The struggled to convince myself to apply for this project:
1. On June 1st, my lovely college advisor, Ms. Laizer, forwarded me the call for applications you had sent to Amherst College. I read it and instantly thought “This sounds incredible! Sign me up!” So I clicked on the link and landed on an English/German website and read about the purpose of Atlantic Expedition. Lucky for me that I speak both (unlucky for someone who does not?).
2. I then continued to read the Call for Applications, which caused my excitement to grow with every line: Meeting fellow Germans and Americans, thinking about how we can transform transatlantic relations, meeting politicians and other key people in the transatlantic world – a dream come true. But then there was a 1000-word article requirement. And the prompt sounded so… college-y. You see, to someone who writes around 20 papers with 3000 words a semester, this really should not be a problem. But it was. Because somehow, every word of the prompt had a connotation of a political science research essay. Actors. Allies. Mobilized. Innovative. Decision-Making. Fostering this and that. Words I’ve seen too often, heard too often, written too often, but rarely with much meaning at all. It also contained an invitation to submit a creative performance, or infographic, but of course, stay within the chosen category. Because thinking within categories is paramount when being creative. And of course, one should still be original and underrepresented – as long as original is within the category and underrepresented means educated enough to have casual command of political science jargon.
3. Thus on June 2nd, I decided not to apply. It seemed like this was either a research essay competition, in which case I probably would not win, or a fellowship competition, in which case I most certainly would not win because I’m not that good at essay-writing and truth be told, I’m not particularly accomplished in the area of transatlantic relations.
4. On June 16th, after waking up from a dream of being in a workshop in Chicago with what seemed like a bunch of people from the Atlantic Expedition, I realized that I could not just let this go. So I sat down at my laptop, and attempted to fill a word document with around 7 different incredibly academic essays about strategic communications, agenda-setting policy, and other fancy theories I’ve learned in my classes, and cited every notable agenda-setting theorist I could think of. But it seemed dishonest. Too much fostering, too much mobilizing, too much engaging. Not enough conviction. Not enough action. DELETE.
5. On June 18th, I had a late-night crisis. Because it is stupid to give up a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity because of 1000 words. But I also felt stupid writing something – and that I realized was the real problem– that creates more problems of understanding than it solves. Because I could tell you that “transatlantic civil society relies on the actions of individuals and their commitment rather than on top-down dialogue,” which is technically true, but also one of the emptiest, blandest sentences ever written, and it wouldn’t help anyone understand what transatlantic relations are all about.
I believe that there are parallels between my struggle to apply myself to this essay and other people’s struggle to feel any fire whatsoever for transatlantic relations.
Here are two:
1. Language: We speak two different languages. It is impossible to get people excited about things they do not understand. It is a bit ironic that the Atlantische Initiative itself only has a part of the website translated into English, and that the Expedition application has no translation support in German. Americans, who speak no German and want to research more about the organization, can’t. And Germans, who speak little English and might need help with the application, may get scared from a wall of text of which they understand only about half. This points to a deeper problem – historically, transatlantic relations have been dominated by a very limited group of highly educated, powerful people. But if we are serious about creating friendship between the U.S. and Germany, regular people matter. The people who speak no foreign languages. The people who don’t speak political theory. The people who don’t even know what “transatlantic relations” are because that term itself is more obfuscating than helpful. The first step in reaching out is speaking the same language, so let’s make that a priority when we present the Atlantic Action Plan. And let’s meet people where they are. We can go into schools and teach the subject (I have some experience doing this; I am confident we can adapt the methods to this program). We can go into community groups, German/American Clubs, Rotary Clubs, former Germany-stationed military clubs, and (as ridiculous as this may sound) all of the hundreds of Oktoberfest celebrations occurring all over the US every year and come up with exchange programs, town partnerships, and other forms of engagement so that we can continue to build this incredible friendship.
2. Actions: If one thing has become clear over the last few years, it may be that people generally notice when those in power do not stick to their word. Empty promises hurt credibility. It seems like our generation especially has become cynical toward politics. A cynic would ask what we are going to do with the Action Plan after the expeditions – Present it once? Twice? But will anything actually happen? So let’s prove them wrong and not bury this plan in a drawer. Aside from the individual responsibility we all have to carry this forward, we can at least try to get this plan to where it’s needed. Meet with politicians. Meet with the Marshall Fund, Think Tanks, the respective countries’ Committees and Ministries and everyone else we might be able to catch an appointment with. Meet influencers in business, media, non-profits, and all the other sectors the action plan addresses. I know some people, and so do other people, and I’m sure between your organization and the 30 fellows we can come up with a list of places that would be willing to take in our ideas. Throughout my work in politics I’ve found that people are usually willing to listen, just not do much, because their lives are busy. But since we have a ready-made plan, we have a very strong selling point. Let’s figure out where our overlaps with existing organizations and leadership priorities are, and I am confident that we will be able to join forces with some.
