Keywords

2.1 Introduction

A defining feature of contemporary global politics is the digitalisation of foreign policy and diplomacy as international organisations, governments and Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFAs) continuously search for new ways of managing and communicating their diplomatic practices worldwide. Foreign policy and diplomacy embody a duality of stability and change, furthering longstanding national interests while continuously seeking new and innovative policy orientations. In this book, we show that digital communication offers ample opportunities to communicate such change and innovation, given its ability to reach multiple audiences swiftly across the global community. While these digital communication channels are effective in raising awareness and ensuring resonance and support for normative shifts in foreign policy practice amongst global actors, they also have the potential to fuel contestation and antagonism, particularly in an era marked by increasing political polarisation and populist sentiments worldwide.

This chapter analyses the politics of feminist foreign policy and digital diplomacy. We advance a theoretical framework by highlighting some central processes of politicisation in feminist foreign policy and digital diplomacy. These processes enable states to construct, elevate and assert their prioritised foreign policy objectives across various political arenas. In doing so, they find receptive audiences, which may facilitate prevailing positions, narratives and power structures in the formal and informal dynamics of diplomatic and foreign policy practices. Digital diplomacy not only gives rise to different policy positionings in global politics but also triggers clashes between and within states. In this book, we seek to fill a gap in existing scholarship on digital diplomacy, which primarily considers digital forms of communication to be the core of digital diplomacy, rather than probing questions about the politics behind it. In contrast, we locate and problematise digital diplomacy within a profoundly political realm in which digital forms of communication are shaped, circulated, received and contested. This is examined across three domains of activities central to the digital communication of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy: (a) leadership, (b) branding and (c) visuality. Across these domains, we examine how the digital diplomatic communication of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy was articulated, not only in regards to the resonance it gave rise to amongst other states and audiences, but also in what ways digital communication was employed to contest gendered power structures and injustices in global politics.

The theoretical framework integrates various strands of research within the broader fields of digital diplomacy (Bjola, 2016; Cornut & Dale, 2019; Duncombe, 2019) and feminist-informed foreign policy analysis (Smith, 2020). This integration represents a novel endeavour, combining insights from these two bodies of scholarships. Specifically, our research focuses on elucidating the political dynamics inherent in feminist foreign policy and digital diplomacy. We present a theoretical framework, which captures these dynamics and manifestations through leadership, branding and visuality.

2.2 The Politics of Feminist Foreign Policy and Digital Diplomacy

The transformation of societies through digitalisation and the growing importance of ICT have profoundly reshaped global relations and foreign policy communication and practice. This poses challenges to the traditional political authority of states and their leaders. State actors no longer hold a monopoly on global communication, with political discourses becoming increasingly difficult to control and navigate (Jackson, 2019). To project a distinct voice in an increasingly crowded and competitive information environment, states must carefully curate their strategic narratives (Miskimmon et al., 2018). These changes in power diffusion have provided new opportunities to seek, gain and maintain political influence on a global scale through digital platforms (Manor, 2019). The ability to harness social and political influence and global attention has become crucial to successfully managing foreign policy agendas (Cornut & Dale, 2019; Jackson, 2019; Miskimmon et al., 2018). However digital platforms are not neutral channels for political communication – their formatting logic and algorithmic governance, condition and shape the patterns and effects of digital communication (Cornut, 2022; Dijck & Poell, 2013). Moreover, the digitalisation of foreign relations intersects with diplomacy as the management of change in international relations.

As developed in the introductory chapter, a central premise of this book is that digital diplomacy is inherently political rather than a mere communicative practice of diplomatic communication. The digital environment, in particular social media platforms, offers critical opportunities to increase the reach of and response to foreign policy strategies, and connect those to normative ideas, social movements, states, organisations, etc. This emerging pattern of multidirectional foreign policy identification reflects the dynamics of a networked world in which ideas and strategies travel faster than ever before, frequently, resonating with global audiences, and significantly increasing the opportunities for both political visibility, engagement and contestation (Hall, 2019). Governments often harness this opportunity to engage in state advocacy and branding, gaining global resonance online.

