The sister cities concept is the more complex component of the model, in that it
provides a cognitive and moral guide for social action. It comprises a
conceptual blend5 of two metaphoric constructs, both of which effect collective reclassifications of particular international urban others within local social
5
In adopting this term, I do not attempt to apply the complex theoretical framework of conceptual blending developed in the field of cognitive linguistics (for example, by Turner, 2007, Fauconnier and Turner, 2008). I simply assert that the two metaphors normally combine in the public imaginary in such as way as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
imaginaries. Reflecting on citizen mobilisation through sister city partnerships,
Alger (1987) notes that “there do seem to be two widespread motivations. One
is some kind of common identity, we might call it species identity, with people
in other parts of the world. A second is the belief that direct communication
with people in other countries breeds understanding and contributes to peace”
(1987:380). I identify these motivations more specifically in terms of the two
principal metaphors that drive them in current sister city practices. The first of
these, the human family metaphor, has universal (global) application. It is
derived from the domestic sphere and provides a culturally embedded system
of meaning, or ‘plausibility structure’ (Berger, 1967), for the transformation of
unrelated others into fictive kin. The second, the citizen diplomat metaphor, is
particular (national) in application and located in the public sphere. It derives
from the people to people frame introduced by Eisenhower, and serves to
discursively transform ordinary urban populations into authoritative agents of
the state, with a putative power to influence events on the world stage.
The human family metaphor
The United Nations ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (1948) begins
with a statement that the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world”. The generic ‘human family’
metaphor expresses an ideological orientation towards all of humankind as
intrinsically worthy, fundamentally similar, and necessarily interconnected. It
encompasses variants such ‘global community’, as well as metaphoric allusions
to more specific kinship roles such as sister or brother, wife or husband, mother
the idea is that individual partnerships are embedded within wider social
networks, as in the case of the human ‘extended family’. This notion of a
‘natural’ and essentialised human connectivity is expressed in the "Sister
Cities: We Are One" song, which was written for Sister City International’s
thirtieth anniversary conference in Los Angeles in 1986, where it was
performed by the popular singer John Denver. A selection from the song is
sufficient to convey the overall sentiment of joyous celebration of the unity of
humanity as a form of species identity.
We're all one dream, One voice of hope Hope for tomorrow We're all one life One gift of love One song forever
Sister cities, brother nations Hand in hand in celebration Sister cities, brother countries
One peaceful world, one human nation Yes, we are one.
(Denver and Darnell, 1986)
The human family metaphor infuses civic participation with more affectively
compelling meanings drawn from domestic lifeworlds. In the words of the
Mayor of Austin, Carole McClellan (1981),
this is what the world is all about: realizing that we are all of the human family - all sisters and brothers who simply are born in different locations. In the basics we are the same, with only minor differences to add a spice to life. As Sister Cities, Saltillo and Austin will always share the same concerns… The Sister Cities organization enables us to more easily share our problems -- but better still -- to share our solutions.
Understanding communication across difference in terms of kin-based
reciprocity and mutual support frames sister city activities as rational as well as
expressive endeavours. Aguilera (2003), for example, argues that “(s)ister
cities gives our peoples a way to link our communities at a grassroots level.
When we work together we have the greatest chance to discover our mutual
interests are greater than our differences as we work to advance the welfare of
the whole human family”. The website of Project Gettysburg León (2009), a
sister city partnership between people in the South Central Pennsylvania
Region and the people of León, Nicaragua, notes that the organisation “affirms
a shared membership in one human family and a commitment to work for
peace and justice”. The human family metaphor can thus operate as a powerful
incentive for productive cooperation on a global scale. As a founding member
of the Modesto Sister Cities International Khmelnitskiy Committee remarked,
“(e)ither we understand that we are all on the same planet earth and learn to
work together or the future of the human family is dismal (Driskill, 2007).
However the same metaphor can also inspire highly romantic representations
of people to people connections that can steer participants’ understandings of
their engagement towards affective mystification and ‘magical thinking’, as
seen in the following quote from a member of the US-Cuba Sister Cities
Association.
Today a great gulf divides the Cuban and American governments. Jagged peaks and barrier reefs bar our closer relations. Rather than crashing through or around the barriers, however, which we have long been attempting through politics and force, together …we embark on another, more constructive way. We will flood that abyss with so much goodwill, so many positive ideas and concrete actions that our joint efforts will lift us above the peaks and snags of
petty politics and carry us across the waters into each other’s open arms. We must continue this new-found positive relationship even though our
government, even though Sister Cities International, cannot at this time approve the relationship. Like Romeo and Juliet, we shall continue our unblessed affair, despite the efforts of certain parental authority figures, to keep us apart. But unlike the star-crossed lovers of medieval times, however, our sister cities must strive to bring about reconciliation between our families before more tragedy occurs, rather than afterwards. This is the true meaning of the sister city ideal - helping each other, sharing ideas, problems and solutions (Higginbotham, 1999).
