Public Diplomatic Shaming: Examining Effects of International Criticism through Diplomatic Bypass on Foreign Public Opinion

This thesis examines how public diplomacy can function as a mechanism for naming and shaming through rhetorical bypassing, in which state leaders circumvent foreign governments to address their populations directly. The vast body of work on naming and shaming, public diplomacy, and political psychology provides a grounding in the theory on which this paper is based. The two main research questions guiding this study are (1) What contexts do leaders name and shame other governments publicly to that nation's populace, sidestepping traditional diplomatic norms? and (2) Does rhetorical bypassing enhance or diminish public receptivity to the message, and how does it influence perceptions of the public's government? This study first analyzes case studies to identify the contexts, such as diplomatic constraints, strategic stakes, and audience receptivity. It uses an original survey experiment to simulate foreign criticism directed at an American audience, through a bypass, to see if audience viability really is a thing. The findings suggest that rhetorical bypassing may diminish certain expressions of defensive nationalism or backlash and may influence public opinion to favor a particular policy, a potentially desirable outcome for the government. Still, overall, the results are statistically insignificant. The results imply a more strategic use of public diplomacy, where foreign publics are not passive observers but intentional targets. This study advances current understanding of naming and shaming by highlighting circumstances in which rhetorical bypassing can serve as a deliberate tool of international influence.