Introduction
Although diplomats are responsible for the daily work of global politics, scholars of International Relations (IR) rarely deem personal identity, preferences, and feelings relevant to their professional activities. As Sharp notes, ‘Diplomats should remind themselves and others that they are first and foremost the representatives of sovereign states, that this is their raison d’être and a precondition for anything else they might aspire to be or to do.’Footnote 1 This widely held perception frames diplomats as agents of the national interest whose representative role suppresses their personal agency. Yet this is paradoxical. States themselves are muted entities; they rely on humans to articulate their interests and engage in diplomacy.Footnote 2 While performing their tasks, diplomats not only harness their professional knowledge, skills, and experiences but also their personal identity, preferences, and feelings.
This is not to say that we should ignore the representative role of diplomats. Indeed, diplomats subordinate their personal agency to that of the state.Footnote 3 This duality – representatives of a collective who exercise personal agency – leads to the various questions that lie at the heart of this article: how do diplomats navigate their dual roles as state representatives and individuals? How does their agency manifest in the context of diplomatic interactions? While these questions are fundamental to understanding diplomacy, IR scholars have yet to devote sufficient attention to them, and predominantly focus on states as unitary actors. Moreover, even in works in diplomatic studies and international practice theory, which are more agency oriented,Footnote 4 diplomats’ personal agency requires further elaboration.
To move beyond the view of diplomats as a homogeneous group bound by protocol, we must re-evaluate the methods and definitions employed to pinpoint diplomatic agency. Accordingly, this study applies analytical tools from micro-sociology, which has recently gained traction in IR research.Footnote 5 We delve into the concept of agency in diplomacy by adopting a microscopic approach to the building blocks of diplomatic interactions. Applying the concept of footing (first coined by Goffman, this term refers to the production roles participants assume during face-to-face interactions)Footnote 6 and tracing shifts in production roles in transcribed diplomatic conversations, we aim to identify how practitioners perform personal agency in the course of diplomatic interactions.
For this purpose, we distinguish between two main conceptions of agency: ‘traditional’ representative agency, which minimizes the impact of the individual in diplomacy, viewing diplomats as interchangeable representatives of the state; and individual agency, which recognizes their power to shape political reality. Individual agency manifests in two ways: (1) professional agency, referring to the idiosyncratic skills and knowledge that allow diplomats to perform their role with competence; and (2) personal agency, which underlines the individual’s private opinions, preferences, and interests. These concepts allow us to look beyond the narrow, representative vision of diplomatic agency. We go yet further, emphasizing that individual agency is not only professional – enabling diplomats to perform their roles with competence and creativity – but also personal; in certain contexts, diplomats may act according to self-preferences and interests.
The study, which introduces analytical tools that can systematically analyse the various manifestations of agency in diplomacy, offers three contributions to the field: (1) it distinguishes between types of diplomatic agency; (2) it maps the dynamic interplay between different types of agencies; and (3) it provides a granular view of how diplomacy is practised. We begin by defining agency and reviewing the debate concerning diplomats’ individual agency. Subsequently, we introduce Goffman’s concept of footing and its efficacy in detecting agency in diplomatic interactions, offering a typology of diplomats’ agency shifts. The methodological section then outlines our case study: credential ceremonies in Israel, which include conversations between the president and ambassadors designate. Our findings highlight strategic shifts in diplomats’ production roles, discerning three main strategies of footing management, and shed light on the presence of personal agency in diplomatic interactions.
Diplomatic agency
Despite its importance in social sciences, the concept of human agency remains contested, with scholars often debating its definition, scope, and implementations.Footnote 7 Yet almost all studies concerning agency focus on the relations between ‘a person and a course of action and its effects’.Footnote 8 Agency commonly refers to an actor’s capacity to act and shape social realities.Footnote 9 The properties needed to exercise agency are discussed in terms of flexibility and accountability.Footnote 10
Flexibility refers to the level of freedom a person enjoys in shaping an action: the more alternatives available in terms of controlling and composing an action in specific circumstances (if and how to act), the greater the individual’s agency (degree of self-determination and personal freedom).Footnote 11 For those in diplomatic roles, authority is defined as a ‘claim to represent a given polity to the outside world’.Footnote 12 Accordingly, their flexibility is constrained by the entity they represent. The capacity to act freely is moderated by a commitment to align actions with the objectives and guidelines set by the entity.
Accountability is closely connected to flexibility: the greater freedom individuals have to act, the more they will be held responsible for the act and its outcomes.Footnote 13 For diplomats, this means that when representing an entity (e.g. a state), they subordinate their agency to that of the entity; accordingly, they are accountable for their actions not as private individuals but as representatives committed to the collective mandate, arguably suppressing their personal agency in favour of group agency. The opposite also applies: when not acting as representatives, individuals possess maximum flexibility and are thus accountable as private individuals. Therefore, possessing personal agency is to act according to self-preferences and interests.Footnote 14
Other scholars focus on the effect of agency, conceptualizing the term as actors’ ability to produce an effect (i.e. make things happen). This highlights the place of the individual ‘beyond the reach of social-structural causation’.Footnote 15 The question of how effective agents are in determining outcomes (especially political outcomes) is also known as the ‘structure-agency problem’.Footnote 16 In this connection, scholars seek to evaluate the extent to which social structures influence or condition actors’ actions versus the degree of control specific agents possess over those structures, which enable them to change or resist structural power.Footnote 17
These approaches explain the traditional view of agency in IR: individuals possess minimal flexibility, one-dimensional accountability, and exert a limited impact on interstate politics, prioritizing instead the systemic attributes that determine state interests and, consequently, behaviour.Footnote 18 Thus, diplomacy is viewed as state-to-state dialogue,Footnote 19 an exclusive club in which personal self-preferences and interests are relegated to the background. Leaders’, diplomats’, or citizens’ ability to shape international outcomes is perceived as marginal, leading some to define individuals as of ‘theoretical insignificance’Footnote 20 and diplomats as ‘empty vessels’ or ‘mouthpieces’.Footnote 21 Moreover, some argue that diplomats should not exercise individual agency: their authority stems from their representative position and they are valued precisely because they represent the state.Footnote 22 Within the hierarchical framework of foreign policy, diplomats are expected to adhere to strict protocols and operate within the boundaries of their mandates, with key decisions typically reserved for political leaders.Footnote 23 These institutional and procedural constraints predetermine diplomats’ actions, relegating them to the role of someone who ‘thinks twice before saying nothing’.Footnote 24