Therefore, by employing digital diplomacy toolsets, governments, political leaders and other foreign policy actors can signal their normative and interest-based commitments across multiple contexts, creating both policy resonance, but also dissonance amongst other states and audiences. As shown in the ensuing empirical analyses in Chaps. 3, 4, and 5, this was evident in the digital communication of Swedish feminist foreign policy. In what follows, we address the dissonance and antagonistic responses often produced amongst online audiences by digital diplomacy, pointing to their role in the digital communication of foreign policy change.

Chantal Mouffe’s (2013) concept of ‘the political’ is central here. It refers to the persistent prevalence of antagonism in political communities and human social relations. More specifically, it captures the fluctuation between antagonistic and agonistic political dynamics in all political spheres. Antagonism refers to severe conflictual relations between enemies whereas agonism refers to an acceptance of the other as a legitimate adversary and opponent in politics. Notably, the political should not be equated with politics itself. According to Mouffe (2000, 2005), politics pertains to the practices, discourses and institutions that help to create order in inherently conflictual human relations. Hence, the goal of a more constructive and democratic form of politics is to transform antagonistic political dynamics into agonistic ones, that is, to perceive political actors not as enemies but rather as adversaries. Such a process enables political actors to move away from conflictual to transformative politics. At the same time, Mouffe (2013) tells us that the very essence of a vibrant democracy is the inherently conflictual tensions and agonistic political struggles that exist between adversaries. Hence, the political, as a relational practice, does not necessarily oppose agonistic practices and confrontational dialogues; rather they are central to democratic politics. In short, the politics of feminist foreign policy and digital diplomacy highlight how states’ specific foreign policy orientation and practices generate policy resonance and agonistic contestation amongst global audiences.

Feminist politics, as a transformative platform for change, is inherently agonistic and frequently feminist policy initiatives generate discomfort amongst world leaders who remain unconvinced of their potential to profoundly transform global politics for the better (Aggestam et al., 2023). Since feminist foreign policy is a highly politicised and contested area of global politics, it gives rise to contestation, and, at times, antagonism and agonism (Aggestam & Bergman Rosamond, 2018). Politicisation refers to moving a particular issue or development from a non-political or apolitical arena to a heightened political space (Hay, 2007, 2013). As Colin Hay (Hay, 2007, p. 81) notes, a particular set of issues may “become the subject of deliberation, decision making and human agency where previously they were not”. Such politicisation mobilises various political actors and arenas, leading to policy articulation, resonance and contestation of diverse political ideas and positions. Hence, politicisation enables the expression of distinct and polarised ideological positions, triggering public discussions of conflicting policy alternatives (Hagmann et al., 2018; Zürn, 2014, p. 50). Politicisation then is characterised by antagonism and agonism, producing competing power dynamics, all of which are key components of the political across different political domains and between societies (Mouffe, 2005).

By emphasising the processes of politicisation and exploring the fluctuation between antagonism and agonism in global politics, this book moves beyond the technical and de-politicised practices of digital diplomacy. This distinct approach enables us to critically examine the agonistic reactions provoked by state-led and sanctioned advocacy and branding, as exemplified by Sweden’s use of digital diplomacy to contest global threats to women’s reproductive rights. As noted by Aggestam and True (2020, p. 145) “[w]hile progress has been made in advancing pro-gender norms in various international fora, individual state foreign policies and their international relations, we can at the same time observe an opposite trend of increasingly antagonistic global politics, which vociferously contests and resists the diffusion of pro-gender norms.” Digital diplomacy is particularly suited to nation branding and the communication of foreign policy objectives to diverse audiences as discussed in Chap. 4, notably through visual storytelling. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, digital diplomacy also offers significant opportunities to contest the political agendas of other actors. Increasingly, digital diplomacy is employed by states to scrutinise other states’ foreign policies and responses to global developments. Thus, social media and digital platforms have emerged as key arenas for resistance, contestation and as a way of projecting state identities.

