Category: Featured

The American Folk Revival and Confucianism: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

This paper will analyze the Confucian ideal of music as according to prominent scholars in the tradition, then apply its principles to the American Folk Revival. Confucius believed that music, unlike ritual, should promote both unity between people and harmony within the individual. He believed that music ought to inspire peace and positive emotions and spoke against music deemed warlike or aggressive. The Folk Revival was a movement that lasted from the 1940s to the late 1960s and promoted togetherness among those in the United States during an extremely turbulent time. It is characterized best by protest anthems that advocated for change, such as promoting Civil Rights. Upon careful critique, it can be concluded that the Folk Revival met the Confucian standards for pure music, given its nature to unify peoples and inspire positive emotions. The members of the Revival did this by embracing and celebrating economic, racial, and gender diversity within the United States. They wrote influential anthems that became rallying songs of protests across the nation, unifying stratified groups and harmonizing their internal emotions. These songs came to represent the era and have stood up to both the test of time and the Confucian method of musical analysis.

The great Eastern philosopher, Confucius, once famously said “Music produces a kind of pleasure which human nature cannot do without.”[1] This single sentence contextualizes the entire Confucian school of thought on music; they believe that it is meant to unite people across socioeconomic divisions and shape the individual in a positive way, both of which express values inherent in Confucianism, unity and harmony. This ideal interpretation of music’s role in society can be compared with the music produced in the United States during its “folk revival”, or a period from the 1940s to the 1960s that saw the flourishing of music that emphasized ongoing individual, social and political movements, the beauty of America, and the working class. The a priori obligations of music expressed in Confucianism, unity and harmony, are embodied to a great degree in the American folk revival, particularly in protest anthems produced by artists within the movement.

The Confucian school of thought regarding music prioritizes the two aforementioned purposes. The first emphasis is placed on the concept of unity through shared cultural music. It is said, in Confucius’ Musical Records, that “Music serves to unite; ritual serves to differentiate. With uniting there is mutual closeness; with differentiation there is mutual respect.”[2] Confucius is essentially saying that rituals in society, such as bowing before royalty (to use an example from his time), create important class distinctions that enable society to function smoothly. However, the tool with which to overcome such distinctions and establish unity for a given period of time is music, hence Confucius’ belief that the effect of good music is societal solidarity. This was especially important in Ancient China, where class distinctions were stark, evidenced by the ritualistic behavior the philosopher himself emphasized. Because Confucius holds music to such a high standard, it follows logically that he would be greatly concerned with the type of music promoted in society as a whole. His philosophy secondarily emphasizes the way in which music shapes the individual. This is done through an analysis of how music is interwoven with one’s emotions. In the book The Chinese Aesthetic Tradition, Li Zehou analyzes Confucius’ writings on music. He concludes that “These passages make it exceptionally clear that, in contrast to the rites, which regulate external aspects, it is only by its direct appeal to the inner “heart” and “emotions” that music can supplement and complement the rites.”[3] Music, therefore, exists independently of ritual; it serves a wholly unique purpose. On an individual level, it can shift and influence the emotions, which ritual is unable to do. Also in these writings, Confucius differentiates between what he deems pure music and vulgar music, primarily based on which form creates the correct emotions in a listener; these “correct emotions” are synonymous to the harmony that has already been addressed. As a result, Confucius both indicates the purpose of music, then separates music into two categories: purpose-fulfilling and purpose-lacking. The former is considered pure music, while the latter is considered vulgar. This impact on the individual that music possesses is also supported by modern psychology. Jensen Kirkendall, in an essay titled “The Well-Ordered Heart: Confucius on Harmony, Music, and Ritual”, explains how modern research supports the Confucian school of thought regarding music, saying “Psychological research confirms Confucius’ view about music’s effect on the state of a person.”[4] He goes on to explain how an individual’s emotions, on a molecular level, are directed and influenced by the music they are listening to. Therefore, Confucius’ belief that music inspires emotion in the listener is scientifically supported. Music objectively does influence the listener’s emotions, meaning that Confucius’ logic follows: one should curate what music one engages in, given that it has such an effect. Both aspects of Confucian music, unity and harmony, serve as core concepts within the school of thought, and as a result any music that can be deemed “Confucian” must necessarily uphold these key principles.

The perspectives on music that can be found within Confucian thought are, to some extent, reductionist, leading some to dismiss such views as conservative and lacking value.  However, this perspective does not hold true when considering context and the necessity of a modern application. Confucius himself felt as if proper music and ritual were fundamental pillars of society, interwoven with the cosmos itself. However, he also dismissed many forms of music as improper or not good, particularly the newer compositions he encountered; it is for this reason that his characterization can be viewed as reductionist. These dismissals included folk music, with the Master considering such a form vulgar and lacking value. However, the reason for these dismissals must be considered prior to accepting their universality. In her essay titled “Confucius’ Opposition to the “New Music””, Philosopher Kathleen Higgins states “Confucius’ rejection of the music of the Zheng and the Wei does not represent musical conservatism for its own sake.”[5] Rather, he rejected such forms of music for their flawed ethical values, as they were created and propagated by warmongering states, and contained within them a representation of this turbulent nature. Therefore, it can be concluded that a dismissal of Confucius’ thoughts on music as overly conservative is inaccurate. Additionally, it is important to note that even if Confucius held these specific arguments against music of his time, the core tenets of the philosophy regarding music are unchanging. The specific, example-based arguments Confucius made simply do not apply within the modern context, meaning his thought is not reductionist. As a result, prioritizing these core tenets is the most important value when analyzing music from a Confucian perspective. This type of modern Confucianism is best described by Confucian scholar Stephen Angle, who argues that “Confucianism is an evolving tradition, and like earlier moments in the tradition, modern Confucianism both builds on and critiques what has come before.”[6] Confucius’ specific words are necessarily limited by historical context; however, the living tradition of the philosophy need not be. The proper way to analyze music from a Confucian perspective is to consider the everlasting pillars of the philosophy itself, being unity and harmony, rather than the specific examples given by Confucius himself.