Sophie,
Wow! Reading this piece was like reading a page from my journal. As another political science major at a Nescac liberal arts school (Middlebury), I had an almost identical internal dilemma, which is why I decided to write a poem. I believe if we’re talking about how to communicate a message that will reach people, form should follow function! You eloquently summarize the central problem of the fields of diplomacy and international relations of, “Too much fostering, too much mobilizing, too much engaging. Not enough conviction. Not enough action.”
I think where your point really hits home is in the end when you articulate what that action will be: reaching out to our respective networks and making sure they listen. However, the first step is having a coherent plan to reach out with. Hopefully whoever is involved in creating it (maybe us!) will be able to communicate with each other as candidly as you do in this ‘essay’ so that a community of authenticity is established. “Post truth” has been floating around the media, but I think the first step to counteracting falsities in the public sphere is by communicating honestly with those around you.
Thanks again for your contribution!
-Amy Jo
Thank you!
Oh yes, hi there to Middlebury 🙂 Not far at all. I read your poem actually, and was very impressed. Writing poetry about love is relatively easy, but poems about politics? That’s an achievement 🙂
In response to this: “However, the first step is having a coherent plan to reach out with. Hopefully whoever is involved in creating it (maybe us!) will be able to communicate with each other as candidly as you do in this ‘essay’ so that a community of authenticity is established. “Post truth” has been floating around the media, but I think the first step to counteracting falsities in the public sphere is by communicating honestly with those around you.”
Absolutely, and I hope so too 🙂 It’s easy to do “post truth” if you don’t actually say anything in the first place, because then people can twist your words and use them against you. I guess that’s why I am usually very bold, sometimes to the point of tactlessness. Still working on that. Anyway, it would be a joy to meet you, whether through this initiative or otherwise!
All the best,
Sophie
Hi Sophie, Thanks so much for this piece. You absolutely spoke my mind. I think you did a brilliant job linking your own application struggles to the struggle of promoting “transatlantic relations” – whatever that means. To me, this passage is key: “The people who speak no foreign languages. The people who don’t speak political theory. The people who don’t even know what “transatlantic relations” are because that term itself is more obfuscating than helpful.” We need to be more concrete, make transatlantic relations more palpable, more about specific topics than just about our “shared values”, we need to reduce complexity and communicate honestly and cut back on big, abstract words and empty metaphors. Thanks for this inspiring contribution! Best, Carolin
Thanks Carolin!
I agree 🙂 And the issue is, if we just speak about
“shared values” without saying what they are and what they look like it’s difficult to bring people on board or have a unified goal. I haven’t read your article yet I don’t think, but will get on that now.
Have a good night!
Sophie
Dear Sophie, What a wonderfully honest and personal article – thank you very much! You are definitely on point: While many organizations try to include new target groups and “voices unheard in the transatlantic discussion”, I have – until now – not seen an example where this strategy really succeeded (I’m just asking myself right now: Has anyone submitted an essay to the Atlantic Expedition who does not have a college degree?).
Your article especially speaks to me as I oftentimes see myself surrounded by fancy words like “impact” or “change maker” – while I (sort of) know what they mean, I sometimes ask myself: Does a real change maker even know what a change maker is? And would he or she ever describe her/himself with this word? If we really want to make the transatlantic project inclusive, let’s please try to find a language that most people can understand!
Thanks again, it was a great pleasure to read your piece!
Dear Sophie, dear Charlotte,
I couldn’t agree more. I began reading your article Sophie, thinking “Oh no she didn’t”, while silently applauding your bravery to not only comment (and even critique) your own standpoint but that of the Atlantic Expedition and – as part of this expedition – all of us.
Charlotte, I feel you when you speak about trying to understand “fancy words” as this is something that oftentimes alienates me from my fellow university students, who throw terms like “deconstruction” or “agency” around as if they weren’t highly contested concepts solely discussed by people holding a university degree. Where to go from here, and how to broaden the discussion to include people without a university degree, that should be one of the key questions this expedition should attempt to answer.