Central to our analysis is the convergence of digital diplomacy and the emergence of new political agendas (e.g. the rise of right-wing populism) foreign policy change (e.g. the launch of feminist foreign policy) and major power shifts (geopolitics) in global politics. These dynamics have generated new patterns of interactions among state actors, including antagonistic and confrontational ones (see, e.g., Crilley & Chatterje-Doody, 2021; Marlin-Bennett & Jackson, 2022). The ways diverse political positions are articulated, contested and ‘travel’ across digital platforms to mobilise various political actors reflect competing power relations and hierarchies. As noted above, our analysis rests on the premise that gender constitutes a major fault line in a world, increasingly characterised by global turbulence and polarisation. Thus, the promotion of pro-gender norms by some states has encountered vigorous digital resistance and contestation, targeting gender equality and women’s rights (Aggestam & True, 2021). These antagonistic political and gendered dynamics are central to our analysis of the political intersections between digital diplomacy and feminist foreign policy.

Feminist foreign policy, as an idea, method and practice, has been emulated by a range of states and institutions, contributing to placing gender justice and equality at the centre of global politics. A the same time, the adoption of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy coincided with the rise of right-wing populism worldwide, resulting in far-right parties forming governments in several countries. Far-right parties rest their political arguments and rhetoric on the “rights of the family as a basic societal unit and depict religious conservatives as an embattled minority” (Korolczuk & Graff, 2018, p. 708). Their narration is rooted in fear of the other, welfare chauvinism and mistrust in so called ‘gender ideology’ (Graff, 2014), which they pair with anti-globalism and a pronounced defence of traditional gender roles (De Sá Guimarães & De Oliveira E Silva, 2021). The mobilisation of conservative values on social media also reflects debates frequently imbued by a backlash against feminist values in global politics (Agius et al., 2020). Right-wing extremists, radical Islam and Christian anti-abortionists often rely on strategies of digital advocacy in opposing women’s rights. For instance, political hashtags, such as #prolife and #righttollife, are systematically used by self-defined conservative actors based in Europe and the US to actively oppose reproductive health policies. Thus, the successful launch and implementation of new foreign policy initiatives, not least feminist foreign policies, require a capacity to take issue with sentiments of anti-genderism, and to navigate the increasingly competitive and shifting digital landscape of global politics (Jackson, 2019; Postema & Melissen, 2021).

Assertive foreign policy agendas by some states are maintained by using distinct forms of digital diplomacy (Zeitzoff, 2017). To study the intersection of feminist foreign policy and digital diplomacy, we advance a theoretical framework that rests on articulation, resonance and contestation. This framework allows us to investigate the political dynamics of digital diplomacy, not least its ability to effectively articulate foreign policy goals through social media platforms (Hermann & Hagan, 1998). Here articulation refers to the construction and presentation of political messages by states, with the ambition of those messages resonating with targeted audiences. In short, articulation is not an apolitical form of strategic communication or simply an effort to disseminate information but a political practice enabling states to convincingly communicate their foreign policy objectives to intended audiences. Through digital diplomacy, states strategically and politically employ various communication tools to convey their foreign policy stances, values and objectives, and in that process they construct political narratives that connect with world leaders and multiple audiences.

Moreover, the political can be seen as a site for constructing collective identities and alliances (Mouffe, 2005, p. 70) and our framework enables us to analyse how the politics of digital diplomacy generates resonance among other states and their political leaders. Resonance occurs when the articulated political messages and narratives of a state’s digital diplomatic efforts align with other states and global actors’ interests, values and goals. This resonance can lead to the forming of alliances, new forms of cooperation and mutual recognition and support for distinct foreign policy objectives across states. Thus, digital platforms provide ample opportunities for states to connect with like-minded actors, create networks and amplify their messages which generates resonance and builds transnational coalitions, with feminist transformative projects at times emerging from such cooperation.

Our framework also uses the concept of contestation, which recognises that the political, whether expressed in domestic or global policy commitments, is inherently conflictual, contested and marked by competitive power struggles and hierarchies. In the context of digital diplomacy, not least feminist foreign policy, contestation refers explicitly to how states challenge the articulated messages and narratives of other states. Digital platforms facilitate rapid dissemination of information and allow diverse voices to participate in shaping global discourses. Therefore, foreign policy articulated via digital diplomacy frequently faces contestation, with such disagreements arising from both domestic and international actors who offer alternative views on contemporary political developments. As the ensuing empirical chapters will show, Sweden’s feminist foreign policy was regularly subjected to such contestation if not antagonism. To examine these fluctuating processes of politicisation we specifically focus our analysis on three facets of foreign policy and diplomacy: (1) leadership, (2) branding and (3) visuality.

