US policy toward China and the desire of journalists to accept the Chinese offer. The second level was more general, yet held philosophically greater importance to the media. Did the State Department actually have the right to control freedom of the press, as the media saw it, by controlling travel? Could the government use the media as an instrument of foreign policy? A government lawyer struck a particularly troubling note, as far as the media were concerned, by maintaining that freedom of the press involved freedom to publish, not freedom to gather what was to be published. He backed that up with Supreme Court rulings. As a lobby on this important legal issue, the media were wholly ineffective. At the end, American mainstream media, as it is often the case, shared the same worldview and general perception about American foreign policy as did the Amer- ican political and governmental elites. Edgar Snow was an exception to that rule (see Mowlana [1992c] for the role of the American media during and after the cold war era).

Toward a new paradigm of global communication

In light of the developments and trends in the information and communication realities since Edgar Snow’s time, what kind of ‘international community’ or ‘world society’ do we live in? The international system today is the conglomeration of a large number of state systems and is thus far from being an international community or world society. A community is not formed by the submission of its members to the coercive demands of artificial or superficial authority, but rather by their voluntary conformity to and accep- tance of approved canons of conduct. In this sense, today’s international arena more closely resembles a primitive and anarchical society than a developed and well-interpreted civilization. Although many members of this international system preach democracy, there is hardly a sign of democracy at the international level. Most of our international organiz- ations are undemocratic and hierarchical, and their members do not enjoy full equality. As the complexities of the modern world have grown, it has become fashionable in the media to apply a variety of terms to the world stage, such as ‘international community’ or ‘inter- national society.’ However, it is doubtful whether aggregation of states itself can create common values and assumptions which are, by definition, the essential conditions of a community, and whether or not the working of world community is in some way similar to that of any mechanical system.

In the absence of communal morality, the conduct of nation-states, especially the super- powers, is regulated by impersonal communication, inadequate international agencies, national bureaucracies, mass media commentators, and those attempting economic and

JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 91

political profiteering. No higher symbols, supreme loyalties, or emotional attachments exist. Nor are there any cultural pressures that can govern the conduct of international actors beyond limited territories of action. In short, there are no international flags, no world society anthems, and no divine or supranational authorities to respect and obey. Communi- cation facilities, socialization processes, and regional agreements are all instruments of the state apparatus to either legitimize the status quo or maximize selfish interest under the guise of nationalism and national interests. In such an environment, it becomes especially important that we learn to seek out and intentionally create expectations of morality and conduct at the international level (Chin 2004; Mowlana 1984b). Individuals, such as Edgar Snow, who see themselves as world citizens instead of falling into nationalist propaganda, are a light of hope in the difficult reality in which we live.

During the last decades and since World War II, we have seen national movements, revolutions, and anti-imperialism in many parts of the world. We have witnessed diverse nationalities in quest of self-determination, and the emergence of a new world order as militarily weak nations confront the major powers with increasing success (Mowlana 1994a). In response, the great powers have moved from territorial conquest to establishing, restoring, or supporting governments that are politically compatible with their strategic, military, and economic interests. This period also has witnessed the development of new technology and weapon systems and the world-wide spread of modern communications. In short, the battlefield of international politics has shifted from geographical and physical levels to cultural and communication levels, with modern media playing a crucial role in perceptions and image-making (Mowlana 1996).

Modern communication has separated us from reality; not only do we deal with each other and our environment through intermediaries, but whether we realize it or not, we tend to accept the copy as the original. We are increasingly removed from experiences, becoming overly dependent on the representations of reality that come to us through the media (Asante 2013; Mowlana 1992c; Yin 2007a, 2007b). Thus, we have often lost two things that had always grounded us: our place within an actual community and our touch with a particular natural landscape. The implications of newer communication tech- nologies are political and social; the questions they pose are indeed ethical, and the risks they entail are unpredictable. Rules and norms will only be effective if we recognize that an entirely new code is necessary today. It must be more appropriate to the world we live in than what we have built up over the past 200 years. The formation of an accepted body of doctrine of this type could have effect only if widely publicized, but this is not yet the case. One reason has been the emphasis on the centrality of Europeans and North Americans in the contemporary international system over the past 100 years. The international relations and communication of the southern half of the globe is usually cast in terms of develop- ment and regional conflict management. But that is now changing and a new paradigm and way of communicating is required if we desire to move toward a more equitable and just international system (Mowlana 1994a, 1998, 2001).