In recent years, however, scholars have increasingly challenged this perception, highlighting instead the intricacies of individual agency in diplomacy through a micro-analysis of on-the-ground realities.Footnote 25 Indeed, any diplomatic encounter is invariably a meeting between individuals with personal identities, unique experiences, and perspectives. Diplomacy is not simply the art of state-to-state negotiation but mainly the craft of human interaction. Cornut, for example, demonstrates that diplomats do not implement foreign policy passively; rather, they adapt and innovate in response to changing circumstances.Footnote 26 He emphasizes the creative dimension of the diplomat’s work: ‘Even when reading a statement written by others, there are margins of improvisation’.Footnote 27
Contemporary literature regarding diplomats’ individual agency can be divided into two strands. According to the first, they exert individual agency through their professional conduct and skills, as functionaries implementing predetermined policies. Most contemporary scholarship acknowledges that diplomats, with their varying capabilities (i.e. communication skills, cultural knowledge, and negotiating abilities), can shape diplomatic outcomes. Reviewing agency in diplomacy, Adler-Nissen highlights that diplomats can potentially exert influence despite structural constraints; indeed, ‘Communication is probably the most fundamental form of diplomatic agency’.Footnote 28 In this context, diplomats’ deployment of communicative strategies – such as breaking with formality, showing admiration, and displaying knowledge – improve the likelihood of cultivating positive relations between states.Footnote 29 The ‘personal touch’ is also evident in negotiations, during which subjective perceptions such as trust, credibility, and sincerity are critical.Footnote 30 This literature demonstrates how diplomats leverage their unique professional attributes to overcome diplomatic challenges and advance state interests. While goals are often predetermined, execution hinges on diplomats’ judgement and capabilities, with degrees of initiative varying across cases. Wiseman maps this variation within ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) into four policy-influence roles: messenger (doing what they are told to do), shaper (influencing policy through relational and routine practices), producer (setting policy by themselves), and even resister (deflecting policies).Footnote 31
The second, less developed perspective emphasizes the diplomat’s role as a person with private preferences, opinions, and interests. This approach often assumes a necessary tension between personal and national stances\identities. Scholars who adopt this perspective focus on moments of discrepancy between personal and representational roles, viewing the manifestation of personal identity as a deviation from diplomatic conventions.Footnote 32 Keys and Yorke argue that while individual and collective emotions operate simultaneously during negotiations, we can identify moments at which one predominates, and negotiators’ personal feelings sometimes influence their perception of national interests.Footnote 33 Examining face-to-face diplomatic situations in which leaders may react personally to aggressive acts targeting their country, Wong claims that leaders are not ‘selfless vessels of the national interest’ but rather humans who possess emotions, temperament, and character.Footnote 34 Others perceive the alignment of the national interest with ‘normative expectation’ as ‘an ideal rather than an empirical reality’.Footnote 35 Indeed, Abramson et al. identify instances in which state agents diverge from their commitment to the national interest, prioritizing personal commitments.Footnote 36
Although in both perspectives tension exists between diplomats’ individual agency and the national interest, for the most part, there is no indication of a necessary tension between the national and the personal. Indeed, recent works on friendship in IR emphasize the centrality of interpersonal connections in promoting state goals, highlighting how diplomats apply idiosyncratic traits to defuse interstate tensions, recruit aid, and obtain sensitive information.Footnote 37 LindseyFootnote 38 emphasizes the strategic value of diplomats’ complex positionality, arguing that their loyalty to both the sending and hosting states enhances their credibility. Diplomatic independence, he suggests, signals that messages are genuine, fostering trust and effective communication. Holmes and Wheeler explore interpersonal chemistry at summit meetings, stressing factors such as bodily co-presence, mutual focus of attention, shared mood, and barriers to outsiders in creating positive emotions.Footnote 39 Following Collins’s seminal work concerning the role of emotional energy in interpersonal rituals,Footnote 40 they claim that interpersonal chemistry is shaped less by inherent characteristics than the dynamics of interaction. Positive bonds are most likely to develop when leaders engage in face-to-face encounters, establish exclusivity by limiting external participation, sustain a mutual focus of attention, and achieve emotional attunement, thereby enabling the emergence of trust and cooperation.Footnote 41
Furthermore, diplomats operate on a spectrum ranging from minimal personal influence as institutional representatives to moments of pronounced personal impact that may even create tension between their professional and individual identities. Yet a key lacuna remains: how is personal agency enacted within the institutional role of the diplomat? In particular, we lack tools to identify when, how, and to what extent diplomats act as individuals rather than representatives. This article addresses that gap, developing an interactional framework that applies uses from micro-sociology to detect and analyse the emergence of agency within everyday diplomatic encounters.
The conversational analytical approach to the study of diplomatic agency
Tracing the role of individuals within international politics poses significant challenges. On the epistemological level, the challenge concerns where to look for agency: is it a theoretical, predefined concept or does it have actual manifestations? Following Braun et al.’s call to examine agency in international relations as a situational phenomenon, we view agency as an emergent constituent of interactional practicesFootnote 42 that ‘results from practice rather than preceding it’.Footnote 43 We depart from the treatment of ‘diplomatic agency’ as generic efficacy, instead defining agency as an interactional outcome, a situated accomplishment that emerges in concrete encounters. Accordingly, we look for diplomatic agency within the social context that informs itFootnote 44 – the capacity to shape meanings, relationships, and commitments during diplomatic encounters, regardless of whether diplomats speak in the name of the state or as themselves.
If agency can be detected empirically during situated interactions, we require an analytical framework that can identify its manifestation during diplomats’ interpersonal conversations. Micro-sociology offers a particularly promising tool in this regard. Micro-sociologists, especially those influenced by phenomenology (what people say about what they do) and ethnomethodology (what people do in making the social order), focus on the conversational methods individuals use to build and maintain the social order, arguing that people construct their worlds using practical, intersubjective knowledge of how to accomplish goals in social interactions (i.e., how to be a diplomat, a statesperson, a friend, a host). To study such ‘accomplishments’, scholars of language and social interactions focus on documented elementary details of talk, manifested in how participants in social interactions organize their conversations. Thus, transcribed conversations provide a rigorous and empirically grounded source for reconstructing and generalizing two aspects of diplomatic interactions: (1) the roles that actors actively produce and (2) the strategies they employ to manage, shift, and negotiate these roles in real time.