Dear Christin,
turns out that’s how I began writing the article, too!
But jokes aside, thank you. I realized it might be very controversial, and for publication we edited out a part that ended the letter with a conciliatory note. Regardless, I just want to mention that I am by no means against the educational establishment, the tradition of transatlantic relations, or anything like that. But I tend to take people’s ideas seriously, even when (or especially when) they may not do so themselves. In this case, took the notion of democratizing transatlantic relations to its logical conclusion and hammered away at the inconsistencies I see within the institutions who dedicate themselves to this issue. But on every level I am a product of those institutions, so this is as much, if not more self-critical as well as “Systemkritik”.
What is really encouraging is that so many other entries diagnosed the same problem. My suggestions for improving language and credibility sort of over/underlay so many of the concrete ideas that other people have put forward, which at my current state of knowledge are nothing but excellent.
So I’m quite optimistic that this project will turn out great. Where my letter is a passionate appeal, others have come in with the sober analysis to put it into action, and lots of great things can be accomplished with good ideas and burning passion.
I hope you’re having a good weekend!
All the best,
Sophie
Thanks, Charlotte!
Good question actually – I don’t think so. A lot of aspiring researchers on the topic, but very few outside of the traditional “Political Science Sphere”. I think there are a lot of points of connection across the US and Germany we miss out on if we only ever think of transatlantic relations as a research topic in diplomacy and coat it in that kind of language.
And yes, there are so many overused words – things like
strategy, inspiration, diversity, engagement… At this point I actually keep a list of words not to use in my personal notes 🙂 Although that may be excessive, I do think the IR field could benefit from caring slightly less about fancy language and more about producing practical solutions to world problems.
And yes, I wonder too. Maybe you are a change maker!
Dear Sophie,
Thanks so much for your piece and your refreshing honesty. I fully agree that there needs to be a clearer language when it comes to these issues. It doesn’t have to be simple but more meaningful. It’s easy to hide behind these abstract concepts and the language that comes with it and oftentimes they simply mask a lack of ideas about what to actually do about these issues. Contributions like yours show that there is a way of speaking frankly and communicating ideas effectively. Again, thank you for your piece!
Dear Guido,
thanks! It really was written late at night and full of passion 🙂 But yes, I really believe in George Orwell’s style guide for good writing:
“Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”
Funny enough, these rules come out of the very aptly named “Politics and the English Language”, although arguably this problem can be even worse in German. I don’t disdain every type of stylized language, and I really love poetry and good word play. But sometimes nice words can cover up awful or illogical ideas, and I think that’s just something to be conscious of.
Have a lovely day! 🙂
Hi Sophie,
When I read your article I was reminded of a quote, I believe from Albert Einstein, which says “if you can’t explain it to a six-year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” You bluntly acknowledge that many of the people who need to be convinced of the importance of US-German relations are not academics, are not familiar with the technical terms used by said academics, and only speak their native language. Correct terminology has an important place in a discussion, and should not be ignored. That being said, you make a good point that this discussion needs to be accessible to everyone.
Hi James,
yes, that’s true. My other favorite quote attributed to him is “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” which is my personal nightmare.
But regardless, this article in every way was an impulse to move away from the often over-academicized discussions around this topic. That certainly does not mean that I think the discipline of IR/Political Science as such is doing anything wrong. In fact, I think it is doing a brilliant job at academia. But somehow public discourse has been very much limited to the same participants – we currently seem to have no real dialogue between the two countries aside from (for lack of a better word) the establishment in both countries among themselves. That’s what I personally would like to change.
I hope you have a good week!
Hi Sophie – this is a refreshingly realistic piece that adds perspective on what we are doing here by analyzing it from above. Whether explicitly or implicitly, you made a good point that much of what has been said and will be said within the context of this program has already been said before. There are a host of highly-intelligent and experienced people who have been concocting the perfect formula for years. Sometimes, the answer to a problem is more simple than it seems in that the right approach involves more action than deliberation, and it’s good to be reminded of that. -Mike
Dear Mike,
thanks a lot!
Yes, I realized that my analysis may be a bit too meta – I left out a lot of the concrete action points, largely because of the word limit, but also because I figured that so many other excellent ideas would be put forward, which they were.
I actually can’t find your article at the moment, I’d be curious to read it. Could you possibly link it?