One characteristic of our age is that non-Western nations and their peoples, more than ever, are challenging the hegemony, intrusion, and interference of the old powers in their domestic and regional affairs (Asante 2014; Shi-xu 2014; Tehranian 2014). They are thus generating a new set of communication and media rules and norms that in many instances are contrary to the notion of ‘international political order’ that was formulated by the great powers over the last century. At the same time, a number of world powers

92 H. MOWLANA

are seeking to defy these new developments in such countries as Brazil, China, India, and South Africa (Mowlana 1998; Thussu 2012, 2013). In reaction to their relative but steady decline of influence and economic powers, they are now, more than ever, violating the principles of international law and security which they helped to formulate, especially during the post-World War II period. It can be argued that because the major powers have a high stake in the maintenance of the international system, and because they must satisfy their domestic, military, and economic elites, they have little interest in any fundamental, revolutionary changes in the international relations structure that we now know. Because the existing world communication system is vital to their interests, they also have little involvement in altering the current trends in mass communication and image-making.

In such a system of international relations, control of agenda-setting is the main source of power. In the last several decades, national, cultural, political, and regional movements around the world have constantly challenged, and in some cases even reduced, the mon- opoly of the great powers’ agenda-setting system. The agenda-setting of today – what to table and what to think about – has becomemore important than what positions one takes on these issues. The conflict is equally asmuch over the priority and primacy of the issues as over their nature. Thus, control over information flow and communicationmust accompany access to material and natural resources. It is only under a powerful communication and information system that one can determine the parameters of national security debates. In short, conceptualization, definition, and elaboration of world, regional, and national pro- blems are the basis of political, economic, and military mobilizations (Mowlana 1997a).

Elsewhere, I have argued that the process of information and technological innovations, as it relates to communication between human beings and their environment, and among peoples and nations, can be explained by what can be called the unitary theory of com- munication as ecology (see Mowlana 1992a, 1993, 1996, 1997a, 2014b). I use the term ecology here in a broad sense to include all the symbolic environments in which human and technological communication takes place. Extending this to modern international relations, or, to use a better term, world society, it justifies and encourages new approaches to international and intercultural communication. The limitations of traditional approaches to communicating across and between cultures are apparent when one views contemporary history (see Asante 2006, 2014; Chin 2004; Dissanayake 1988, 2009; Gunar- atne 2009, 2010; Kumar 2014; Miike 2009, 2010, 2014; Mowlana 1991, 1992a, 2001, 2014a; Shi-xu 2009, 2013, 2014; Thussu 2012, 2013; Yin 2009). The insurgencies and revolutions in many parts of the world are actually efforts by individuals to communicate their need for dialogue, and for respect and dignity. In short, there is more at stake in this world than the traditional fight for territories and material goods. Transcending these limits would benefit not only individuals and institutions interested in humanistic sharing of values, but also those with political, economic, and technological concerns.

Acknowledgment

An earlier version of this article was presented as Keynote Address at an International Symposium in Commemoration of the Centenary of Edgar Snow’s Birth on the theme, ‘Understanding China— Communicating across Cultures: Edgar Snow as an Example,’ in the School of Journalism and

JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 93

Communication at Peking University in Beijing, China on 19 July 2005. The research assistance and contributions of Leanne Cannon in the preparation of this article is greatly acknowledged.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Hamid Mowlana is a Professor Emeritus of International Relations and Founding Director of the International Communication Program in the School of International Service at American University, Washington, DC, USA. He is the author of numerous books on inter- national relations and international communication. He is the recipient of the International Studies Association’s Distinguished Senior Scholar Award and has served as President of the International Association for Media and Communication Research.

References

Acharya, A. 2011. Dialogue and discovery: In search of international relations theories beyond the West. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3: 619–637. doi:10.1177/03058298 11406574

Acharya, A., and B. Buzan, eds. 2010. Non-Western international relations theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. New York, NY: Routledge.

Asante, M.K. 2006. The rhetoric of globalisation: The Europeanisation of human ideas. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 1, no. 2: 152–158. doi:10.2167/md054.0

Asante, M.K. 2013. The Western media and the falsification of Africa: Complications of value and evaluation. China Media Research 9, no. 2: 64–70.