Transcriptions of conversations allow a detailed micro-sociological analysis of the norms, practices, and competencies underlying the organization of social interaction.Footnote 45 While diverse in terms of details (including linguistic, prosodic, and multimodal features of verbal exchanges), all transcripts focus on the ‘parts and features of the recorded audio or video data which are relevant for further analysis’.Footnote 46 Differences in transcripts may result from the specific features of the interactional phenomena under scrutiny,Footnote 47 which range from various subtle conversational phenomena (overlaps of talk, pauses, interruptions) to the mere ‘written record of what a participant (or respondent) said in response to a question, or what participants (or respondents) said to one another in conversation, in their own words’.Footnote 48 Transcriptions thus reflect a theoretical position rather than merely recording what and how things are said.Footnote 49
To untangle the complexities of agency in diplomacy, we applied a micro-sociological approach that identifies shifts in positions in institutional discourse (e.g. news interviews;Footnote 50 police interrogationsFootnote 51) and identifies how such shifts occur in diplomatic conversations. Specifically, we employed Goffman’s concept of ‘footing’, part of his discussion of the ‘participation frameworks’ of social encounters,Footnote 52 to dissect the production roles interactants assume during social interactions. When people interact with one another, they assume different roles, often ‘changing hats’ rapidly.Footnote 53 According to Goffman, a speaker can assume one or more of the following three production roles: animator, the voice delivering a message composed by others; author, responsible for the content of the message; and principal, the authority whose beliefs and interests are expressed in the message. By applying these categories of production roles to diplomatic activity, we can deconstruct diplomatic interactions into their constituent parts and identify on whose behalf the diplomat is speaking:
1. The diplomat as animator executes the will of a higher authority, implementing instructions formulated by superiors or accepting diplomatic conventions. In interactional terms, here the diplomat is the physical mouthpiece delivering the message. This role focuses on the performance of talk itself. Indeed, pronouncing or reading a message crafted by others, the diplomat serves as ‘the … actual sounding box from which the transmission of articulated sound comes’.Footnote 54 The diplomat may play no role in shaping the content of the message; rather, their primary function is to deliver it effectively. For Goffman, such cases signal limited personal responsibility: the speaker ‘splits himself off from the content of his words by expressing that their speaker is not he himself or not he himself in a serious way’.Footnote 55
2. The diplomat as author applies professional and individual skills to implement a policy formulated by a higher authority. In interactional terms, the diplomat brings to life decisions and ideologies formulated by others, selecting the phrasing and framing of the message. In this case, the diplomat can creatively influence the content and structure of the conversation and strategically deploy language to convey the stance of their government or organization optimally. Thus, the diplomat’s knowledge and experience, communicative skills, and understanding of the audience contribute significantly to shaping the message.
3. The diplomat as principal prioritizes their personal agency over that of the state. In interactional terms, in such instances diplomats speak as themselves, communicating their own identities, beliefs, and agendas. Accordingly, the diplomat in ‘their own character’ is ‘held responsible for having willfully taken up the position to which the meaning of the utterance attests’.Footnote 56 When diplomats assume the role of principal, all production roles merge into one, something Goffman describes as ‘fresh talk’. The diplomat is viewed as speaking authentically, deviating from the role of representative and assuming their personal identity.
Thus, footing allows us to dissect how diplomats present themselves in different contexts: as state representatives, message creators, or individuals expressing personal views. It also pinpoints the two previously discussed diagnostics – flexibility and accountability – which are understood here as features of the individual that are displayed within an interaction (assessable) primarily via talk. This microscopic conversational approach allows scholars to understand how diplomats manage their dual roles as state representatives and individual agents. The following table summarizes the typology of footing in diplomatic interactions:
In sum, the concept of footing can help to pinpoint agency in professional diplomatic interactions, namely the moments at which the diplomat alters their representational voice, shifting from the role of mere mouthpiece for a message to that of designing its content and ultimately acting as principal.
Data collection and analysis
A second challenge in analysing agency is methodological. The diplomatic interactions that produce agency are often confidential, difficult to access, and embedded in broader institutional logics that complicate efforts to generalize from micro-level practices. The permission we received to observe and record credential ceremonies offered a unique opportunity to closely examine how state representatives manifest, manage, and shift their agency. Credential ceremonies were selected based on the rationale of a hard case study approach, namely evaluating a theory or perspective in the context wherein it is least likely to find support. At such ceremonies, incoming ambassadors present their credentials to the head of the host state, signifying the recognition of the ambassador’s role and responsibilities within the diplomatic framework. These formal and highly ritualized diplomatic events are characterized by a meticulously scripted protocol that emphasizes the representative role of diplomats while minimizing the space for individual self-expression in terms of flexibility and accountability. Examining such ceremonies sheds light on whether diplomats introduce their own persona into their professional work, even in the most structured and conventional diplomatic settings. The fact that we detected personal agency in such formal ceremonies suggests that agency is not only present but possibly more significant in less formal interactions.
The Israeli credential ceremony,Footnote 57 detailed in the MFA’s written protocol, unfolds in distinct stages. The ambassador-designate arrives with an entourage of three to five people, and, upon entering the president’s residence, the MFA chief of protocol formally introduces the ambassador to the president in the Audience Hall. At this point, the ambassador presents the letter of credence. Introductions are made to members of both the foreign delegation and the presidential bureau, who stand alongside the red carpet. The ceremony subsequently moves to an inner chamber for an introductory conversation lasting 3–10 minutes that is observed by the media. Subsequently, journalists are asked to leave the room to allow for an off-the-record discussion (5–10 minutes). The conversation concludes with a toast. Returning to the Audience Hall, the ambassador is invited to sign the presidential visitors’ book. The ceremony concludes when the ambassador exits the hall as the military band plays the Israeli national anthem. Although credential ceremonies are highly scripted, some elements allow more leeway for personal expression. Such diversity within the ceremony showcases how diplomats assume their scripted roles and whether they engage in personal expressions during the less protocol-governed stages of the ceremony.
To analyse diplomats’ agency within credential ceremonies, we attended 27 such ceremonies between December 2021 and March 2024, systematically observing and recording the interactions between the Israeli head of state (the president)Footnote 58 and incoming ambassadors.Footnote 59 We observed and recorded only the on-record interactions, which are open to the media and officially recorded by the host institution, with prior institutional permission. To analyse diplomats’ footing, we looked for markers indicating that they were assuming different roles: speaking as themselves or as their state’s mouthpiece; engaging in personal, semi-private conversations or delivering messages on behalf of their nation.
