Diplomacy & Statecraft

ISSN: 0959-2296 (Print) 1557-301X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fdps20

The diplomat as a stranger

Sasson Sofer
To cite this article: Sasson Sofer (1997) The diplomat as a stranger, Diplomacy & Statecraft,
8:3, 179-186, DOI: 10.1080/09592299708406061
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09592299708406061

Published online: 19 Oct 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 184

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fdps20
Download by: [American University of Dubai]

Date: 01 September 2016, At: 05:25

The Diplomat as a Stranger

SASSON SOFER
The state of being a stranger is of course a completely positive
relation; it is a specific form of interaction.
Georg Simmel, The Stranger, 1908
I propose a three-tier proposition on the role of the professional
diplomat as a stranger. The diplomat's style of life and the practice of
his art, makes him a stranger to others and estranged from himself;
this estrangement is an inherent part of the diplomatic practice and
beneficial to the accomplishment of the diplomat's mission; this
estrangement, however, turns the diplomat into a natural candidate
for being the 'pathetic victim' of international affairs. In many senses
the diplomat is the embodiment of a prominent role of modern
times: the other.
The diplomat is trapped between the ideals and the practice of his
profession. Indeed, while he is occasionally portrayed as a cynical
pragmatist, we find in every good diplomat a hidden crusader for the
sake of truth. The ideal diplomat, by the nature of his mission, is
destined to clash with the expedient needs of his country's politics
and the prejudices of his fellow countrymen.
Thus, Albert Camus describes the plight of the stranger, Monsieur
Meursault.1 He 'refuses to lie', because 'to lie is not only to say what
is not the case'. This passion not to conform and stick to the rules is
the stranger's predicament. Camus concludes that this is 'the story of
a man who, with no heroics, accepts to die for truth'.2 Observing
objectively and reporting accurately are the essence of the diplomatic
profession. However, at not a few junctures of history, the diplomat
has been faced with the cruel dilemma: whether to tell the truth for
the sake of the nation, or to betray his expedient loyalty to rulers and
politicians. With truth, not seldom, comes punishment.

Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol.8, No.3 (November 1997), pp.179-186

PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON

180

DIPLOMACY 6c STATECRAFT

The Stranger
The stranger is a role that looms large in the various realities of
modern times. The phenomenon of strangeness, where situations,
objects and persons enter our world with which we are not
acquainted or do not fully understand, is a salient one; particularly in
collective identity formation, the presence of the strange delineates
the borders separating 'us' from the 'others'.3
Of the many characteristics attributed to the stranger, the most
obvious is that of belonging to another country; an unknown person,
a foreigner who is both an alien and an outsider. The stranger is not
merely unknown, but also incomprehensible in terms of the values or
the knowledge available to us. The stranger is a source, sometimes, of
attraction, as someone representing the 'other world'. This attraction
usually carries with it a sense of danger and doubtful loyalty.
Nonetheless, there is a belief that the stranger is capable of mediating
between 'this world' and the other.
One of the most important attributes of the stranger is that of
having a particular frame of reference. The stranger is a sharper and
more objective observer of reality. In his essay on the stranger, Alfred
Schuetz writes that members of society are astonished that the
stranger does not accept their norms and cultural patterns. On the
contrary, he has a tendency to place in question things that seem to
be unquestionable.4 The stranger is a borderline figure who may
define anew the accepted norms and values of society. The stranger is
an explorer beyond the boundaries of the familiar.
The stranger is among the first to doubt the practice of 'thinking
as usual'. Schuetz emphasizes the 'doubtful loyalty' of the stranger,
being a person who at the same time belongs to different cultures.
And yet, whereas normatively he is prone to suspicion, his cognitive
outlook is improved by his unique social position.5
Georg Simmers analysis of the phenomenon of strangeness is the
most felicitous explanation of the logic of diplomatic intercourse. In
his well-known essay, The Stranger, written in 1908, Simmel
understood accurately the social ambiguity of the stranger and his
possible contribution to society/ Simmel bases his explanation on the
degree of nearness and remoteness. The stranger is near and far, both
inside and outside, at the same time. He is not bound by roots to a