To apply this definition of Confucian music to the American folk revival, it is necessary to first consider what the folk revival was and what type of music it inspired. The folk revival occurred in the United States between the 1940s and 1960s and is best defined by one of its participants, Alan Jabbour: “We in our revival sought out – and created – a music to express simultaneously our quest for cultural roots, our admiration of democratic ideas and values, our solidarity with the culturally neglected, and our compulsion to forge our own culture for ourselves.”[7] This definition not only beautifully combines the various goals of the artists who took part in the movement, but also demonstrates a consistent strain within it: unity in forging a shared cultural identity. Additionally, revivalist folk singers often attempted to learn and popularize old American instruments, such as Pete Seeger’s famous banjo. This further played into the idea of expressing one’s “cultural roots” and tied the revival to folk movements that predated it. Having defined the movement itself, the next question is what the music it inspired and produced actually was. For this, there can be no better source than the father of the movement himself, Woody Guthrie. Guthrie, when answering this very question, explains “A folk song is about what’s wrong and how to fix it, or it could be whose hungry and where their mouth is, and whose out of work and where the job is, or whose broke and where the money is, or whose carrying a gun and where the peace is – that’s folk lore.”[8] The theme of political protest Guthrie identifies as being inherent within a folk song explains why the most well-remembered and culturally impactful songs from the revival are inherently political and can therefore be considered protest songs. Such songs include Guthrie’s own “This Land is Your Land” (particularly the two censored verses), Pete Seeger’s “If I had a Hammer” and “We Shall Overcome,” Joan Baez’s rendition of “Where Have All The Flowers Gone,” and Bob Dylan’s “Blowing in the Wind” and “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” Every single one of these songs has overt political messaging aimed at supporting the marginalized and resisting corruption and flawed government. Lyrics such as “At the relief office, I saw my people”[9] in “This Land is Your Land” and “The order is rapidly fadin’”[10] in “The Times They Are A-Changin’” serve as evidence for such messages, and embody the very themes identified in Jabbour’s definition. The prevalence of these protest songs can largely be attributed to the political turmoil of the era in which the revival took place. As the Library of Congress puts it, when describing this time period, “The war in Vietnam, the counterculture, black power, and women’s liberation left the nation polarized.”[11] Protest songs developed naturally as a response to what singers identified as problems in society and served as a way to call out such problems. Additionally, they served as a method to rally those who wanted to fix, or protest, said problems. Therefore, the folk revival is best understood as a movement that reconnected individuals with their roots, represented the marginalized of society, critiqued the government, and popularized the folk song as a method of protest.

The question that remains, having defined both necessary terms, is quite simple: does the American folk revival embody the ideal form of music through unity and harmony as defined in Confucianism? The second layer of questioning behind this overarching inquiry then becomes clear. Did the folk revival bring society together, producing unity, and did the folk revival inspire beneficial emotions, creating harmony?

Revivalist protest songs unquestionably generated some form of unity. However, the concept of unity itself must first be investigated and challenged, as it can take many different forms. Unlike Confucius’ China, America during the folk revival was incredibly diverse. This diversity was evidenced in ethnic, class, and regional divides; each separate subsection possessed its own identity and history. As a result, one inevitably wonders what it means to “unite” in such a society. How can a singular song, or type of song, bring together such drastically different groups? Gillian Mitchell, in an article analyzing the revival, posits an answer to this question: “The very apparatus of the folk revival […] worked to ensure that diversity and universality remained fundamental features of the movement.”[12] Singers emphasized a reduction in class divisions and promoted a sense of togetherness. To see an example of this, one need not look further than the most famous song from the period, “This Land is Your Land”. The entire song has become an anthem for togetherness in America, founded upon its first line. “This land is your land, this land is my land” Woody Guthrie sings, speaking to the entire country.[13] Such lyrics are not only inherently collective, but especially so in a country plagued by division. It is telling that, even today, Guthrie’s declaration remains sung. Pete Seeger, known as the “grandfather” of American folk music, creates a similar message with the song “We Shall Overcome”, which became omnipresent at political rallies and protests at the time. The song emphasized people coming together and combatting divisions, such as segregation, that existed during the revival. Furthermore, Bob Dylan performed his new folk songs at the “March on Washington”, just before Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Such songs were, yet again, protests sung for the marginalized in America. These explanations and lyrics essentially solve the problem presented in claiming to unify a country as diverse as the United States. They promote both peace and collective empowerment. Therefore, by accepting and celebrating diversity while simultaneously promoting togetherness, the folk revival successfully embodied this spirit of unity identified in the Confucian ideal of music.