In a similar vein,the President of the U.S/Mexico Sister City Association reports
back from a sister cities conference that he has learned that the true meaning of ‘citizen diplomacy’ is
the incorporation of the four basic concepts of respect, friendship
brotherhood/sisterhood, and love into the work and play of our daily lives to promote peace and harmony within the human family throughout the world … (T)he description of a deep sincere friendship is one soul shared by two bodies and these friendships will grow to be one community soul shared by two sister cities (Garcia, 2007:2).
This official’s statement illustrates the conceptual blending of the human family metaphor with the second metaphor comprising the concept component of the model, that of the ‘citizen diplomat’. In a speech by SCI President Sherman Banks (2003), however, the same blending process suggests more problematic
connotations, as the intimation is that some members of the human family are ‘bad’, and that this is the result of a lack of proper awareness. Only by breaking through the false consciousness of ‘the other’ by means of their own, more morally worthy version of citizen diplomacy can ‘good’ members of the human family
bring these outcasts into the state of truth and enlightenment that they themselves already share. “In this world of globalization”, argues Banks,
change within the HUMAN FAMILY is truly the only absolute. In the most bleak of times there in lies the truth of how much we are alike but yet so different. Adali Stevenson said, “However dark the prospects, however intractable the opposition, however devious and mendacious the diplomacy of our opponents, we ourselves have to carry so clear and intense a picture of our common humanity that we see the brother beneath the enemy and snatch at every opportunity to break through to his reason and his conscience, and, indeed, his enlightened self.” … Through the spirit of attaining or projecting to ultimate truth within the human family can we hope to have the kind of unequaled opportunity for people of all ages, races and ethnicities to
experience and exercise their citizen diplomacy by creating and strengthening partnerships with NGOs in the ever growing age of globalization (Banks, 2003, emphasis in original).
This national scale framing of the global crisis of peacelessness, and the
consequences of harnessing the metaphor of citizen diplomacy in its cause, are
explored in chapter six of this study.
The citizen diplomat metaphor
‘Citizen diplomat’ is a metaphorical concept rather than a literal description,
since ordinary citizens possess none of the power, status, authority or resources
of official diplomatic staff. Furthermore, the semantic ambiguity of the word
‘diplomat’ bestows coherence and legitimacy on the curious notion that activity
conducted on behalf of the state can be inherently non-political. The online
1. a person appointed by a national government to conduct official negotiations and maintain political, economic, and social relations with another country or countries.
2. a person who is tactful and skillful in managing delicate situations, handling people, etc.
As Garrety and Badham (1999) observe, the terms ‘politics’ and ‘political’ are
highly normative and fraught with ambiguity. Eliasoph (1999) details the
discomfort experienced by ordinary Americans over ambiguous boundaries
between the private and the public, as they struggle to describe their own acts
of political resistance in apolitical terms. Similarly, Lofland (1993)
demonstrates how politeness norms in the American sister city peace
movement of the 1980s served to marginalise political discussion in sister city
discourses. Anna Post, great-great-granddaughter of the popular etiquette
advisor, Emily Post, is currently engaged in reinforcing the message that
political discussion can be a minefield for polite American women seeking to
‘manage delicate situations’. In an interview entitled ‘Etiquette for the
Electorette’ (2007), she offers the following reassuring advice to a concerned
contributor.
CJP: When talking about things that are very emotional, like the war or abortion or even some of the candidates, if somebody says something that you don’t agree with, should you say something that’s honest, something that’s polite, or can you do both at the same time?
AP: You can do both at the same time. A mild reply might be, “OK, I hadn’t thought about it like that before.” You’re not accepting their opinion. You are letting them know that you heard it and that you’re considering it, but that you’re not pursuing an argument. That’s one out. Another one is, “I’m sorry, I guess I just disagree.” And with both of those, just find a new topic. An
argument takes two people, and if you choose not to participate, it’s going to shut it down pretty quickly.
Kinship metaphors are common to all cultures, albeit in diverse applications,
but the citizen diplomat metaphor is a typically American phenomenon, and is
less commonly invoked directly in Australian sister city discourses. While for
Kavaloski (1990), citizen diplomacy is clearly a ‘state-centric’ construction,
Krotz (207:406) calls attention to the ambiguity of the term, noting that in the
context of sister cities, it “is suggestive that such activity somehow falls
between state and society. Yet, such activity also does not properly belong to
either, and ‘diplomacy’ connotes public officials representing their states”.
When first introduced into the American popular consciousness through
Eisenhower’s people to people program, the concept of citizen diplomacy was
framed as an opportunity for ordinary citizens to participate in international
affairs. As described by Madden, quoted in Kurata (2008), "(t)he basic concept
was to get government and formal diplomacy out of the way and let ordinary
citizens travel abroad, meet other ordinary citizens, walk the streets, see their
cultural sites, eat their food, and the one thing that they'll realize is that we're
all the same. We might have some differences of opinion, but we have more in
common than differences". The conceptual blend of the citizen diplomat and
human family metaphors illustrated in statements such as this was later to
provide a bridging mechanism that enabled citizen diplomacy to be reframed as
an obligation to protect the reputation of the United States government in the
context of the war in Iraq. As a result, the universal impulses of American
sister city peace actors were engulfed by nationalist sympathies, as I argue in