THE DIPLOMAT AS A STRANGER

181

certain place, and he is objective and 'a freer man practically and
theoretically; examines conditions with less prejudice; he assesses
them against standards that are more general and more objective'.7
Simmel's description could not be more apposite to the diplomatic
encounter: 'how factors of repulsion and distance work to create a
form of being together, a form of union based on interaction'.8
More recent studies of strangeness define it as a common and
prevalent phenomenon of everyday life, and as indispensible to
dialogue. Communication entails recognition of the other, and 'the
awareness of being separate and different from and strange to one
another' opens up potentials of creative search for dialogue and for
understanding the other.' This is also the essence of negotiations.
Reaching common ground is not necessarily a product of similar
opinions.
The Diplomat as a Stranger
The first diplomats appeared in early Western diplomacy as strangers
and hence impure. The remedies for that could be found in the rituals
of Byzantine diplomacy, and the taboo against foreign diplomats still
prevalent in European societies beyond the Renaissance period. The
Byzantine tribulations were also deliberately used to make the
stranger emerge 'from the confinement: less confident of the purpose
of his mission', with his mental fortitude shaken.10
From its early beginnings, diplomacy was surrounded by suspicion
and divided loyalties. The diplomat belongs to the category of 'men
in great place', whose lives are conducted behind barriers, and whose
movements are carefully watched and recorded." Diplomatic
privileges and immunities set him apart from ordinary men. The rules
and conventions which are essential for his personal protection, and
for securing the accomplishment of his mission, build a shield of
'strangeness' and seclusion around the diplomat. He becomes
inviolable, but at the same time 'extraordinary' in his style of life.
In social status and way of life the diplomat seems to depart from
the category of the stranger as a 'peripheral man', who lives at the
edges of society. But not completely so: the professional diplomat is
a public servant entrapped in a false social position. Modern times
have witnessed the gradual separation of social class from the

182

DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

profession of diplomacy. For his supposedly high style of life and

privileges, the diplomat is envied, criticized and ridiculed. He
becomes a ready prey for statesmen and generals in need of a
scapegoat to be sacrificed on the altar of their nation's destiny.
The diplomat suffers not only from the impermanence of his life
- being a wanderer among diverse cultures, climates and customs but must also make restitution for the sins of living luxuriously
abroad. A Canadian diplomat is quoted as saying that 'it doesn't
matter if you were an ambassador with four servants, you become
just a public servant'.12 If not for his style of life, the wandering
diplomat is criticized for becoming alien to his society, for losing
touch with his own country.
The diplomat's estrangement is obscured by the facade of a
privileged and enjoyable existence. But in reality, the diplomat is a
man of the Gesellschaft. Tonnies distinguished 'between an
acquaintance and a person whom we only "know"'.13 Every one of us
has manifold relationships, direct and indirect, but only the diplomat
has such extensive relationships built on strangeness and separateness
- not only forced ones, but also measured and calculated ones. The
diplomat aspires to expedient social relationships, with no
complications and intimacy if possible. While referring to the
wanderer, Walter Benjamin brilliantly captured a few characteristic
attributes of the diplomat. The wanderer is 'the wolf of the steppes
wandering restless in the social desert', but also has 'an all-embracing
and quiet knowledge', with 'the honourable look of a priest and the
investigative sense of a detective'.14
The perfection of the diplomatic mission makes estrangement an
immanent reality. While separating himself from his local
surroundings, the diplomat is preoccupied with bridging the distance
between different worlds. Estrangement may result in self-discovery
and in casting doubt on the practice of 'thinking as usual'. But it also
diminishes the prospects of securing public acceptance and
recognition of the diplomat's achievements, first and foremost in his
own society.
The diplomat is a stranger by dint of the very effort to be true to
his mission. The advice that the great minds of diplomacy - de
Callieres, Satow and Nicolson - give to the ideal diplomat amounts
to the concealment of his true nature, the repression of his emotions