The folk revival, on an individual scale, also managed to bring about the harmony Confucius emphasizes. This is particularly evident when comparing the music Confucius disliked with protest songs. The music from the Zheng and the Wei that the philosopher disliked so much was warlike, emphasizing might and conflict rather than unity and harmony. It was for that reason that it didn’t benefit the individual. However, protest songs do the opposite; the aforementioned songs and lyrics actively promote peace. Furthermore, folk songs help to represent the marginalized, as Jabbour and Guthrie iterate. This extension of the message further allows folk songs to impact more individuals on a broader scale, resulting in more beneficial emotional growth. It could be claimed that because protest songs are naturally anti-establishment, they immediately go against Confucius’ ideal of musical harmony. However, this concept of harmony is dismissed by Stephen Angle once again, who states “The Confucian ideal of harmony means finding ways that differences complement each other, contributing to a greater whole.”[14] Because Confucianism is a living tradition, every criticism Confucius himself may have had does not apply in a different context. Rather, the principles he laid out are what must be applied to these ideals. Folk songs necessarily take differences between various cultural diasporas and weave them together, meaning such songs are definitionally harmonious. This accessibility and wide scope of the Folk Revival in turn allows more individuals to experience the songs. As Confucius believes, music is deemed pure when it conjures positive and helpful emotions within the listener. This is done when, applying to their broad audience, Folk songs promote themes of peace and solidarity. This effect of positive emotion is also evident when such songs inspire huge groups of people, such as those at the many protest rallies that occurred during the movement’s peak. The movement intentionally increased the emotional accessibility of its songs for listeners and participants. Given both the characteristics of the Folk Revival and the positive impact it had on those listening to it, it can be determined that is embodies harmony for the individual, both with themselves and each other.

The weighing metric of Confucianism for music has stood the test of time as effective in determining the quality of music through its properties of unity and harmony, as both such properties are timeless and comprehensive. The American folk revival, following careful analysis, embodies the ideal form of music defined within Confucianism. Protest songs written during this period both unite people across ethnic, regional, and class divides, as well as proving internal harmony for the individual listening. They have entered the very consciousness of the United States, uniting and inspiring an entire nation to do better.

 Bibliography:

Angle, Stephen C. Growing Moral: A Confucian Guide to Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2022.

Cook, “Yue Ji—Record of Music: Introduction, Translation, Notes, and Commentary,” 42.

Dylan, Bob. “The Times They Are A-Changin’: The Official Bob Dylan Site.” The Times They Are A-Changin’ | The Official Bob Dylan Site. Accessed November 22, 2022. https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/times-they-are-changin/.

Eyerman, Ron, and Scott Barretta. “From the 30s to the 60s: The Folk Music Revival in the United States.” Theory and Society 25, no. 4 (1996): 501–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/657909.

Freedman, Jean R. “What Is a Folk Revival?” In Peggy Seeger: A Life of Music, Love, and Politics, 294–304. University of Illinois Press, 2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/j.ctt1m32159.28.

Higgins, Kathleen. “Confucius’ Opposition to the ‘New Music’ – Dao.” SpringerLink. Springer Netherlands, July 10, 2017. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11712-017-9558-6.

Hope, Bob, Jules Feiffer, Leonard Bernstein, Gloria Steinem, Abbie Hoffman, and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). “Hope for America: Performers, Politics and Pop Culture Polarization in the 1960s.” Library of Congress, July 11, 2010. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/hope-for-america/polarization-in-the-1960s.html.

Kirkendall, Jensen Armstrong. “The Well-Ordered Heart: Confucius on Harmony, Music, and Ritual.” Azusa Pacific University, December 14, 2017. https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/998/2018/11/JensenKirkendall-TheWellOrderedHeart.pdf.

Lu, Deming, Approximately 550-630 Annotator, and Xuan Zheng. Annotated Edition of “The Book of Rites”. [Jian’an, Fujian, China: publisher not identified, to 1194, 1190] Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/2021666359/.

Mitchell, Gillian A. M. “Visions of Diversity: Cultural Pluralism and the Nation in the Folk Music Revival Movement of the United States and Canada, 1958-65.” Journal of American Studies 40, no. 3 (2006): 593–614. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27557862.

[1] Confucius, James Legge, Chʻu Chai, and Winberg Chai. 1967. Li Chi : Book of Rites : An Encyclopedia of Ancient Ceremonial Usages Religious Creeds and Social Institutions. New Hyde Park N.Y: University Books.

[2] Cook, “Yue Ji—Record of Music: Introduction, Translation, Notes, and Commentary,” 42

[3] Li Zehou, The Chinese Aesthetic Tradition, Translated by Maija Bell Samei, (Honolulu, HI; University of Hawai’i Press, 2010), 12.

[4] Jensen Armstrong Kirkendall, “The Well-Ordered Heart: Confucius on Harmony, Music, and Ritual” (Azusa Pacific University, December 14, 2017), 4

[5] Kathleen Higgins, “Confucius’ Opposition to the ‘New Music’ – Dao,” SpringerLink (Springer Netherlands, July 10, 2017), 321

[6] Stephen C. Angle, Growing Moral: A Confucian Guide to Life (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2022), 190-191

[7] Freedman, Jean R. “What Is a Folk Revival?” In Peggy Seeger: A Life of Music, Love, and Politics, 294-304, (University of Illinois Press,2017), 294

[8] Eyerman, Ron, and Scott Barretta. “From the 30s to the 60s: The Folk Music Revival in the United States.” (Theory and Society 25, no. 4 (1966)), 502

[9] Guthrie, Woody. “This Land is Your Land”. (Ludlow Music, Inc., 1956)

[10] Dylan, Bob. “The Times They Are A-Changin’: The Official Bob Dylan Site,” The Times They Are A-Changin’

[11] Bob Hope et al., “Hope for America: Performers, Politics and Pop Culture Polarization in the 1960s,” Library of Congress, July 11, 2010

[12] Mitchell, Gillian A. M. “Visions of Diversity: Cultural Pluralism and the Nation in the Folk Music Revival Movement of the United States and Canada, 1958-65”. Journal of American Studies 40, no 3 (2006), 598

[13] Guthrie, Woody. “This Land is Your Land”. (Ludlow Music, Inc., 1956)

[14] Stephen C. Angle, Growing Moral: A Confucian Guide to Life (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2022), 195

The Cold War-Era Jazz Ambassadors Program: A State Department Success

This paper seeks to provide a thorough overview and analysis of the U.S. State Department’s Cold War-era Jazz Ambassadors program. The essay opens with an overview of public and cultural diplomacy, emphasizing how the Jazz Ambassadors program proved itself to an effective tool during a very tumultuous time in American history. The essay then segues into a discussion about the program itself and its perception both domestically and abroad. The essay concludes with a discussion of the intersection between the Jazz Ambassadors program and U.S. race relations, as well as how the program has influenced U.S. cultural diplomacy today. The paper ultimately concludes that the Jazz Ambassadors program was a very unique form of cultural diplomacy that paved the way for other cultural diplomacy efforts that are still present within the State Department to this day.