Subsequently, we produced verbatim transcripts (word for word), retaining fillers, overlaps, and corrections. Transcripts were produced independently by the research group and where appropriate, we minimized non-essential identifiers. Drawing on the premise that transcripts should include only ‘parts and features of the recorded audio or video data which are relevant for further analysis’,Footnote 60 we kept transcription annotations to the minimum necessary for tracing agency. Specifically, we omitted prosodic and multimodal annotations, representing non-lexical events and unclear audio with double parentheses (e.g., ((laughter)), ((UNCLEAR))).
Subsequently, we traced how participants managed their footing in each turn (our basic unit of analysis). This allowed us to dissect the production of roles assumed by the diplomats – as either representatives or private individuals – and how these roles construct diplomatic interactions. To this end, we closely analysed the transcriptions, looking for relevant linguistic means of effecting footing shifts, including the use of pronouns and reference shifts (I, we, you, they), terms of address (Mr President, friend, Ambassador), stance markers (‘I mean’, ‘look’), and reported speech (‘He sends regards’). This allowed us to identify cases in which the diplomat acted as an animator, simply delivering a pre-constructed message; an author, investing creative input into shaping the message; or a principal, diverging from the role of state representative and displaying their own beliefs and agenda. In addition, we analysed the turns in the unfolding interactions to identify the target of the diplomat’s messages: the counterpart’s personal identity or their official role. Focusing on both speaker and recipient allowed us to highlight the fluidity and complexity of agency in diplomacy as it manifests through shifts in diplomats’ footing.
Manoeuvring between representative and individual agencies
The following analysis illustrates the complex and dynamic production roles that diplomats navigate as both formal representatives of their states and private persons. The examples are arranged according to their intensity: the diplomat’s personal agency intensifies as we progress.
The diplomat as animator
As we saw, when the diplomat assumes the role of animator, they primarily serve as the mouthpiece of their respective state. This emphasizes the act of speaking itself: the diplomat’s primary function is to articulate scripted words or messages rather than offer personal opinions or creative input. In this capacity, diplomats often memorize predetermined texts, read directly from notes or papers, or repeat routine, formulaic expressions. This footing minimizes flexibility and shifts accountability from the person to the state. The following examples highlight how, in this capacity, diplomats embody their official roles while adhering to established protocols and conventions.
The text reader: Presenting the letter of credence
Probably the clearest example of a diplomat playing the role of animator, this formal ritual signifies the official commencement of the ambassador’s tenure. When presenting the letter of credence, ambassador-designates play a predetermined part: that of envoys who personify their nation. Indeed, the ambassador steps forwards and recites a formal statement in a fixed manner:
Extract 1: Presentation of the letter of credence
Mr President, I have the honour to present to Your Excellency my letter of credence as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of [name of state] to the State of Israel and the letter of recall of my predecessor.
Thereafter, the president accepts the credentials and shakes the ambassador’s hand.
These formalities are designed to ensure consistency and decorum, deliberately restricting the scope for self-expression. The ambassador acts primarily as the voice of their state, reinforcing the notion that at this stage the principal is the state itself. The author of the content, typically the head of the diplomatic ceremony or protocol, ensures that the message adheres strictly to formal diplomatic conventions. Use of the exact wording, delivery of the letter, and its subsequent acceptance by the president, followed by a handshake, are far more than mere symbolic tokens; indeed, they are performative actions that officially inaugurate the ambassador’s new role and the continuity of diplomatic relations.Footnote 61 In sum, the words spoken and actions performed by the ambassador are not expressions of personal intent but elements of a scripted procedure that underscores the formality inherent to these universal diplomatic rituals. Furthermore, they lead to change when successfully delivered by an authorized party in appropriate circumstances.
The messenger: Reading a message on behalf of the president
When diplomats verbally deliver a message composed by their home state’s authorities, they embody the role of messenger. As an animator-messenger, the diplomat’s primary responsibility is to bring the text to life. In this role, they have limited-to-no individual agency; they are merely messengers, officials who are confined to using the written text prepared in advance. An example of this occurred during the introductory conversation with the ambassador of Equatorial Guinea (he/his, 13/03/24). In the final stages of the conversation, the ambassador produced a note and declared that he had a message to deliver from his president, which he then read aloud in Spanish. This scenario exemplifies the diplomats’ role as a mouthpiece of the government. Indeed, delivering a carefully crafted message reflecting the official stance and policies of their state underscores the diplomat’s limited agency; their task is to ensure accurate and effective delivery rather than to interpret or alter the message’s content. Yet, even during the delivery of pre-prepared messages, the diplomat can, to some degree, take a dramaturgical initiative. Like an actor on stage, the diplomat decides how to perform the text in terms of tone, pace, and volume. Such subtle nuances allows the diplomat to convey their own personal stance and interpretations or add a personal touch.
The ventriloquist: Echoing established conventions
Beyond moments of precise adherence to written texts, some practices have become customary conventions in credential ceremonies. These include the recurrent iteration of phrases and speech acts across various ambassadorial appointments and even presidential transitions. In these moments, the diplomat acts as a ventriloquist,Footnote 62 adhering to established conventions and practices that are accepted in diplomatic interactions and etiquette in general. Echoing these conventions reinforces diplomatic norms and maintains continuity across various appointments and personal transitions, ensuring a sense of stability in diplomatic relations and helping to maintain a predictable framework for diplomatic interactions.
During our observations of introductory conversations, we noticed recurrent expressions, including expressions of friendship or the desire to strengthen bilateral relations, or invitations for future visits (i.e. ‘It’s a great honour to be the ambassador to the State of Israel’; ‘Your nation is very important to us’; ‘We are eager to improve the relations with […]’). Recurrent questions asked during such events also cover personal details such as arrival dates and the location of the official residence (i.e. ‘Welcome Mr Ambassador’; ‘Are you here with family?’; ‘Where is your residence these days?’). Our observations reveal that these verbal expressions are remarkably similar across different ceremonies, indicating a pattern that characterizes the vast majority of diplomatic events.Footnote 63 This repetitiveness is so predictable that one can often guess which phrase will follow.
Negotiating the animator’s footing during interactions
The animator’s footing serves as a ‘safe’ ground for diplomats, allowing them to minimize their personal responsibility, and thus accountability, for what is said. Our final example demonstrates how the ambassador of Burundi rebuffed an attempt to shift his footing from that of animator to author, declining the president’s efforts to elicit a political opinion.