THE DIPLOMAT AS A STRANGER

183

and the accommodation to all sorts of whims and tempers. Among

the qualifications required of a diplomat, writes de Callieres, is to
divest himself of all his sentiments." De Callieres came close to
recognizing the importance of conceptual duality. He quotes
Richelieu in the Testament Politique: '[That] inferior minds confine
their thoughts within the country where they are born.'16 Nicolson
stresses that 'he must eschew all personal animosities, all personal
predilections, all enthusiasms, prejudices, vanities, exaggerations,
dramatizations, and moral indignations'.17
For the perfection of his art, the diplomat is called upon to refrain
from being his true self. Perhaps this is the cruellest price paid for the
sake of diplomacy: to be a stranger to oneself. The diplomat, while in
the midst of his calling, is prone to a crisis of identity. His mission
requires 'the disengagement of presence from identity'. In an
inherently complex international reality, he makes external
adaptations that may be inconsistent with his inner self.
The diplomatic language is no less onerous. The reserved tone, the
guarded understatements and the precise code of the diplomatic
language are useful, if not necessary, in negotiations. Yet, to a certain
extent, to use Satow's words, to speak thus is like 'wearing a disguise'.
The diplomat is exceptional because part of his task is the constant
vigilance about the clarity of his knowledge. As an interpreter both of
his own society and of the society of his mission, the diplomat appears
to be less an obedient civil servant and more a challenger of accepted
truths, and the initiator of new interpretations not grounded in either
society. Simmel highlights this aspect when he attributed to the
stranger 'the full activity of a mind working according to its own laws,
under conditions that exclude accidental distortions'.18
Estrangement and the Construction of Diplomatic Dialogue
Social estrangement is a required and integral part of the diplomatic
practice. Similarity of background and personal closeness are not
necessarily beneficial to negotiation. On the contrary, the muchridiculed diplomatic protocol and rituals are essential, because they
provide, even artificially, a sense of estrangement. Acts of formality
and ceremonial defiance secure the social distance that is needed to
conduct negotiation.

184

DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

Diplomacy requires a deliberate manoeuvre of distancing and

acknowledgment of the other as a prelude to real dialogue. It assumes
the existence of communication between strangers. Estrangement, in
this case, leads to common understanding and sometimes to
agreement." Diplomacy provides a setting where mutual trust is
routinely displayed between strangers. In Goffman's terms, it
amounts to a 'focused interaction', or a 'prescribed allocation of
social involvement'.20
Brecht defined the achievement of the effect of alienation in
acting by associating it with the qualities of distance and
estrangement. The actor becomes a stranger once he has ceased to be
a private person; he constantly observes himself and performs under
the strictest control. The actor approaches 'pure presentation' by
destroying the illusions of pretending', 'the exposition of the story
and its communication by suitable means of alienation constitute the
main business of the theatre'.21 James Der Derian offers an allencompassing explanation of the origins of diplomacy based on the
theory of alienation from Hegel and Marx to Sartre. But in this case
'estrangement' is external to the diplomat. Diplomacy is a required
solution, 'a mediation to reconcile relations among states mutually
estranged'.22
The diplomat is the embodiment, and for that matter the formal
representative, of the 'other'. Diplomacy as 'conversing with the
other' entails thinking and experiencing the other. In this sense,
diplomacy is intersubjective. In acting as the international 'other', the
diplomat attempts to achieve a prudent representation of his nation.
Estrangement is inherent in the concept of diplomatic
representation. The diplomat is involved in the construction of
identities and in character building. Diplomats govern their actions
by reason, not emotion. Diplomacy is a symbolic interaction.
Representation and presentation are bound up together in the
diplomatic act - the act of standing outside oneself. The diplomatic
dialogue constitutes the opposite of preserving the self. It entails, on
the contrary, an elimination of the self for the sake of objective
presentation. As such, diplomacy must be devoid of subjective
elements; distance, even alienation, become essential to diplomatic
practice.
A diplomatic encounter is a unique 'social situation' built on an