On the world stage, the United States is often known for its hegemony in terms of most aspects of diplomacy, as well as its large military. When American diplomatic or security initiatives make headlines, they often feature either a military action or a high-level diplomatic breakthrough—which by nature influence the domestic and international perceptions of Americans and the United States government. But America’s diplomatic apparatus goes far beyond the reach of what daily headlines would imply. With embassies and additional consulates in just about every country—as well as multilateral organizations like NATO and the UN—American diplomacy penetrates the most remote corners of the world and ultimately seeks to exert influence on the citizens and governments of the countries in which it presents itself.[1] Diplomacy with governments often consists of multilateral and bilateral meetings between government officials, but public and cultural diplomacy, which is diplomacy involving a country’s citizens, takes a more programming-oriented approach and often uses creative tactics to engage the general public with American culture. Certain cultural programming tactics work better than others, but one American initiative that was particularly successful was the Cold War-era, U.S. State Department-sponsored Jazz Ambassadors program. The program sought to bridge the gap between the East and the West through music in an ideologically tumultuous time. While the Jazz Ambassadors program was at the end of the day a tool of American soft power and foreign policy, the program strengthened America’s diplomacy efforts abroad through personal connection and was ultimately a very unique and successful cultural tool during the Cold War.

Background on Cultural Diplomacy and Jazz

It is very difficult to fully understand the scope and methods of the Jazz Ambassadors program without an understanding of American cultural diplomacy and its unique ability to succeed in the Cold War era. In the words of former U.S. Ambassador Cynthia Schneider, cultural diplomacy is “the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples to foster mutual understanding.”[2] Cultural diplomacy is an arm of public diplomacy, which “encompasses everything a country does to explain itself to the world.”[3] The overarching goal of cultural diplomacy is to bridge the gap between a country’s citizens and its government policies, and often relies on a given country’s cultural products in order to communicate that country’s values. The underlying idea is that “creative expression has the potential to increase understanding and respect between disparate cultures and peoples.”[4] For instance, a foreign country’s citizens can have an adverse opinion of the United States’ government and a certain set of its policies, but could have a more favorable reaction toward its people and culture as seen through cultural diplomacy initiatives, which in turn could eventually persuade foreign audiences to have a better perception of the United States as a whole. It is important to point out that cultural diplomacy can by no means compensate for poor policy, but these types of initiatives are intended to be long-term. They are meant to transcend administrations and focus on promoting higher American values such as free speech, equality under the law, and democracy through cultural programming. The Jazz Ambassadors program was therefore a cultural diplomacy effort because it engaged citizens rather than governments, and its goal was to communicate the culture of the United States through the formation of personal connections.

During the Cold War era specifically, cultural diplomacy suddenly rose the ranks and became an increasingly useful diplomatic tool. Because of expanding nuclear capabilities between the United States and the USSR as well as the possibility of Mutual Assured Destruction if a conflict were to materialize, the Cold War progressively became a war of ideas rather than weapons. In the words of Hugo Berkeley, the director of the PBS film about the Jazz Ambassadors, the Cold War was ultimately an information war, or a battle “about values and culture” between the East and the West.[5] Because a country’s ‘hard power’ mechanisms such as military force could become incredibly dangerous very quickly, world powers, especially the United States, shifted to ‘soft power’ international relations mechanisms to continue diplomatic efforts without causing a violent spurt.[6] Cultural diplomacy fits this very particular need, with the intent that the United States could use American cultural products to forge connections and build bridges in an era where hard power was less of an option to counter adversaries. Furthermore, the Cold War era was unique because it coincided with several decolonization and independence movements worldwide, essentially creating an opening for these new countries to have a refreshed relationship with America.[7] These principles were the groundwork behind why the State Department began funding programs like that of the Jazz Ambassadors.

Discussions of public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, and cultural exchange often contain pushback about how cultural diplomacy is a form of propaganda, but that view is mistaken. Public and cultural diplomacy are fundamentally and “qualitatively different” from propaganda.[8] The following two statements do a particularly excellent job of contrasting public diplomacy and propaganda: “public diplomacy is based on truth but propaganda selects truth,” and “public diplomacy is flexible in its approach but propaganda has a tight agenda.”[9] Both of these issues—truth and hidden agendas—were of paramount importance during the Cold War era because a large component of the overarching U.S. foreign policy strategy during that time had to do with countering misinformation and propaganda.[10] The Soviet Union put forth an intense propaganda effort that hid the truth and attempted to have a tight control over the information that its citizens were exposed to.[11] As a result, the United States had a very strong incentive to counter that misinformation through its own public diplomacy initiatives, and so it leveraged its own culture and citizens to create programs backed in truth and legitimacy; the Jazz Ambassadors program was one of these initiatives.