Extract 2: President Herzog and the Ambassador of the Burundi (he/his, 13/03/24)
1. President: And, uh, one last comment on South Africa. You know, we have a very big Jewish community, we have long-standing relations with South Africa; there was no reason that they will wage this war against us in the international court, including the ((UNCLEAR)) and the EU. But, in the end, since I know God almighty will pay them the price, because they, instead of doing good, they’re doing bad and evil against us, and they’re pressing all your countries to support them, but we … uh … we don’t intend to back, you know, to cave in. We are very disappointed by what have done to us. And to blame us for genocide, when we have gone through the Holocaust, the worst atrocity. And you … you guys aware … you know, you know what genocide really is. How … how … how can anybody compare fighting terror, or what we are doing now, after using all tools of international law, to genocide? And … uh … I hope that there will be ((UNCLEAR)) we’ll see what happens with their elections now ((UNCLEAR)).
2. Ambassador: Hm-hm.
3. President: ((UNCLEAR)) people are not enjoying any benefits from this war.
4. Ambassador: Yes, excellency. Um. yes. I’m not in the capacity-
5. President: You, you don’t have to be, you are a diplomat. you just say ‘Thank you, Mr. President’. ((The ambassador and the audience laugh))
6. President: You don’t have to go into it, I just, I had to say that.
7. Ambassador: I, I, I understand, excellency.
8. President: And deliver it to your good president.
9. Ambassador: Yes, I will convey the message to the president.
The president concludes this introductory conversation with an extended turn expressing disappointment at South Africa’s desire that Israel be tried in the International Court of Justice for crimes of genocide. He alludes to Burundi’s own bloody history in an effort to elicit a validation of Israel’s position, according to which the term genocide is inappropriate (‘you know what genocide really is’), inviting the ambassador to agree with his public critique of South Africa’s action. The ambassador’s refusal to share his own perspective on the matter can be understood as a way to decline the role of representing Africa at large. He insists on adhering to the role of animator, namely one without the ‘capacity’ to form an opinion, declining to express a stance on a contested issue in this venue. Considering the formal setting and Burundi’s public stance,Footnote 64 the ambassador’s reaction is not an indication of mere passivity but rather an exercise of agency under constraint. In this highly ritualized setting, overt contradiction would incur relational costs. To avoid this, the ambassador deploys representative agency to register disagreement without breaching decorum, using a generic response format (‘I’m not in the capacity’, ‘I will convey the message’) to re-anchor accountability in the state and reject the president’s invitation to shift the footing. The president acquiesces to the ambassador’s desire, attributing to him the roles of animator-ventriloquist (‘you are a diplomat, just say “Thank you, Mr President”’) and messenger (deliver it to your good president).
In sum, the role of animator is marked by limited leeway for personal expression (both involuntary and voluntary): the diplomat’s primary task is to convey the official government stance. Using this footing, the diplomat ensures the accuracy and consistency of their message and role as representatives of their state’s policies and interests.
The diplomat as author
This production role highlights the creative aspect of diplomatic conduct; diplomats harness their professional skills, experience, and knowledge to shape the content, structure, and frames of messages that accord, in their understanding, with their nation’s will. The position of author, probably the most prevalent in diplomatic discourse, allows diplomats to assume varying degrees of independence in interpreting foreign policy and play an active role in shaping their diplomatic engagement. The following outlines three types of diplomatic authorship, differentiated not only by the decision regarding in whose name to speak but also the diplomat’s choice of whom to address (a private person, an official entity, or a collective). The result is one of the following configurations: collective-to-collective, collective-to-person, or person-to-collective.
Collective-to-collective interactions
State agents use their voices to represent large entities; therefore, when interacting, they must treat one another as metonyms for a specific, identifiable group of people. In the context of ‘introductory conversations’, which are relatively free of guidelines and intended to inaugurate working relations, the participants can introduce a ‘personal touch’, expressing the interests, opinions, and feelings of the communities they represent.
The following example demonstrates how state representatives use emotive language of appreciation and gratitude when speaking on behalf of their peoples. The act of representation constructs a shared ‘community of feelings’ in which the represented collectives are connected by affection.Footnote 65 This creates an appearance of bonding, the ultimate goal of amicable diplomatic discourse.Footnote 66
Extract 3: President Herzog and the Ambassador of the Philippines (he/his, 11/01/23)
1. President: And ah, I, ah, there’s something special in your people; where, where did you get that warm heart of yours?
2. Ambassador: Well, I don’t know, it’s because of, ah, the tropical climate
((The audience laughs))
President Herzog’s overarching goal is to strengthen bilateral relations by paying respect to the contributions of Filipino caregivers working in Israel. While this might seem like a common compliment, it transcends the formal state-to-state discourse. The reference to the Filipino people, rather than the state, shifts the focus from the political to the public, contextualizing the significance of the compliment within the relationship between the two publics.
In turn 1, the president initiates the exchange using a collective compliment, highlighting what he describes as a distinctive quality of the Filipino people: their warm hearts. The president’s use of the pronoun ‘your’ indicates the representative nature of the interaction: the first pronoun (‘There’s something special in your people’) positions the ambassador as representative of a ‘special’ people, while the second (‘Where did you get that warm heart of yours?’) includes the ambassador in the group of people who have ‘warm hearts’. In response to the compliment, the ambassador accepts the footing adopted by the president, humorously attributing this characteristic to the tropical climate.
As the conversation progresses, Herzog returns to the topic of ‘Filipinos working here’, whom he refers to as ‘our guardian angels’.
Extract 4: President Herzog and the Ambassador of the Philippines (he/his, 11/01/23)
1. President: And lastly, before we say goodbye to the press, is, ah, of course the fact that you have many Filipinos working here
2. Ambassador: Yes
3. President: I call them our guardian angels
4. Ambassador: Mmm
5. President: Saw it with my late mother and my late aunt and, ah, clearly we appreciate and respect the enormous contribution of the Filipino workforce in Israel
6. Ambassador: Yeah
7. President: Thank you, thank you for that
The use of the phrase ‘guardian angels’ not only acknowledges the significant economic cooperation between the two countries but also highlights these workers’ social and emotional contributions to interstate relations. In turn (3), the president indicates his role in interpreting the feelings of the Israeli people. He refers to his own evaluation (I call them …) and immediately uses an inclusive reference (our) to the nation he represents (our guardian angels).
