Design Diplomacy: How Does our Digital Discourse Impact our Physical World?

A year prior to the 2018 Milton Wolf Seminar, The Wall Street Journal reported that US Special counsel Robert Mueller requested files from a relatively unknown data analytics company based out of the United Kingdom. Mueller’s request to Cambridge Analytica came as growing allegations of Russian interference in the US presidential election swept the world. Not only was the reports alarming for it’s impact on the 2016 US elections, but the moment spoke to something slightly more sinister. It represented the emergence of  new forms of domestic and state-to-state warfare. Cambridge Analytica whistleblower, Christopher Wylie explained how the use of his companies services had aided in creating a new form of “cultural warfare.” A new development in a technological world that has come a long way since dropping leaflet propaganda into enemy territory.

The impact of Cambridge Analytica marks a seminal moment in which major international conflict transitioned from the streets, waterways, and airspace of nations into the pockets and computer screens of their constituents. This is a shift from the physical realm of international transgression, into the digital. So too has public diplomacy made this move. And at the 2018 Milton Wolf Seminar the context of geopolitical transformation resided entirely within this digital space.

The seminar’s theme was “Public Diplomacy in Moments of Geopolitical Transformation”  and it brought together respected journalists, politicians, data analysts, and academics to discuss the monumental shifts occurring in our geopolitical landscapes as a result of digital technology. And from it’s beginning, the relevance of it’s theme could not be understated. The role of digital diplomacy and espionage has brought about a sense of public hysteria regarding the “new Cold War,” fake news, and the rise of global populist movements. All of which were on the table throughout the three days of dialog.

What followed was a push-and-pull between cautionary tales of this digital transformation and the importance of harnessing its potential within the realm of public diplomacy. Ambassador Leigh Turner made the case for how diplomats can use social media as a way of engaging more precisely and transparently with their constituents. Yet he also pushed the group to critically examine its results. He cautioned that 500K ‘likes’ on Twitter may seem significant, but it may mean nothing, given the presence of fake news, bots, and precarious sample sizes.

Further, new media has created a paradigm shift in traditional journalism. New technology has allowed for a massive reduction in the cost of distribution. Yet, it has also led to the proliferation of choice, opening up avenues for citizen journalism and fake news. The consequence of this influx of new media actors has put traditional media outlets in a dilemma in which they are having to debate between the speed of content distribution and the accuracy of their reporting.

By the end of the first day, discussion had moved into the political realm as William Burke-White discussed how new media lies at the center of our landscape of political discourse. Arguing that traditional diplomatic responses to countering ‘bad information’ with ‘good information’ had been broken, as we now live in ‘digital information cyclos.’ And by the second day, Gerry Power of M&C Saatchi World Services presented us with graphically compelling data of those cyclos.

By the end of the 2018 Milton Wolf Seminar the take aways became clear. In the years since the development of digital technology and new media, politicians, journalists, academics, and private analysts have tried to parse through what this age of new technology will mean for how nations conduct public diplomacy and disseminate information.Only now, are we starting to gain a sense of overarching problems of the new information age that will begin to give rise to how governments can begin to solve them.

As the sole designer at this years seminar, this is the point that became especially engaging. As we begin to shift our focus to the digital realm of public diplomacy and journalism it is important to look how 21st century issues that arise out of the digital realm circle back to the physical realm.

As one clear example, the speed in which demonstration of civil disobedience are organized in public squares is a fraction of what it was a decade ago. Yet our public spaces and infrastructure have yet to nimbly adapt to the current time. Engaging with how the digital begins to transform our physical realm needs to be taken up by designers who have a state in both.

For as long as cities have been at the the heart of cultural and civic life, architects and planners have worked beside and on behalf of governments. Housed within the emergence of cultural diplomacy, many of the great civic spaces of the world have provided nations with iconography that expressed their deepest values and ambitions. Vienna, one of the architectural jewels of Europe is testimony to a city in which public diplomacy and design have gone hand-in-hand.

Throughout the history of the architectural profession, design strategies have been employed by nations, private citizens, and religious leaders in two distinct ways. First, as a symbolic means of showing strength, prosperity, and values. And secondly as solutions to the ills and infrastructural needs of it’s time.

The historical perception of architecture often parallels that of their political counterparts. We look fondly to the role architects made in building Rome, Athens, and Paris at the same time as we celebrate the political emergence of democracy and the Enlightenment. Conversely, we see how the infamous architect Albert Speer built the monuments of Nazi Berlin in the darkest moments of the 20th century.

Still today, the relationship between architecture and public diplomacy is often neglected, yet remains an important one. Especially given the need for innovative solutions to the challenges of the 21st century. And for many, design professionals are uniquely equipped to be decision makers in this century. The former US Ambassador to Denmark (1998-2001), Richard Swett who was trained as an architect argues:

From [the] morass of conflict, architects are expected to create sound structures of lasting value; works of art, if you will….They must function as protective machines providing order and place while they elevate the human condition, both spiritually and literally.

Swett goes on to argue that architects must expand design beyond its current aesthetic limitations and shift to broader societal and ‘quality of life’ issues. Focusing on compassionate solutions to issues like globalization, the new economy, technology, and the environment. He calls this new mission for architects, Design Diplomacy. A concept that lies at the heart of my research exploration.

My work is rooted in two primary questions: How do governments transition an unequipped labor force into an increasingly automated twenty-first century and how will the rural-urban divide playout within this scenario? Both questions currently hang in the air, and their realities have yet to impact policy discussions. As Lolade Fadulu writes in The Atlantic, “automation might be the biggest challenge to the future labor market, but policymakers seem to have their sights set elsewhere.” This is an alarming fact given research coming out of Oxford University suggests that 47 percent of US jobs are likely to be automated in the next two decades.

I’ll argue that the risk of governments not being vocal about these findings will soon be surpassed but what emerges in its silence. Already, President Trump’s economic message has focused entirely on the impact of globalization and trade on domestic job loss, with virtually no mention of automation as a challenge to his constituents. Similarly, this politically delicate topic failed to be mentioned by the top Democratic candidates during the last election. The result of which could be argued, has contributed to the rise in Nationalism, via a somewhat misguided reaction to globalization.

The implications of which manifest themselves significantly in our cities and rural environments. As an architect, my work plays a role in anticipating this. Determining which design strategies need to be in place in order to curb the impact of mass scale job loss are dependent on a multitude of factors: Which policies will be adopted? How is this discussion framed? What stakeholders should be at the table?, etc.

As an example, the most common policy strategy for dealing with mass scale job loss is the implementation of a Basic Income. Which leads to design implications that will have to consider what communities will looks like when there citizens are living off of a set income. Furthermore, what amenities need to be in place to sustain a population that has an increasingly precarious labor schedule.

The Milton Wolf Seminar was a fascinating conversation for a designer who has a desire to work in tandem with policy makers and information analysts to move beyond naive design strategies and begin to address major twenty first century issues within a cross disciplinary landscape. In Lieu of Ambassador Swett’s call for Design Diplomacy, the week in Vienna was a  wonderful way to enter the dialogue.