Cultural diplomacy by definition encompasses a broad range of cultural entities and products, including poetry, literature, television, music, and more. But music, especially compared to the other cultural entities listed, is in a unique position because it does not require translation. In fact, music is widely regarded as a ‘universal language,’ meaning that people from any cultural or language background can interpret it; even if someone is unable to understand particular lyrics, the musicians can still convey a message through other musical elements.[12] Music is thus a very apt choice for cultural diplomacy because there is a market for music in every country as well as because music performances often create “meaningful personal contact” between the musicians and their audiences.[13] Therefore, it is very clear how and why something like the Jazz Ambassadors program fits well under this umbrella, seeing that it was a group of touring, primarily instrumental musicians seeking to build connections with audiences around the world.

In addition to music specifically, jazz itself is a uniquely American art form, making it well-suited for American cultural diplomacy. Jazz originally emerged out of slave plantations in the antebellum era in the American South, and its original purpose was to act as a musical reaction to the conditions on those plantations.[14] Unlike forms of classical music, which came to the United States from Europe, jazz was arguably the only truly American form of music from its emergence up until rock-and-roll became popular in the 1960s. This makes jazz very well-suited for a cultural diplomacy effort because it is something that foreign audiences can associate with America and America alone, which is beneficial for the State Department. In other words, no other country really had the ability to use this specific musical genre for cultural diplomacy.[15] The same cannot be said for other cultural products like American ballet. These arguments about the uniqueness of jazz to America are what ultimately attracted the State Department to the idea of turning domestic musicians into popular international ambassadors.

The Jazz Ambassadors Program

 Given the height of the jazz era in the mid-20^th century, the fact that the United States government needed to shift from hard power to soft power tactics in the Cold War, and the uniqueness of jazz to America, the State Department essentially encountered the perfect conditions to create a government-sponsored cultural diplomacy program involving jazz. The program officially began in 1956, sent over 100 jazz acts to 89 countries over the course of multiple years, and featured everyone from big stars like Louis Armstrong, Dizzy Gillespie, and Dave Brubeck to lesser-known big bands.[16] Another convenient condition for the Jazz Ambassadors program was that it came at the crossroads of the popular bop and ‘cool jazz’ eras.[17] More notably, however, the program brought on musicians whose heyday was in the early Cold War such as Benny Goodman and Duke Ellington, rather than the more politically contentious musicians of the free jazz era in the late Cold War like John Coltrane, who would have been harder for the State Department to market as cultural diplomacy.[18] In short, a myriad of historical conditions came together to create an optimal scenario for a truly American soft power and cultural diplomacy initiative surrounding jazz, allowing dozens of musicians to take their music abroad.

The Jazz Ambassadors program itself began in 1956, but momentum for the program’s inception came a bit earlier from both Congressional voices as well as representatives from the United States Information Agency—the predecessor to today’s public diplomacy efforts—who were involved with Voice of America.[19] Arguably, the most notable person in this conversation was Willis Conover, who was the host of the “Music USA” show on Voice of America starting in 1955.[20] During the Cold War, Voice of America used shortwave radio in order to provide free, American-produced news and cultural programming to audiences behind the Iron Curtain and beyond.[21] Conover’s program often featured jazz music, seemingly in an effort to show that jazz was the sound of America.[22] Because of the shortwave format and the extensive effort that Voice of America put in to reach foreign audiences, “[t]here was little Soviet authorities could do to prevent ordinary people from sneakily listening to VOA Jazz Hour on radios behind closed doors.”[23] In a way, Conover’s efforts at Voice of America created an international audience of jazz fans, which set the foundation for the Jazz Ambassadors’ success because the musicians already had a fan base by the time they went overseas.[24] The other key figure in the year leading up to the Jazz Ambassadors’ inception was Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. He represented Harlem in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1945 until 1971, and was married at the time to Hazel Scott, a jazz pianist.[25] Both Powell Jr.’s prominence and knowledge of the issue and the popularity of Willis Conover’s radio program eventually convinced President Eisenhower to approve the funding for the Jazz Ambassadors program.[26]

Put simply, the reason the Jazz Ambassadors program worked so well as a cultural tool was because, in the words of Conover, jazz is “profoundly political.”[27] Part of the uniqueness of jazz is that many consider it to be a “way of life” that “guarantees each musician absolute freedom within a framework of cooperation.”[28] Therefore, jazz is very symbolic of democracy and American values because each musician is allowed to express themselves as an individual artist while also working within the constraints of a song and ensemble and making room for error. The musicians essentially “mirrored the diverse and imperfect fibers of American life.”[29] Additionally, classical music tends to be quire rigid while jazz tends to be more fluid, which emulated the message the United States was trying to send during the Cold War, seeing that public diplomacy efforts were aimed at categorizing the East as more rigid and the West as more fluid.[30] As aforementioned in the discussion of cultural diplomacy, these types of initiatives are intended to convey a message about the country from which they originate. Accordingly, the parallels between jazz and American values aided the success of the Jazz Ambassadors program.

When it came time for the Jazz Ambassadors themselves to begin touring, the State Department did not send the Ambassadors just anywhere. The State Department has no incentive to put any of its representatives in harm’s way—and to this day has an entire bureau dedicated to the security of its staff and affiliates abroad—but the United States was not sending the Jazz Ambassadors to locations where it already had longstanding allied relationships.[31] The Jazz Ambassadors were sent to places that mirrored “America’s more materialistic interests,” which during the Cold War meant they traveled to newly decolonized countries in Africa as well as took an expansive tour through the Middle East.[32] The State Department eventually sent musicians to Iran, Pakistan, and Syria, as well as places like Ghana and India, just to name a few.[33] The goal was to enter these locations and expose the audiences to American music and culture in a way that would softly persuade audiences to act more favorably toward American values rather than those of the Soviet Union. During these multi-country tours, the Jazz Ambassadors gave concerts, and despite being unsurprisingly under tight security while abroad, also built relationships and interacted with the foreign publics they performed for.[34] Another interesting component about the locations of the Jazz Ambassadors’ tours is that the “State Department support allowed the music to reach geopolitically strategic locations lacking real profit incentive.”[35] Put simply, from the musicians’ perspectives, the Jazz Ambassadors program allowed them to travel to places that would not have been feasible or profitable for them to travel to otherwise—despite the fact that they were officially representing the United States on behalf of a soft power mechanism. But as a whole, taking a look at where the State Department sent the Jazz Ambassadors and why they were sent to those places provides further insight into the political goals of the program.