2.3 Foreign Policy Leadership and Agency

Political leaders, notably ministers and diplomats, are key to navigating and shaping foreign policy change and continuity. They are significant political drivers in articulating their preferences while silencing political alternatives. They also contribute to some issues being moved into the political realm while downplaying the significance of others. For example, the current Swedish right-of-centre coalition government contested the significance of feminism as a platform for foreign policy when it took power in October 2022, leading it to abandon feminist foreign policy and, as such, moving it out of the political realm.

Political leaders can leverage their resources, including their experiences, to instil policy change, with digital communication amplifying their outreach. Moreover, they are increasingly well equipped to capitalise on their ability to communicate and create rapport with followers on and offline, drawing attention to their ideological preferences and transformative desires. Political leaders employ distinct ideological and normative ideas to build coalitions and networks to promote policy change, manoeuvring within and across existing domestic and international structures. For example, through her diplomatic efforts, on and offline, former Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallström actively sought to disrupt the gendered global order by advancing the principles of feminist foreign policy in international affairs. Indeed, gender, understood as both a social construction of identities and a system of power, impacts on how leadership is pursued and what policy changes are achieved. Yet, to date, the study of foreign policy leadership has been for the most part gender-blind (Bashevkin, 2018) with some exceptions (Hudson & Leidl, 2015; Smith, 2020). In this book, we acknowledge the historical entrenchment of structural patriarchal principles within the realms of leadership, diplomacy, state identities, institutions and the broader global order. As situated actors, political leaders have to navigate pro- and anti-gender norms in global politics to enhance their influence and authority in foreign policy endeavours. Therefore, foreign policy leadership embodies a relational and contextual practice wherein individual characteristics and gender schemas act as powerful lenses shaping public perceptions and interpretations of leadership (Aggestam & True, 2021). While leaders for long had to rely on orthodox forms of diplomatic signalling, communication and representation to put their ideological messages across, their ability to do so has been greatly facilitated by the digitalisation of diplomacy (Duncombe, 2017).

Indeed, in the past fifteen years, we have witnessed a sharp rise in political leaders’ use of strategic communication. They use social media as a political platform to communicate their messages to both domestic and foreign publics and as a way of projecting their distinct self identities onto those audiences (Duncombe, 2019). The politics of leadership in digital diplomacy then refers to the ways in which social media have become platforms for politicians and diplomats to publicly enact agency and perform identity (Freistein & Gadinger, 2022; Svendsen, 2022). Social media platforms, like Twitter and Facebook, alongside traditional communication channels, offer leaders innovative ways to project their self-images and novel opportunities to transform political communication that facilitate interaction with new domestic and global audiences. These enactments of agency and performances of leadership are shaped by distinct political contexts. Social media platforms are profoundly political and social spaces that reproduce embedded struggles over hierarchical positions and over meaning in foreign policy narratives (Miskimmon & O’Loughlin, 2021). In Chap. 3, we specifically examine how feminist leadership and narratives shape new foreign policy agendas and how social media platforms are used for this purpose. We argue that the enactment of political leadership on social media is indicative of the political nature of digital diplomacy—very notably, it offers ample opportunities to heighten the significance of gender justice in global politics.

2.4 Nation Branding and Positionality

The politics of digital diplomacy requires both recognition and contestation of states’ nation brands (Browning, 2015; Browning & Ferraz de Oliveira, 2017). Nation branding rests on states’ ability to resonate with global audiences, whether other nations, foreign leaders or publics. Thus, rather than treating branding as a one-way line of communication, we conceptualise it in relational and political terms. Hence, the actor in question, through its political acts and discursive interventions, seeks acceptance through recognition, which may lead to policy resonance, and, at times dissonance, if not agonistic responses. Consequently, nation branding has inherent political properties, enabling states to ideologically position themselves in global politics by drawing attention to their foreign policy priorities. However, that positioning requires acceptance, which is often acquired through discursive interventions and heightened forms of visibility, as will be discussed in Chap. 5.

