Listening for Peace: The Urgent Need for Active Listening in International Relations

Professor Alexander V. Laskin, Ph.D.

Professor at Department of Advertising and Public
Relations, Quinnipiac University, Connecticut, US.

Not a Birthday Balloon

In the current tense international landscape, the ability to accurately perceive and understand the perspectives of other nations has become paramount. An example of the perils of misperception can be found in the events surrounding the suspected Chinese surveillance balloon that traversed the US in February 2023.

The balloon’s appearance sparked immediate outrage and suspicion among US officials and the public, with many assuming it was a deliberate act of espionage by the Chinese government. This perception fueled a diplomatic crisis, leading to the cancellation of a planned visit to China by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and further straining of the already fraught relationship between the two superpowers.

However, the Chinese government offered a different narrative. They claimed the balloon was a civilian research airship that had been blown off course and expressed regret for its unintended entry into US airspace. While skepticism persisted within the US, the incident highlighted the dangers of hasty conclusions and the critical need for open communication channels.

Whether the balloon was a deliberate provocation or an innocent mishap, the incident fueled mistrust, escalated tensions, and hindered diplomatic efforts between the two nations. It served as a stark reminder of the importance of listening to and considering alternative perspectives, even amidst geopolitical rivalry and suspicion. In the absence of empathetic listening and a willingness to understand the other side’s narrative, the potential for misunderstanding and conflict escalates dramatically. The Chinese balloon incident serves as a contemporary parable, underscoring the urgent need for nations to cultivate a culture of listening and understanding in their international relations.

Listening as the Foundation for Co-orientation

The US and China are not the only countries that find themselves in disagreement, but disagreement may not be the worst possible situation in relations between countries. In a recent study, Laskin and Nesova (2024) delved into the perceptions of American and Russian youths regarding the possibility of a nuclear war between their respective countries. The authors emphasized the critical need to understand such perceptions, especially in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the escalating tensions between the two nuclear superpowers. Relying on co-orientation theory, they analyzed the levels of agreement, congruency, and accuracy for people of both countries.

Co-orientation theory asks an important question— what if our perceptions of what the other person thinks are incorrect? What would be more important: “the reality of the other mind or what we imagine that other mind to be?” (Laskin et al, 2019, p. 169). Many co-orientation scholars concluded that our perceptions—where correct or not—would guide our actions (Chaffee & McLeod, 1968; Grunig & Stamm, 1973). In other words, we may be acting based on the incorrect assumptions!

In the modern co-orientation model, the relations between the parties involved in the communication can be summarized by one of four co-orientation scenarios (Scheff, 1967). The first scenario is a monolithic consensus—both parties agree and are accurate in perceiving this agreement. The second is a state of dissensus—parties disagree but accurately perceive that the disagreement exists. The remaining two scenarios present situations when parties do not accurately evaluate each other’s positions. The third is a pluralistic ignorance: both parties have an agreement about an issue under study, but they erroneously think that they disagree with each other. The fourth is a false consensus: both parties are under the impression that they agree on an issue, while disagreement exists. The parties involved may see the issue differently and have different approaches toward working with this issue, all without even realizing and acknowledging these disagreements.

Laskin and Nesova’s (2024) findings revealed a concerning lack of alignment between the American and Russian respondents’ perceptions. While there was a general agreement on the threat of nuclear war and the reluctance to use nuclear weapons offensively, significant discrepancies emerged in the Americans’ understanding of the Russians’ views.

The American respondents consistently misperceived the Russian stance, viewing them as more aggressive and willing to engage in nuclear conflict. This misperception, the authors argue, could lead to the American public supporting more aggressive actions against Russia, potentially escalating the current tensions into a global nuclear crisis. The authors attributed this misperception to the significant divide between the Russian people’s actual views and the aggressive stance often portrayed by the Russian state media. They suggested that the US public diplomacy efforts should focus on gathering and disseminating accurate information about the Russian people’s views to the American public, thereby correcting misperceptions and fostering a more nuanced understanding of the Russian perspective.

The study also highlighted the importance of active listening and understanding in international relations. The authors argued that effective communication goes beyond merely broadcasting information; it requires a genuine effort to understand the other side’s narrative, motivations, and cultural context. In the absence of such understanding, misperceptions can fester, leading to mistrust and escalating tensions.

Laskin and Nesova’s study underscored the critical role of accurate perception and understanding in international relations. The authors’ findings emphasized the dangers of misperceptions, particularly in the context of nuclear threats, and highlighted the importance of active listening and understanding in preventing conflicts. The study serves as a timely reminder of the need for open communication channels and a nuanced understanding of different perspectives in navigating the complexities of international relations.