The Jazz Ambassadors program had a strong foundation that set it up for success, especially given Eisenhower’s support, Willis Conover’s audience-building efforts, and political strategy efforts on the State Department’s part. But the real magic of the program came through the impact that it had on foreign audiences—a keystone of a successful cultural diplomacy effort. There is most definitely an argument present regarding cultural imperialism, seeing that the Jazz Ambassadors program as a whole did have an underlying motive about persuading foreign audiences, but most of the people on the receiving end of the program expressed appreciation for the jazz musicians and what they represented.[36] The Jazz Ambassadors program was also by no means intended to act as a replacement for the music indigenous to those places, unlike what the word ‘imperialism’ would imply.[37]

Descriptions of the concerts characterize the impact of the Jazz Ambassadors as quite powerful. One author stated that the “whole era of propaganda and demonization just evaporated in seconds” when the Jazz Ambassadors began to play.[38] Another said that even though jazz was a distinctly different sound compared to what many foreign audiences were accustomed to, over the course of the concert, the mutual understanding between audience and musician began to grow: “our musical languages are different, but with patience, we learned to understand each other. That is where the real magic occurred.”[39] Danielle Fosler-Lussier even went as far to characterize the Jazz Ambassadors program’s impact as reminiscent of Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, stating that an “imagined community is developed on an international scale via fragmentary points of contact,” which connects to the Jazz Ambassadors program because the musicians tangentially connected every audience member to each other, illustrating the program’s ability to transcend cultural borders and boundaries.[40] Similarly, Hugo Berkeley concluded that the Jazz Ambassadors transcended the binary between the East and the West, as the jazz music managed to send a universal message—through its universal language—about music and internationalism because the musicians acted as both ambassadors for America as well as for jazz more generally.[41] The State Department to this day describes the Jazz Ambassadors’ work as “[telling] the American story in a way no policy or speech ever could.”[42] These testimonials and analyses are remarkably consistent among each other, bolstering the argument for the program’s success.

Overall, from the State Department’s perspective, as well as that of many others, there was a general sentiment that the Jazz Ambassadors program paved the way for cultural sharing through jazz. They “hoped that showcasing popular American music around the globe would not only introduce audiences to American culture, but also win them over as ideological allies in the Cold War.”[43] The overarching ideas was that through the many metaphors that existed between jazz and American values, such as freedom, joy, improvisation, and creativity, the Jazz Ambassadors would be able to softly influence the hearts and minds of foreign publics who may not be acquainted with these values or American music.[44] Additionally, while arguments about the intrinsic motives about cultural diplomacy, soft power, and imperialism are indeed present in the discussion about the Jazz Ambassadors program, there is still a stronger argument for the ability of cultural exchange, through emotions and connection, to diffuse conflict and create mutual understanding. The general consensus about the Jazz Ambassadors program is that the program most definitely fits under the latter of those two arguments, especially given the early efforts by Willis Conover as well as the sentiments expressed about the program today.

The Issue of Race and Program Aftermath

Through the eyes of the State Department, the Jazz Ambassadors program was a rousing success, but from the perspective of the musicians themselves, defining success is a bit more complicated due to the social climate at the time in regard to civil rights. William “Brother” Woodman, Jr., a Black jazz musician out of Los Angeles, provides an account in an oral history that is encompassing of what the racial climate at the time was like in relation to music:

“At the [local jazz club] people were coming in, the place began to pack, and they had ‘reserved’ signs on almost all the tables. I wondered about that within myself. White people would come in. It was packed every night. Then the blacks would be coming in, and they’d turn them away. And that really got to me. So I went to [my friend]. I said, ‘Man, did you see those colored people?’ ‘Yeah, man. I don’t like it, either, but there ain’t nothing you can do about it.’”[45]

In short, the racial climate in America, even in relation to jazz, which was supposed to be a safe space for Black musicians, was not amicable by any means.

Most of the headliner Jazz Ambassadors themselves were Black, and in essence, the State Department was asking the Jazz Ambassadors to represent a country where segregation and overt racial discrimination were rampant.[46] The musicians “continuously grappled with deep contradictions that arose from showcasing the supposed freedom and egalitarianism of a country that still treated [them] with a mixture of derision, disdain, and outright hatred.”[47] That being said, anecdotal evidence shows that foreign audiences simply saw the musicians as Americans—rather than Black Americans—while abroad.[48] When the State Department brought on star trumpeter Dizzy Gillespie as one of the first official Jazz Ambassadors and asked him to come in for a pre-tour briefing presumably covering civil rights, he was notably quoted saying, “I’ve had 300 years of briefing. I know what they’ve done to us.”[49] On one hand, the Jazz Ambassadors program provided a phenomenal, unique opportunity for the musicians to visit concealed corners of the world and share their music with audiences they would have never had the opportunity to otherwise, but on the other, they were not guaranteed the values they represented, like inclusion, tolerance, and respect, back home in the United States.