In turn (5), Herzog connects this collective emotional bond to his personal experience (shifting the structure of the interaction for a moment from the collective-to-collective to person-to collective; see next section): ‘Saw it with my late mother and my late aunt’. He then returns to the collective-to-collective position, harnessing his family experience to emphasize once again the Israeli collective’s appreciation of the Filipino people: ‘Clearly we appreciate and respect the enormous contribution of the Filipino workforce in Israel’. The exchange ends with words of collective gratitude: ‘Thank you, thank you for that’.
In sum, this example demonstrates an interaction that represents two publics. Herzog’s representational acts are based on his familiarity with the contribution of Filipino caregivers in Israel, enabling him to navigate the conversation effectively using his position as a representative. Employing a variety of positionalities to advance the diplomatic purpose, Herzog humanizes the diplomatic conversation, showcasing the personal dimension as an integral part of diplomacy.
Collective-to-person interaction
Diplomatic interactions in which a state engages directly with an individual often signify a special connection between the state and the person. They are common during ceremonies honouring individuals or appointing honorary consuls,Footnote 67 honours that reflect the state’s appreciation of the individual’s service or potential contribution to national objectives. The following example illustrates a different function of collective-to-person interaction: connecting individuals experiencing a security threat. It specifically shows how the president assumes the role of author in approaching his interlocutor and at the same time demonstrates how footing can be leveraged to advance bonding.
Extract 5: Introductory conversation with the German ambassador (he/his, 08/09/22)
1. President: So I hope your … your plate would be full, sure
2. Ambassador: Yes, it is full; it was actually full, the day we stepped off the plane and it’s been a very intense time, and I’m beginning to think that maybe in Israel times are always intense
3. ((The audience laughs))
4. President: Ah, you had your first missiles, right
5. Ambassador: Yes, we had our first, ah … our first Mamad experience
6. President: Sophia, Sophia, you were enjoying your first Mamad experience?
7. Sophia (the ambassador’s wife): ((Laughing))
8. President: Welcome to the club
9. Sophia: Thanks
10. President: Yeah, sorry, we apologize but this is how life is here
In this exchange the participants deepen their rapport via shared experiences and challenges. While the clearest example of collective-to-person interaction appears in turn (10), with the president’s collective apology for the experience that the ambassador’s family endured, the entire interaction here can be characterized as one between the Israeli nation (represented by the president) and the ambassador as an individual becoming acquainted with the local ‘way of life’.
President Herzog initiates the exchange by expressing a conventional, professional hope: ‘I hope your … your plate would be full’. While Herzog uses the animator footing in referring to the new ambassador’s busy diplomatic schedule, the German ambassador chooses to respond in a more personal manner, alluding to the security threat that he and his family faced upon landing (turn 2). Herzog acknowledges that the ambassador experienced his first missile attack: ‘Ah, you had your first missiles, right’. The German ambassador confirms this, mentioning that it was indeed their first ‘Mamad experience’ (referring to the reinforced safe rooms in Israeli homes). Herzog then extends the conversation to include the ambassador’s wife, Sophia, in the collective-to-person exchange, asking his guest about her experience: ‘Sophia, Sophia, you were enjoying your first Mamad experience?’ Sophia’s laughter indicates her understanding of the ironic keying of the president’s remark (there is nothing enjoyable about needing to spend time in a Mamad). Herzog’s response, ‘Welcome to the club’, conveys a sense of solidarity by referring to an inclusive ‘we’ (including all participants in the interaction) that shares an unfortunate collective experience.
Herzog’s subsequent apology marks his authorship and collective-to-person position. The president offers collective empathy on behalf of all Israelis (marked by the use of the royal we): ‘Yeah, sorry, we apologize’. He then immediately conditions his apology, ‘But this is how life is here’, underscoring once again his role as representative of Israelis who are familiar with this harsh reality.
Person-to-collective interaction
Such interactions occur in speeches made by official representatives during state visitsFootnote 68 or in social media posts, for example when leaders or influencers address the populations or governments of other nations in their own names. In our study, we discerned instances in which diplomats harnessed the personal to strengthen interstate relations. The president’s preface to the introductory conversation with the Australian ambassador demonstrates this type of footing:
Extract 6: President Herzog and the Australian Ambassador (he/his, 11/01/23)
President: So, welcome Mr Ambassador, we’re very honoured to have you among us, Australia is an immense friend of the State of Israel, and I have the greatest honour accepting your credential here in Israel. I myself have a long-standing relationship with your country. My late uncle was a legendary Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban always spoke about Doc Evatt and his impact and influence in bringing about the UN resolution, you know, the 1947 petition resolution, declaring the recognition of the Jewish state.
In the above preface, Herzog shifts the footing from animator to author and from state representative to individual. He begins the preface with conventional diplomatic expressions (animator), including a formal greeting, assertion of interstate friendship, and reference to the president’s role in the ceremony. In this part of the introduction, the president uses ‘I’ to emphasize his role as president, animating the collective voice of the nation.
However, in the next sentence, the emphasis moves from his official capacity to his personal biography. Herzog’s use of ‘I myself’ shifts the footing from that of the ventriloquist-animator to author of his individual experiences and historical connections with Australia. He harnesses personal experience to promote interstate relations, addressing the Australian ambassador as state representative (‘your country’), not as a private person.
Incorporating a biographical anecdote involving his uncle (‘Legendary Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban’) that praises an Australian political figure creates a two-level bond between the states: personal and interstate. Indeed, sharing an anecdote from his family history deepens the interstate bond. The president applies the personal story to his official capacity, connecting it to a key historical and diplomatic milestone: Doc Evatt’s contribution to ‘the 1947 petition, resolution, declaring the recognition of the Jewish state’.
This example borders on situations in which state agents shift their footing from ‘I’ as a representative who harnesses the individual dimension for interstate bonding (author’s footing) to ‘I’, harnessing the personal dimension for interpersonal bonding (principal, see next section). Although the line between these stances may be thin, two criteria help pinpoint the author’s role: first, in assuming the role of author, the speaker must directly harness personal experience to advance interstate ties rather than interpersonal relations; second, the author must address the addressee as a state representative.
The diplomat as principal
Diplomats often use personal experiences, emotions, and unique perspectives to promote interpersonal bonding rather than interstate relations. Even during the highly formalized credential ceremony, diplomats sometimes shift to the role of principal, highlighting their personal identities, beliefs, and agendas instead of speaking merely as state representatives. Unlike the roles of animator and author, which focus on delivering or crafting messages that convey or support interstate relations, the role of principal signals a shift to the diplomat’s personal voice, creating a sense of what Goffman calls ‘fresh talk’ (the authenticity and personal engagement typically reserved for informal, everyday interactions).