Asante, M.K. 2014. Facing South to Africa: Toward an Afrocentric critical orientation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Ashe, J.W. 1967. The China news ban (Unpublished master’s thesis). West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

Chin, C.N. 2004. Communication and the human condition (Re)calling Adam Smith in the 21st century? Journal of International Communication 10, no. 2: 67–89. doi:10.1080/13216597.2004. 9751975

Chitty, N. 2010. Mapping Asian international communication. Asian Journal of Communication 20, no. 2: 181–196. doi:10.1080/01292981003693377

Dissanayake, W., ed. 1988. Communication theory: The Asian perspective. Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.

Dissanayake, W. 2009. The desire to excavate Asian theories of communication: One strand of the history. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4, no. 1: 7–27. doi:10.1080/17447140802651629

Dulles, F.R. 1972. American policy toward Communist China, 1949–1969. New York, NY: Crowell. Fortner, R.S. 1993. International communication: History, conflict, and control of the global metropolis.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Frederick, H.H. 1993. Global communication and international relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Greene, F. 1964. A curtain of ignorance: How the American public has been misinformed about China.

Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Guhin, M.A. 1972. John Foster Dulles: A statesman and his times. New York, NY: Columbia University

Press. Gunaratne, S.A. 2009. Emerging global divides in media and communication theory: European uni-

versalism versus non-Western reactions. Asian Journal of Communication 19, no. 4: 366–383. doi:10.1080/01292980903293247

94 H. MOWLANA

Gunaratne, S.A. 2010. De-Westernizing communication/social science research: Opportunities and limitations. Media, Culture and Society 32, no. 3: 473–500.

Gunaratne, S.A. 2013. Go East young ‘man’: Seek wisdom from Laozi and Buddha on how to metatheorize mediatization. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 8, no. 3: 165–181. doi:10.1080/ 17447143.2013.837052

Kincaid, D.L., ed. 1987. Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kumar, K.J. 2014. Theorizing about communication in India: Sadharanikaran, rasa, and other tra- ditions in rhetoric and aesthetics. In Communication theories in a multicultural world, eds. C. Christians and K. Nordenstreng, 160–175. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Miike, Y. 2009. New frontiers in Asian communication theory: An introduction. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4, no. 1: 1–5. doi:10.1080/17447140802663145

Miike, Y. 2010. An anatomy of Eurocentrism in communication scholarship: The role of Asiacentricity in de-Westernizing theory and research. China Media Research 6, no. 1: 1–11.

Miike, Y. 2014. The Asiacentric turn in Asian communication studies: Shifting paradigms and chan- ging perspectives. In The global intercultural communication reader, eds. M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, and J. Yin, 2nd ed., 111–133. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mody, B., ed. 2003. International and development communication: A 21st-century perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mowlana, H. 1984a. Communication, world order, and the human potential: Toward an ethical frame- work. In The news media in national and international conflict, eds. A. Arno and W. Dissanayake, 27– 35. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Mowlana, H. 1984b. The myths and realities of the “information age”: A conceptual framework for theory and policy. Telematics and Informatics 1, no. 4: 427–438. doi:10.1016/S0736-5853(84) 80066-0

Mowlana, H. 1990a. Communication and international relations. In Culture and international relations, ed. J. Chay, 223–237. New York, NY: Praeger.

Mowlana, H. 1990b. International broadcasting in contemporary international relations. In Between understanding and misunderstanding: Problems and prospects for international cultural exchange, ed. Y. Sugiyama, 132–144. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Mowlana, H. 1991. Communication and the state in the Middle East. Media Development 38, no. 3: 8– 10.

Mowlana, H. 1992a. Ecological dimensions of international relations: A comparative study of civil society, information society, and Islamic society. Iranian Journal of International Affairs 4, no. 3/ 4: 568–585.

Mowlana, H. 1992b. The emerging world order: For whom and for what? Media Development 39, no. 2: 21–23.

Mowlana, H. 1992c. Roots of war: The long road of intervention. In Triumph of the image: The media’s war in the Persian Gulf—A global perspective, eds. H. Mowlana, G. Gerbner, and H.I. Schiller, 30–50. Boulder CO: Westview Press.