While there was a disconnect between the race relations at home versus what the Jazz Ambassadors represented abroad, part of the program’s success on this front was the lack of censorship on the part of the State Department. Many of the Jazz Ambassadors’ tunes surrounded issues of race and equality.[50] The State Department could have very easily put regulations on the Jazz Ambassadors’ musical programming, but they ultimately erred on the side of artistic freedom, which gave the musicians both a platform for their views as well as leverage for the U.S. government because foreign audiences would be able to see firsthand how the United States values free speech.[51] The effect of this decision was that these tunes, which directly addressed contentious social topics in the United States, ended up resonating with the audiences in other countries who were also experiencing a struggle to end discrimination and usher in true independence themselves.[52] By allowing and even encouraging the musicians to play the music that meant the most to them while on tour, “the State Department [was] persuaded that the jazz performers who were spearheading the civil rights movement would help generate a positive image of the U.S. to newly independent nations.” [53] This fact is exhibitory of the program’s success because the aforementioned values that were not necessarily present domestically were present through the State Department’s decisions surrounding the Jazz Ambassadors’ programming abroad. Furthermore, the lack of censorship from American cultural diplomacy provided a strong contrast to the censorship-heavy propaganda efforts on the part of the Soviet Union.

Another key fact about the Jazz Ambassadors program in regard to race relations that was both controversial and beneficial for the program was that the jazz bands themselves were integrated, not segregated. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., the Black Congressman who backed the program from its inception, believed that the integrated bands were vital to the cultural diplomacy effort as a whole; in essence, the integrated bands could act as both a way to spur important discussions about race while on tour, but also act as a blueprint for what America should be and set an example for the rest of the world.[54] The integrated bands were also beneficial to the State Department because the Soviet Union had a habit of weaponizing the racial issues within the United States, but with the integrated Jazz Ambassadors, the State Department could provide to the rest of the world a tangible example of people of different races working together to create beautiful music.[55]

Though the integration received a significant amount of “venomous backlash” from domestic conservatives, another positive outcome of the Jazz Ambassadors program was that it helped usher in the Civil Rights era in the 1960s.[56] The Jazz Ambassadors program was a unique, free speech-oriented collaboration between the U.S. government and some of its most outspoken citizens. When Louis Armstrong and his band were scheduled to tour the Soviet Union in 1957—at the height of the civil rights crisis in Little Rock—he actually ended up cancelling the tour so he could attend the protests there.[57] At first, this seems like a risky decision on Armstrong’s part, especially given the fact that foreign audiences loved Armstrong’s exuberant performances, but over the course of the Jazz Ambassadors program, the State Department was sympathetic to these sorts of actions and Armstrong was invited back for future tours.[58] Dizzy Gillespie was even a member of the Communist Party at one point, so the fact that the State Department selected him to represent America in a program that was directly designed to counter communist propaganda says a great deal about their commitment to the effort and free speech.[59] These instances are emblematic of the example that the State Department was trying to set about their commitment to free speech and support of positive race relations, which many agree was significant in pushing the civil rights movement forward when John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960.[60] In other words, the Jazz Ambassadors had a significant domestic impact as well as internationally.

The impact of the Jazz Ambassadors program was not lost on the musicians themselves. In fact, several of them even felt that they were the “real ambassadors” compared to their political appointee counterparts abroad.[61] The phrase “real ambassadors” stems from an incident Louis Armstrong encountered on tour, where he was once mistaken for an actual U.S. Ambassador instead of a Jazz Ambassador.[62] This incident was quite emblematic of the program’s impact on its musicians. While the musicians knew that the chance to travel was a tremendous opportunity and would help them broaden their approach to their own art, as seen through Duke Ellington’s “Far East Suite” composition, they did feel like the State Department took advantage of them in some ways.[63] Essentially, even though cultural diplomacy efforts usually always require bringing in outside personnel or artists, the Jazz Ambassadors seemed to feel like to some extent that there was a large weight on their backs in terms of the message they were supposed to send, and that the burden of conveying the American ideals was ultimately on them and not on the State Department. However, in hindsight, the musicians seemed grateful for the opportunity. Some later album liner notes by Dave Brubeck’s wife, Iola, stated that “the entire jazz community was elated with the official recognition of jazz” and that the program “gave the musicians a reason to be on stage,” both of which are very positive sentiments, despite the occasional bitter feelings toward the State Department as a whole.[64] An important caveat about these anecdotes is that not everybody had a sense of resentment or that they were the “real ambassadors”—namely Dizzy Gillespie’s drummer, who once said, “I never thought of myself of an ambassador,” just a musician—but clearly, others like Armstrong and Brubeck felt quite strongly about the program and their role.

The “real ambassadors” concept actually prompted Dave and Iola Brubeck to write an entire musical about it. The musical, aptly titled “The Real Ambassadors,” was written in 1961 and premiered in 1962 at the Monterey Jazz Festival in California.[65] Iola was very keen about the idea of jazz being on Broadway, seemingly in an effort to popularize the genre almost a decade after the big band era, and she and her husband both felt that the storyline of the Jazz Ambassadors program was a relevant, timely narrative to tell to a broader domestic audience.[66] Though the musical never made it to Broadway itself, it starred Louis Armstrong as himself, as well as Armstrong’s band and a few other jazz musicians who were not officially Jazz Ambassadors.[67] Iola felt that Armstrong was a “natural” for the role, not only because he was actually part of the program, but because he was beloved by many and truly put his own spin on his work.[68]