The following example demonstrates how diplomats apply a personal voice to create a bond with an interlocutor, without any apparent connection to their role as representatives.
Extract 7: President Herzog and the Austrian ambassador (he/his, 07/07/22)
Following the president’s declaration that the introductory conversation had concluded (‘We will raise a toast’), the ambassador identifies an opportunity to share a personal anecdote – he and Herzog share the same birthday. This piece of information, seemingly irrelevant to the interlocutors’ roles as state representatives, frames them as individuals with personal life stories. Moreover, the ambassador’s use of an inclusive we (encompassing both participants: ‘we share in common … We were both born on the twenty-second of September’) indicates that this act of sharing personal, trivial information serves to make a connection at the interpersonal level, creating a moment of bonding that transcends the participants’ official roles.
The anecdote further allows the president and ambassador to connect on the interpersonal level. Herzog pays the ambassador a compliment in turn 4 (‘I thought you were younger’). In turns 8 and 9, the interlocutors deepen the connection by exchanging self-praising jokes: in turn 8, the president uses the principal footing to enhance both interlocutors’ persona (‘All the people who were born on this date are nice’), and in the next turn the ambassador contributes further to the bonding: ‘And successful’.
Very different in terms of content and tone, the following example demonstrates a poignant moment of personal agency and interpersonal connection beyond diplomatic formalities. It reveals how self-disclosure in a diplomatic interaction arouses responses of caring and empathy at the interpersonal level.
Extract 8: President Herzog and the Vietnamese Ambassador (he/his, 08/09/22)
1. Ambassador: I think about my mother every day
2. President: I also think about my mother every day, she passed away not long ago
3. Ambassador: I’m sorry to hear that
This segment demonstrates a moment of shared humanity: the individuals connect on the interpersonal level through a shared experience of loss and memory. The ambassador’s statement, ‘I think about my mother every day’, exceeds the bounds of typical diplomatic exchange, introducing a topic rooted in his personal life and emotions. The president’s response, ‘I also think about my mother every day, she passed away not long ago’, not only acknowledges the ambassador’s sentiment but reciprocates with similar self-disclosure.
In this short exchange, the ambassador and the president engage in fresh talk, expressing their own authentic feelings. The use of the principal footing allows them to deepen their connection as individuals who share a common human experience – the loss of a mother – transcending their diplomatic roles and highlighting their personal agency. It underscores the idea that diplomats, often viewed through the lens of their official capacities, are also individuals with personal histories and emotions that can affect interactions and relationships.
The interpersonal bonding created such short exchanges can potentially be harnessed to enhance professional relationships. Indeed, statespersons acknowledge the possibility of utilizing the personal to promote professional goals in a variety of diplomatic contexts.Footnote 69 This is also manifest in introductory conversations; indeed, interlocutors invest effort in negotiating the footing that they and their counterparts use, shifting production roles from author to principal. The following extract is an example of one such effort, revealing how agency is built and expressed not only when interlocutors assert their own footing but also in negotiation with others’ footing.
Extract 9: President Herzog and the Ambassador of Ecuador (she/her, 16/12/21)
1. President: So, first of all, we’re very happy that you’re here and I think especially it’s important that you’re coming with a huge business experience whi- which can elevate our relations. Your nation is very important to us, we have strong-standing relations with, ah, Ecuador and, ah, we’re very happy that you’re assuming this position. So, tell me about, ah, yourself a bit in this respect, how, how was your appointment ((UNCLEAR)) out?
2. Ambassador: Thank you, Thank you, Mr President. It is a great honour always to represent Ecuador in the world, but is a greater honour for me, for my, ah, country, for my dear family, and for my Jewish community.
3. President: That’s it.
4. Ambassador: That I am here in Israel.
5. President: Welcome home.
6. Ambassador: As their ambassador.
7. President: Yes, it’s wonderful that you are representing also the Jewish community.
8. Ambassador: Yes.
9. President: Wonderful news.
10. Ambassador: And ah, I have been appointed by my president, Guillermo Lasso, as a political ambassador. It is the first time in, ah, the history between Israel and Ecuador that they have appointed a political ambassador to Israel and even more, ah, a Jewish ambassador.
11. President: You speak any Hebrew? Ktzat? ((a little in Hebrew))
12. Ambassador: I, ktzat
Here we see the complex management of footing in diplomatic interactions, which is evident in the Ecuadorian ambassador’s suggestion of several role identities (turn 2) and Herzog’s strategic attempts to underline his counterpart’s principal footing in order to align more closely with Israel’s diplomatic objectives. The example also demonstrates how leveraging the role of principal for diplomatic purposes does not necessarily focus on the personal but also on other levels of representation – that of the Jewish people in this case.
In turn 1, the president includes several utterances that align with the roles of animator- ventriloquist (‘We’re very happy that you’re here’; ‘Your nation is very important to us’). Amidst this, the president refers to a biographical, personal characteristic of his counterpart (‘huge business experience’) that will benefit Israe–Ecuador relations. Although this piece of information is neglected in the coming turns, it serves as a first indicator of the search for personal details that will allow the interlocutors to shift the conversation from their representative roles to a more personal level. At the end of the turn, the president invites the ambassador to share some details about her appointment. In turn 2, the ambassador delays her response (which is made only in turn 10: ‘I have been appointed by my president’) and instead outlines her own complex identity: she is a representative of a state (‘represent Ecuador’; ‘my country’) but even more so she represents herself, her family, and the Jewish community of Ecuador.
In turn 5, the president exploits the ambassador’s multiple principalities, seeking to shift her footing, and thus her commitment, from representing an out-group (Ecuador) to representing an in-group, namely a group to which he too belongs (the Jewish community). The president greets the ambassador (‘Welcome home’), underlining her double representative roles in turn 7: ‘Yes, it’s wonderful that you are representing also the Jewish community.’ After two turns of confirmation (8, 9: ‘Yes’, ‘Wonderful news’), the ambassador answers the question that the president posed in the first turn, underlining her Jewish identity once again (‘a political ambassador to Israel and even more, ah, a Jewish ambassador’). The president further highlights their shared cultural and linguistic ties. He asks if she speaks Hebrew, to which the ambassador responds, ‘ktzat’ (Hebrew for ‘a little’).