Mowlana, H. 1993. The new global order and cultural ecology. In Beyond national sovereignty: International communication in the 1990s, eds. K. Nordenstreng and H.I. Schiller, 394–417. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mowlana, H. 1994a. International communication research in the 21st century: From functionalism to postmodernism and beyond. In Mass communication research: On problems and policies—In honor of James D. Halloran, eds. C.J. Hamelink and O. Linné, 353–368. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mowlana, H. 1994b. Shapes of the future: International communication in the 21st century. Journal of International Communication 1, no. 1: 14–32. doi:10.1080/13216597.1994.9751779

Mowlana, H. 1996. Global communication in transition: The end of diversity? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483327518

Mowlana, H. 1997a. Global information and world communication: New frontiers in international relations (2nd ed.). London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446280034

Mowlana, H. 1997b. Themedia and foreign policy: A framework of analysis. In News media and foreign relations: A multifaceted perspective, ed. A. Malek, 29–41. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL DISCOURSES 95

Mowlana, H. 1998. Globalization of mass media: Opportunities and challenges for the South. Cooperation South 14, no. 2: 22–39.

Mowlana, H. 2001. Frommedieval to modern times: Information in the Arab world. Cooperation South 17, no: 1: 139–151.

Mowlana, H. 2003. Communication, philosophy and religion. Journal of International Communication 9, no. 1: 11–34. doi:10.1080/13216597.2003.9751942

Mowlana, H. 2012. International communication: The journey of a caravan. Journal of International Communication 18, no. 2: 267–290. doi:10.1080/13216597.2012.709930

Mowlana, H. 2014a. Communication and cultural settings: An Islamic perspective. In The global inter- cultural communication reader, eds. M.K. Asante, Y. Miike, and J. Yin, 2nd ed., 237–247. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mowlana, H. 2014b. Global communication as cultural ecology. China Media Research 10, no. 3: 1–6. Nordstrom, L., ed. 1983. Communication—East and West [Special issue]. Communication 8, no. 1: 1–

132. Shi-xu. 2009. Reconstructing Eastern paradigms of discourse studies. Journal of Multicultural

Discourses 4, no. 1: 29–48. Shi-xu. 2013. Discourse and culture. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Shi-xu. 2014. Chinese discourse studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Snow, E. 1933. Far Eastern front. New York, NY: H. Smith & R. Haas. Snow, E., ed. 1936. Living China: Modern Chinese short stories. New York, NY: Reynal & Hitchcock. Snow, E. 1938. Red star over China. New York, NY: Random House. Snow, E. 1941. The battle for Asia. New York, NY: Random House. Snow, E. 1944. People on our side. New York, NY: Random House. Snow, E. 1947. Stalin must have peace. New York, NY: Random House. Snow, E. 1957. Random notes on Red China, 1936–1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Snow, E. 1958. Journey to the beginning. New York, NY: Random House. Snow, E. 1962. China, Russia, and the USA: Changing relations in a changing world. New York, NY:

Marzani & Munsell. Snow, E. 1970. Red China today: The other side of the river (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Random House. Snow, E. 1972. The long revolution. New York, NY: Random House. Tehranian, M. 1997. Global communication and international relations: Changing paradigms and pol-

icies. International Journal of Peace Studies 2, no. 1: 39–64. Tehranian, M. 1999. Global communication and world politics: Domination, development, and discourse.

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Tehranian, M. 2014. Ethnic discourse and the new world disorder: A communitarian perspective. In

The global intercultural communication reader, eds. M.K. Asante, Y. Miike, and J. Yin, 2nd ed., 431– 444. New York, NY: Routledge.

Thussu, D.K. 2006. International communication: Continuity and change (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.

Thussu, D.K. 2012. India and a new cartography of global communication. In The handbook of global media research, ed. I. Volkmer, 276–288. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Thussu, D.K. 2013. De-Americanizing media studies and the rise of “Chindia.” Javnost—The Public: Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture 20, no. 4: 31–44.

Weaver, G.R. 2014. The evolution of international communication as a field of study: A personal reflection. In The global intercultural communication reader, eds. M.K. Asante, Y. Miike, and J. Yin, 2nd ed., 35–47. New York, NY: Routledge.

Yin, J. 2007a. The clash of rights: A critical analysis of news discourse on human rights in the United States and China. Critical Discourse Studies 4, no. 1: 75–94. doi:10.1080/17405900601149491

Yin, J. 2007b. The narrative function of news: A comparative study of media representation and audi- ence interpretation of China-U.S. trade relationship. China Media Research 3, no. 3: 33–42.

Yin, J. 2009. Negotiating the centre: Towards an Asiacentric feminist communication theory. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 4, no. 1, 75–88. doi:10.1080/17447140802651660

96 H. MOWLANA

Copyright of Journal of Multicultural Discourses is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.