The management of state images online also reflects a market logic, allowing strategy and competition to shape representations of state identities which benefit commercial and political elites (Kaneva, 2011). Critical approaches to nation branding therefore assume that international demands determine the management of state images and therefore result in ‘competitive identity practices’ (Browning & Ferraz de Oliveira, 2017). Interrogating the process of nation branding is key to critical investigations of digital diplomacy because digital strategies and practices have amplified the role and reach of branded state identities. Moreover, social media have profoundly changed how we consume information and what information we pay attention to (Dijck & Poell, 2013). In the realm of digital diplomacy, what is deemed appealing is determined by the demands of the online audiences who ‘consume’ the state image.

As laid out above, there are inherent forms of antagonism in every political community and within all social and political relations, offline and online, which condition states’ competition for acceptance, attention and recognition in the global sphere. While orthodox forms of diplomacy are reserved to a select few and often take place behind locked doors, digital lines of communication are highly visible and accessible to broad audiences, opening antagonistic responses to states’ expressions of their political identities (Barberá & Zeitzoff, 2018; Zeitzoff, 2017), not least in the context of foreign policy change. Because branding is a relational practice, building on reception and acceptance as well as dialogue between like-minded partners and adversaries, it lends itself to political contestation. Contestation occurs when the projected brand does not resonate with online audiences, whether states or other audiences. We therefore critically engage with the dynamics of digital diplomacy, here defined as a politics of branding, and, in so doing, explore the relational underpinnings of those political dynamics. This enables us to explain how and why digital arenas are more than innovative channels for political communication. Instead, they are inherently relational political spaces that enable multiple forms of dialogue, some producing resonance and others dissonance. In the case of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy, the global resonance of pro-gender norms provided a space for digital communication, contestation and antagonistic dialogues, as will be analysed in Chaps. 3, 4, and 5. Moreover, by staying attentive to nation branding and political positionality, we are able to explain both the rise and fall of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy.

2.5 The Political Power of Visuality

Using images and visual communication helps to politicise and legitimise world politics and to package and represent it to domestic and international publics. Analytically, visual diplomatic practice refers to the production of a set of symbols and visual language that become representative and intuitively associated with the policy communicated to domestic and/or global audiences. While visual projections and diplomatic signalling are far from new phenomena, digital media have produced unprecedented opportunities for visual communication (Bleiker, 2018; Freistein & Gadinger, 2022). Traditionally, political communication has used visual representation, such as political posters, cartoons and infographics to convey political messages and persuade individuals to support particular ideologies and causes (Nagel et al., 2012). Social media platforms favour visual content, with the latter gaining prominence as a distinct area of political communication, leading to the adoption of more sophisticated communicative strategies (Veneti et al., 2019), particularly in foreign policy. The competitive and political nature of the digital medium makes visual communication an effective way to generate online attention, which is an insight informing contemporary practices of digital diplomacy (Wright & Rosamond, 2021).

The power of visuality in digital diplomacy specifically refers to the ability to both (re-)produce and (re-)stabilise the political authority and legitimacy of states as well as their political leaders, in particular, by resonating with global norms that are recognised by transnational online audiences. Visuals can evoke sensual and relational experiences (Adler-Nissen et al., 2019) and therefore touch audiences in more profound ways than simple textual messages (Bleiker, 2018). Thus, visuals are relational, emotional and deeply political in their dynamics, with audiences tending to respond to visual symbols and images in more engaged ways. This in turn enables both the naturalisation of political ideas and the contestation of political ideological positions. Thus, visuals have agonistic qualities that can inspire political action and relational dialogical engagement, lending themselves nicely to feminist communication.