Adding a diasporic identity to the ambassador’s representative role expands her commitments, indicating the multiple principals that construct her agency. The ambassador mentions all her circles of identity (state, ethnic, family, and personal), but the president selects the one that advances Israeli interests. The ambassador does not reject this effort, yet she insists on mentioning her priority: in turn 10 she both names the person who nominated her (the president of Ecuador) and notes that she is the first political appointment ever in Israel–Ecuador relations.
Findings and conclusion
Contrary to traditional approaches, which often minimize the significance of personal agency in diplomatic activities, our findings reveal recurrent instances of such agency, even within a context that is ostensibly unlikely to foster it. Theoretically, the credential ceremony should align with the approach that agency in diplomacy is strictly constrained to the role of representative. However, we found that even in this highly formal and rigid diplomatic interaction, diplomats sometimes speak for themselves, acting as principals. In such moments, the diplomat is no longer merely conveying a pre-written policy or composing a message on behalf of the state but instead becomes the source of the message itself. We therefore suggest that if personal agency is evident in the highly structured genre of credential ceremonies, we are likely to find it also in less formal settings. That said, further research regarding other high-stake settings, such as negotiations and summits, is needed to corroborate our ‘hard case’ assumption.
We identify a spectrum of agency in diplomacy that ranges from adhering to the representative role (with varying levels of flexibility and personal accountability) to detachment from it. When interacting with counterparts, agents navigate between various footings: ‘animator’, ‘author’, and ‘principal’. Accordingly, we suggest that the art of diplomacy is the ability to navigate the full spectrum of one’s identity – managing the personal, the official, and the collective. Between these endpoints diplomats craft narratives, share stories, and forge connections that are both personal and reflect the nation’s stance.
The principal cases mark the upper end of personal agency. As principals, diplomats demonstrate autonomy, which is characterized by their ability to make decisions independently and take responsibility for their stances. In these instances, the transition to fresh talk transforms the interaction into an interpersonal one, at least on the surface. Ultimately, we can understand the manifestation of personal agency in diplomatic settings in two ways: (1) tension, when personal and national agendas diverge; and (2) synergy, when personal agency is mobilized for diplomatic purposes. This approach is supported by Collins,Footnote 70 who argues that interpersonal moments can generate emotional energy – solidarity and a sense of belonging – that later facilitates cooperation. Shifts in agency function generate interpersonal ‘chemistry’, thereby initiating interaction rituals. Exercising personal agency reduces the inherent tensions between two state representatives who are engaged in a strategic encounter. By highlighting shared humanity, private agency fosters empathy and sympathy, paving the way for intimacy. It creates emotional bridges grounded in shared life experiences and affinities: a ritualistic moment of personal alignment that plants the seeds of future trust. These rituals can create emotional energy that diplomats draw upon in later interactions. Prior studies have similarly shown that interpersonal bonding among leaders and diplomats can have interstate consequences.Footnote 71
Determining when personal agency is harnessed for state goals and when it pulls against them lies beyond the scope of this article. Instead, we suggest three practices of footing management that diplomats employ to express individual agency in institutional discourse. Diplomats’ agency is reflected in the fluidity of footing dynamics, which signals the discursive freedom they enjoy. If diplomats possess agency – the flexibility to shape their actions and the accountability to be held responsible for them – they should be able to shift between production roles in ways that serve personal, interactional, and/or political purposes. In practice, this means that diplomats do not only adopt roles in a passive fashion but actively negotiate their positionality within the unfolding conversation. We highlight three primary strategies through which diplomats perform agency in interactions, each of which reflects a distinct mode of discursive control.
1. Self-positioning: Diplomats can exercise agency by strategically selecting and shifting their own footing within interactions. This includes assuming the principal footing to foster personal rapport (e.g. obtaining information or generating trust),Footnote 72 adopting the author footing to reframe national messages (e.g. through reminiscing),Footnote 73 or taking on the animator role to signal distance or authority (e.g. symbolic status).Footnote 74 Thus, diplomats can align their footing with conversational goals, context, or risks. The transition between these roles depends first and foremost on the conversational opportunities in specific settings and second on the participants’ skills (i.e. in identifying an interactional opportunity) and seniority (the higher the rank, the greater the flexibility to shift to personal agency), among other factors.
2. Positioning the counterpart: Agency can also manifest in attempts to influence the footing adopted by a counterpart, for instance, shaping the interlocutor’s positioning by promoting an informal dialogue (e.g. invoking shared identities, emotions, or personal tone)Footnote 75 or maintaining a state-to-state interaction by anchoring the exchange in formality (e.g. employing institutional scripts).Footnote 76 Such moves help set the tone of the interaction – from interpersonal to international – and negotiate the discursive limits of what can be said and to what extent it commits the counterpart to either a personal or national position. They aim to shift the interlocutor’s position to align more closely with the diplomat’s goals.
3. Responding to positioning attempts: Diplomats exercise agency by reacting to a counterpart’s moves. This may involve accepting (e.g. embracing an invitation to interact on personal terms), resisting (e.g. rejecting a claim for personal responsibility), or reframing a counterpart’s positioning efforts. Such responses are not reactive in a passive sense but reflect interactional judgement: the diplomat’s ability to interpret strategic moves and selectively engage. In this sense, footing management is a form of interactional negotiation wherein agency is not only expressed individually but co-produced (distributed agency).Footnote 77 It is not necessarily an individual property but an interdependent and highly flexible social activity.Footnote 78
These three modes of footing management offer a means to identify individual agency in institutional diplomatic discourse, allowing us to shift the analytical focus from long-term political outcomes to the micro-level interactional practices through which influence is enacted in real time. This systematic analysis of conversational practices helps to produce a more layered and dynamic mapping of diplomats’ positionalities, thus allowing us to move beyond isolated observations and towards a structured understanding of diplomatic agency
Finally, this article suggests a microscopic-interactional tool for studying a prominent yet unexplored aspect of international relations: how diplomatic agency is enacted routinely. Even structural processes – among leaders,Footnote 79 diplomats,Footnote 80 or activistsFootnote 81 – are ultimately composed of micro-interactions. As Collins notes, ‘Micro-situational encounters are the Ground Zero of all social action and all sociological evidence. Nothing has reality unless it is manifested in a situation somewhere’.Footnote 82 Generally speaking, examining micro-interactions produces a detailed picture of individuals’ behaviour, moving away from normative and theoretical assumptions by focusing on practical execution: how diplomacy is conducted and how individuals are doing-being diplomats. As the discipline of IR continues to revisit the role of individual actors, our typology of diplomatic footing can offer a new perspective for studying how agency is enacted through interaction, from the ground up.