Thanks and all the best,
Sophie
Hi Sophie – I didn’t mean that it was too meta – I think it’s very helpful that someone considered this problem from that angle! In the corporate world, I’ve learned that people can sometimes get so involved within a project that they lose sight of the actual goal and start asking the wrong questions. A great leader will push the group to periodically zoom out and consider the end goal and overarching process. Here is my article – any thoughts are appreciated! – http://atlantic-expedition.org/macroeconomic-principles-trust-but-verify/
-Mike
Yeah, I am currently working in the corporate world as well and having a somewhat similar experience. I am in the strategy department though, so attempting to change that. Regardless, thanks! I will go and read it now 🙂
Hi Sophie,
Loved the enthusiasm. 😉 One thing I was still a bit uncertain about was whether you meant this literally or figuratively: “The first step in reaching out is *speaking the same language,* so let’s make that a priority when we present the Atlantic Action Plan.” I was a bit confused especially since this followed criticism of a dearth of translations on this very website. Because if you do literally mean speaking the same language, I think we’ve got a challenge we’re not going to solve so soon…
Cheers,
Mark
Hi Mark!
In this particular sentence, I meant it figuratively. But you are right, it could be literal. And true, I don’t think we will change languages any time soon. But admittedly, language education is actually a huge part of cultural exchange, and I think the reality that Americans don’t learn a lot of foreign languages, don’t learn them very well, and if they do, that language most often is not German contributes to the issue at hand.
Cheers,
Sophie
Hi Sophie,
you mentioned one of the core problems of the transatlantic relations. Democratizing Transatlantic Relations not only means to involve people, but also to let them participate (at least indirectly) on decisions. Could you imagine a way to do so?
Greetings,
Hendrik
Hi Hendrik!
In political science theory the babies are generally increase of referenda, increase of public participation through town halls, transparency initiatives etc., and increase of democratic representation through one way or another including making smaller/larger precincts or empowering mayors etc.
In terms of transatlantic relations, I can’t give you a quick answer. This is probably how I’d approach it:
1. Design a coherent plan for transatlantic relations – where are the points of contact between Germany and the US in the different dimensions of public and private lives.
2. Look at which institutions hold power/set the tone/determine the agenda within each of those spheres.
3. Find out which kinds of decisions could be better made if opened to the public.
4. Open those to the public.
Which is of course very very obscure. The issue is that if we think of all the different spheres where transatlantic relations are conducted (online, business world, diplomacy, policy, academia, military etc etc) the modus operandi in each of those is very different, and not all lend themselves to democratization.
So we need to tread carefully.
Thanks for the question!
Sophie
Dear Sophie,
thanks for your article. I couldn´t agree more!
You mentioned that you have some experience in teaching the subject of transatlantic relations and the Atlantic Action Plan in schools.
I believe that this is very important. But from my experience, teachers in Germany kind of hesitate when it comes down to “inviting” outside-experts into the classroom to explain a certain topic.
Could you please share your experience on that issue? How did you get access? What material did you use?
Thanks,
Hendrik
Hi Hendrik,
so this was not in Germany, which probably made it easier. I will say that I think German schools are a lot more open to having students go to other places than anywhere else. Exkursion is a great invention, so there is lots of potential.
Regarding how to set this up: I briefly got involved with a project here in London that sought to teach Democracy in schools. We put together teams of people who’d have a miniature political process in classrooms in a 3 hour workshop. Meaning, students had to firm parties, elect a leader, write an agenda (think “we need more candy in the lunch room”) and then make speeches in front of the other students. Then they held a referendum on the issue, and the party leader would pick people to help with implementation.
With transatlantic relationships you could have a very similar teach-in model. It could be a diplomatic crisis, or a cultural misunderstanding, or any other kind of situation where you have young people take on the roles of key actors and work out a solution (with the help of materials and stuff that contains information about history, geography, culture etc). Or you could set up a treasure hunt, or any number of other fun activities for children.
Just a range of ideas, but I could imagine these things working quite well with transatlantic relations as a topic!
All the best,
Sophie
Hello Sofie,
I, like many others that have commented before me, felt that your article was “refreshing” and expressed many of the same emotions I felt during this process.
When researching my proposal, I wanted to create a plan that was realistic enough to work and would appeal to the general public – not only those in academia. An idea that would benefit communities while increasing positive relationships between the US and Germany. A unique strength in your proposal is the idea to promote US/German relations for people that do not commonly ponder the term “transatlantic relations” or speak another language. I believe this group may have a strong connections in their local areas and may also harbor an untapped curiosity about other cultures .
Best,
Brandy