Listening as Reputation Management

The co-orientation approach also points to active listening as the key part of managing a country’s reputation. Laskin (2024) defined reputation as “a long-term belief that sums up the images about the organization from various publics based on their relationships with the organization” (p. 12). The concept of reputation is distinguished from several related concepts such as identity and image. Identity is defined as how an organization wants to be perceived, shaped by its mission, communication, design, and actions. Image is how an organization is actually perceived by a specific public, influenced by factors like personal experiences and external information. In other words, identity lives within the organization, but the image lives within the organization’s stakeholders.

The connection between identity and image is shaped by the relationships between organizations and their stakeholders. These relationships are dynamic and vary in importance. Your relationship with the organizations influences how identity is reflected into the image. As a result, organizations must understand and prioritize building and maintaining relationships with various publics. Such relationships require organizations to understand correctly what image the publics have of them. This is the job of active listening—helping organizations understand what their publics think of them.

While it is common to analyze reputations of organizations—for-profit and non-profit—the same applies to the reputations of countries (Laskin, 2023). In this context of international relations, listening to and understanding the perspectives of other countries is crucial for building and maintaining reputations. The Chinese balloon incident serves as a prime example of how misperceptions and a lack of empathetic listening can escalate tensions and damage relationships between nations. Active listening goes beyond simply hearing the words of another; it involves striving to understand the underlying emotions, motivations, and cultural contexts that shape their perspectives. It requires empathy, a willingness to step into the shoes of the other, and a genuine effort to comprehend their narrative.

Laskin’s (2024) book provides a comprehensive framework, F.O.C.U.S., for managing organizational reputation, emphasizing the importance of research, planning, implementation, evaluation, and stewardship. Within this framework, active listening plays a crucial role in each step:

• Find the Facts: Understanding the perspectives of other nations requires in-depth research and analysis of their culture, history, and values.
• Outlive the Objectives: Incorporating active listening into public diplomacy initiatives requires careful planning and the development of strategies that promote dialogue and mutual understanding.
• Conduct the Campaign: Active listening should be embedded in every communication and interaction with foreign publics.
• Understand the Upshots: Assessing the effectiveness of public diplomacy efforts requires evaluating the extent to which active listening has been achieved and its impact on international relationships.
• Steer Toward Stewardship: Maintaining positive relationships with other nations requires ongoing active listening and a commitment to understanding their evolving perspectives.

As a result, active listening is not merely a diplomatic nicety; it is a crucial building block for managing reputation in the international arena. By cultivating a culture of empathetic listening, nations can bridge divides, build trust, and work towards a more peaceful and interconnected world.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this article aimed to emphasize the critical role of active listening and empathetic understanding in fostering peaceful international relations. It demonstrated how a lack of empathetic listening and a willingness to consider alternative perspectives can escalate tensions and hinder diplomatic efforts between nations. The misperceptions, particularly in the context of a sensitive issue like nuclear war, carry the potential for dangerous escalation and conflict. To bridge this divide and foster peaceful international relations, the authors rightly call for improved communication strategies. However, beyond simply improving the accuracy of information, we urgently need to emphasize the role of empathetic listening. Empathetic listening is not a sign of weakness or concession; it is a tool of strength and strategic foresight. By truly listening to and understanding the perspectives of other nations, even amidst disagreements, we create the space for meaningful dialogue, compromise, and ultimately, the prevention of devastating conflicts, including the unthinkable: Nuclear war.

References: Broom, G. M. (1977). Coorientational measurement of public issues. Public Relations Review, 3, 110–119. Chaffee, S. H., & McLeod, J. M. (1968). Sensitization in panel design: A coorientational experiment. Journalism Quarterly, 45(4), 661– 669. Grunig, J. E., & Stamm, K. R. (1973). Communication and coorientation of collectives. American Behavioral Scientist, 16(4), 567–591. Laskin, A. V. (2023). Reputation of the Russian Federation after the inva sion of Ukraine. ESSACHESS—Journal for Communication Studies, 16(32), 55–71. Laskin, A. V. (2024). Organizational reputation management: A strategic public relations perspective. Wiley. Laskin, A. V., & Nesova, N. M. (2024). The perceptions of nuclear war: The imbalanced co-orientation between Russian and American youth. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 10776990241277192. Laskin, A. V., Popkova, A., Nesova, N. M., & Kashirskikh, O. (2019). Let’s agree to disagree: A coorientational study of U.S.-Russia relations. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13 (3), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2019.1605998 Scheff, T. J. (1967). Toward a sociological model of consensus. American Sociology Review, 32(1), 32–46.