THE DIPLOMAT AS A STRANGER

185

inherent paradox. It is a socially intimate meeting among rivals. It

does not matter whether the diplomats represent allied or hostile
states. Symbolically and practically, they should be regarded as
representing different national interests.
The diplomatic code and protocol must be kept intact. The
diplomatic rituals serve a useful and necessary purpose. Social
meetings, particularly face-to-face dyads, are detrimental to the
maintenance of distance, and tend to diminish the significance of
authority and hierarchy. Without social distance and this enchanting
strangeness, the diplomat may lose his usefulness. Empathy is for
contemplation, and friendliness should be reserved for
entertainment. Social estrangement should not be mediated; it is an
integral part of a fruitful dialogue.
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
NOTES
1. A. Camus, Selected Essays and Notebooks (Middlesex, 1970), pp.207-8.
2. Rundolf Nadolny, the German Ambassador to Moscow, who confronted Hitler face to
face, and the American John Patton Davies, are only two among many who testify to
this fact. See, G.A. Craig, 'The German Foreign Office from Neurath to Ribbentrop',
in G.A. Craig and F. Gilbert (eds.), The Diplomats, 1919-1939 (New York, 1967),
Vol.2, pp.417-418; see also, G. Martingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (Boston, 1955),
pp.220-22.
3. E. Cohen, Strangeness and Strangers: A Conceptual Analysis (The Hebrew University
of Jerusalem, 1997); I.B. Neumann, 'Self and Other in International Relations',
European Journal of International Relations, 2 (1996), pp.139-74.
4. A. Schuetz, 'The Stranger: An Essay in Social Psychology', American Journal of
Sociology, 49 (1944), pp.499-507.
5. See also Z.D. Gurevitch, 'The Other Side of Dialogue: On Making the Other Strange
and the Experience of Otherness', American Journal of Sociology, 93 (1988), p.1181.
6. G. Simmel, 'The Stranger', in D.N. Levine (ed.), On Individuality and Social Forces
(Chicago, 1971), pp.143-9.
7. Ibid., p.146.
8. Ibid., p.144.
9. See Gurevitch, AJS (1988), p.1179; Z.D. Gurevitch, 'Distance and Conversation',
Symbolic Interaction, 12 (1989), pp.251-63.
10. A.B. Bozeman, Politics and Culture in International History (Princeton, 1960), p.338;
H. Nicolson, Diplomacy (3rd edn., Oxford, 1963), pp.18-19.
11. See also J. Eayrs, Diplomacy and Its Discontents (Toronto, 1971), pp.9-16; M.S.
Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy (London, 1993), pp.13-15; M.M. Wood,
Paths of Loneliness (New York, 1953), pp.76-94.
12. E. Clark, Corps Diplomatique (London, 1973), p.99.
13. F. Tnniers, Community and Society (New York, 1957), p.237.
14. W. Benjamin, The Wonderer (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv, 1992), pp.100-104.

186

DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

15. Satow's Guide to Diplomatic Practice (5th edn., London, 1979), pp.9-11; J.R. Wood
and J. Serres, Diplomatic Ceremonial and Protocol (New York, 1970), pp.46-63;
Francois de Callires, The Art of Diplomcy, ed. H.M.A. Keens-Soper and K.W.
Schweiler (Leicester, 1983), p.139.
16. De Callires, The Art of Diplomacy, p.70.
17. Nicolson, Diplomacy, p. 116.
18. Simmel, 'The Stranger', pp.145-6.
19. Z.D. Gurevitch, 'The Power of Not Understanding: The Meeting of Conflicting
Identities', The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol.25 (1989), pp.161-73.
20. E. Goffman, Behavior in Public Places (New York, 1963), pp.193, 198-205; E.
Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Chicago, 1967), pp.67, 71; see also, C. Constantinou,
'Diplomatic Representations ... or Who Framed the Ambassadors?', Millennium, 23
(1994), pp.1-23.
21. M. Esslin, Brecht. A Choice of Evils (London, 1980), p.115; Brecht on Theatre (New
York, 1964), pp.95, 143, 191-5, 202.
22. J. Der Derian, On Diplomacy. A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford, 1987),
p. 109; for a shorter version of this thesis see, J. Der Derian, 'Mediating Estrangement:
A Theory for Diplomacy', Review of International Studies, 13 (1987), pp.91-113.