How can semiotics shape public diplomacy?

Question

Public diplomacy is the attempt of the government to shape the international political debate. Part of this is in finding the right signifiers that can be sealed in their meaning in a way that will appeal to a broad audience. Semiotics suggests that signifiers are both contextual and connotative, right? But does semiotics contain a theory of what drives these connotations, and if so, is it possible to use semiotics as an analytical tool by which to predict what signs will best appeal within a specific cultural context both now and in the future?

I know it's a bit of an odd question, and I'm just dabbling in my knowledge of semiotics, but hopefully someone out there can set me on a straight path.

Thanks for any help,

TJ

Answer 1

As far as shaping public diplomacy, people do that, not the tools they use, whether it is semiotics, body language or words.

I believe so much attention is paid to words and not enough it spent studying the bulk of communication other than words, it is time for more attention to communication that is not just the words.

Some purist Semioticians contend that the signs are the true object of the study of Semiotics, not communication. A master communicator would use semiotics and crafted words to communicate most effectively.

I'm thinking the most recent affect that is a result of semiotics was the pointing that Bill Clinton did. Remember when he thrust out his hand to point, he used his thumb. His handlers told him that using a finger made the pictures of him seem more intimidating, but the thumb looked more like a thumbs up and more congenial.