Moreover, social media platforms are inherently visual because they favour visual images and artefacts over speech and text (Crilley et al., 2020). For instance, Twitter builds on text-based information sharing through brief updates of Tweets where the prevalence of embedded images has increased. In contrast, Facebook has always encouraged visual communication, providing many functions including text-based posts, photo sharing and sophisticated privacy settings. Their differences aside, social media’s increased emphasis on visual data reflects both technological advancements (the ease with which images can now be shared) and competition in the ‘attention economy’ whereby a picture is worth more than words (Rose, 2016). As a result of a more visually saturated information environment, accelerated by social media, images are recognised as key sites of political contestation, if not antagonism, and are increasingly central to politics. In digital diplomacy, visual imagery is assumed to “maximize the reach and engagement of online messages, increase the visibility of certain topics while downplaying or discrediting others, and recasting the production, dissemination and consumption of political meaning” (Crilley et al., 2020, p. 630). As we have alluded to above, the profound influence of visual digital images stems from their ability to connect with the online public through cognitive shortcuts like symbols and stories to personal and emotional lives (Adler-Nissen et al., 2019; Bennett & Segerberg, 2012; Duncombe, 2019).

Our position here is that the meaning of images is performed through discourse (Adler-Nissen et al., 2019). While social media afford their users instantaneous forms of advocacy by inviting low-cost and low-effort spontaneous reactions (Hall, 2019), such reactions also become productive in discourse that political actors can leverage. To clarify, visuals contribute to political discourse both as representations of politics and through the reactions they may evoke, fostering a sense of relationality across spaces. As indicated above, visual communication is considered to be more powerful and political than verbal communication in its ability to invoke emotions and convey ‘truths’ (Dan et al., 2021). We, therefore, engage with visuality as a form of representation and visibility as a structure, both of which are central aspects of what we define as the political.

2.6 Conclusion

The politics of digital diplomacy and foreign policy affirm the central role of digital platforms in shaping political narratives, creating alliances and providing opportunities for dissent and alternative voices within global politics. By recognising the dynamic interplay between processes of politicisation, such as articulation, resonance and contestation, in the context of digital diplomacy and foreign policy, we can gain a deeper understanding of how states navigate and shape global political ideas and narratives. Our framework provides a novel approach which provides ample opportunities to analyse and advance knowledge of the complexities and implications of digital diplomacy; how it interacts with foreign policy and how it shapes the broader landscape of global politics in the digital age. In particular, it is applicable to scholarship that centres on foreign policy change, with Sweden’s feminist foreign policy being a critical case here.

In Chaps. 3, 4, and 5, Sweden’s feminist foreign policy serves as a prime example of the constitutive relationship between foreign policy and digital diplomacy. Political leadership, nation branding and visuality not only contributed to the articulation of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy objectives but generated resonance among other states and their political leaders, leading them to adhere to similar pro-gender and feminist values and goals. At the same time, the digital diplomatic communication of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy encountered contestation, with a wide range of actors criticising its policy goals, ambitions, authenticity and ability to challenge prevailing gendered power structures and hierarchies within the global order. Thus, by studying Sweden’s previous feminist foreign policy we gain insight into its location within a deeply politicised world order, with digital platforms providing spaces for the articulation of diverse perspectives and voices.

As the global landscape undergoes transformations and power shifts, the norms and principles that have long governed global affairs are being reconfigured in a vacuum, leaving room for alternative perspectives and ideologies to gain traction on the international stage. In this context, foreign policy and digital diplomacy become crucial tools for states to assert their influence and promote their interests as well as their ideological convictions and ethical visions. With its vast array of social media platforms, online networks and digital communication channels, the digital realm offers states unprecedented opportunities to articulate their viewpoints, engage with global audiences, and forge alliances based on shared values and objectives. Indeed, one of the key successes of Sweden’s feminist foreign policy was its emulation by other states and international organisations. Undoubtedly, this development was amplified by the country’s prolific and skilled use of digital diplomacy.

Moreover, as the global order becomes more fragmented and diverse, the politics of digital diplomacy and foreign policy enable states to contest and challenge prevalent and emerging narratives and power structures. Thus, the digital sphere allows alternative voices, dissenting opinions and marginalised perspectives to be articulated and heard. Non-state actors, civil society organisations and individual leaders can utilise digital platforms to advocate for gender justice, human rights and democratic values, amplifying their impact and influencing global discourses. In sum, the politics of digital diplomacy and feminist foreign policy involves navigating the digital landscape while maintaining a commitment to policy transparency, credibility and ethical conduct.