The musical itself contains a multitude of jazz styles, covering everything from more traditional swing tunes to bebop to slow ballads. Several tunes on the album are indicative of what the Brubecks were trying to convey about the Jazz Ambassadors program, such as songs titled “Everybody’s Coming,” “Cultural Exchange” and “Remember Who You Are,” but other tunes seem aimed at pleasing popular audiences, as their lyrics focus mainly on romance.[69] “Everybody’s Coming” is a bright, swung tune that reeks of excitement and anticipation, supposedly illustrating the popularity and hype that the Jazz Ambassadors received over the course of their tours.[70] “Cultural Exchange” and “Remember Who You Are,” while taking on very different styles, are the tunes that are most indicative of the Brubecks’ intent with the musical. “Cultural Exchange” is bright and upbeat, but is actually supposed to represent how the musicians would satirize the idea of cultural exchange while on tour, alluding to their aforementioned bitterness.[71] “Remember Who You Are” is in a minor key and feels notably more solemn than the other tunes mentioned, and its lyrics evoke reflections about how the Jazz Ambassadors no longer felt like individuals in some ways after they joined the program—they were representatives of the United States, regardless of how flawed or ironic the country’s policies were at the time.[72] The musical overall, despite being relatively obscure and never quite reaching as wide of an American audience as the Jazz Ambassadors’ foreign audiences, still provides many clues as to how the Jazz Ambassadors viewed their time abroad.

The immediate program aftermath included musical works such as the Brubecks’ “The Real Ambassadors” and Ellington’s “Far East Suite,” but the long-ranging program aftermath included both musical influences abroad as well as a clear foundation for future State Department musical diplomacy initiatives. For instance, there is evidence that the Jazz Ambassadors’ visits to Pakistan have influenced Pakistani culture today, seeing that Pakistani musicians during the Cold War took some of the motifs of the American jazz music and made it into something uniquely their own.[73] In certain progressive jazz scenes in Pakistan today, the impact of the Jazz Ambassadors program is still visible.[74] The Jazz Ambassadors program also created never-before-seen interactions between the Pakistani film industry and its jazz scene because both arenas were places in which artists could experiment.[75] This is just one specific example, but it shows how cultural diplomacy efforts can create instances of cultural appreciation and mixing that evolve and stay within a country for years to come.[76]

The Jazz Ambassadors program also influences American cultural diplomacy efforts to this day. Even though the program has undergone a rebranding and is now called American Music Abroad, the broader goals of this program largely remain the same as those of the Jazz Ambassadors: “fostering mutual understanding,” “extending the reach and range of traditional diplomacy,” “serving as an alternative mechanism for policy dialogue,” “targeting and reaching key audiences,” and “providing musicians with opportunities.”[77] The same evaluation report that outlines the goals of the American Music Abroad program discusses how the musical diplomacy is highly regarded by both Department of State employees as well as the musicians themselves and how popular they are abroad.[78] The Jazz Ambassadors program also essentially paved the way for initiatives like an American children’s choir performing with a predominantly Muslim children’s choir in Cambodia, as well as an initiative in Oman where American musicians performed separate concerts for men and women in accordance with Muslim customs.[79] Given these sentiments, it is valid to assert at least a light cause-and-effect relationship between the success of the Jazz Ambassadors program and the willingness on the part of the State Department to continue funding these types of programs today. In other words, if the Jazz Ambassadors program had been a complete bust, it would have set a very different tone for possible future musical diplomacy initiatives and their prospects for success.

The discussion of racial relations as it pertains to the Jazz Ambassadors along with how the musicians themselves viewed the program and its outcomes seem at first to cloud the picture that the Jazz Ambassadors program was a success. However, the fact that foreign audiences saw the Jazz Ambassadors as simply American citizens who were given the opportunity to share their art with the world—on behalf of democracy—is still significant and is ultimately a net positive. The role that the program played in ushering in the Civil Rights era, particularly through the integrated bands and tunes that focused on issues of oppression, race, and equality, should not be overlooked. As seen in the case of Pakistan, the Jazz Ambassadors formed connections with their audiences that have influenced their audiences’ music to this day, and in the case of the United States, the program created a strong foundation for the modern-day American Music Abroad program. Combined, the short-term and long-term aftermath illustrates the ultimate strength and success of the Jazz Ambassadors program.

Conclusion

 It is no accident that scholars like Cynthia Schneider emphasize that in ideas-based conflicts like the Cold War, culture matters.[80] These conflicts go beyond the “political realm of treaties and international relations,” and instead result in situations where cultural values and ideas among these countries’ citizens prevail.[81] This sentiment is why the United States chose to so strongly invest in its cultural diplomacy effort during the Cold War, and created the Jazz Ambassadors program—they believed that by tapping into an immensely popular cultural resource, they could effectively communicate America’s values in a way that was citizen-to-citizen, and separated culture from policy. Moreover, the State Department, much to Willis Conover’s credit, recognized the “intangible qualities” that allowed jazz to be such a uniquely American cultural tool, and one that was a “meaningful symbol of freedom” to boot.[82] Conover was once quoted saying that jazz is “a musical reflection of the way things happen in America” due to the way the musicians “agree on tempo, key, and chord structure” but are free to improvise and express themselves otherwise.[83] Through their music, the Jazz Ambassadors evoked the ideals of free speech and free expression that directly countered the propaganda coming out of the Soviet Union. Even if jazz’s domestic audiences did not pick up on the metaphor, Conover argued that foreign audiences “can feel this element of freedom” present in the music, a statement which is very emblematic of the way in which the program met its goals in pushing against the Soviet Union culturally.[84]

The lack of censorship on the part of the State Department was intrinsic to the program’s success. Schneider perhaps states it best: “[t]hat the United States permitted critical voices as part of government-sponsored performances and emissaries astonished audiences everywhere.”[85] Culture is known to persuade via mechanisms like music and through other cultural products. Because the Jazz Ambassadors were allowed to freely present their art to the world without fear of censorship or retribution by their own government, it aided the success of the program because it could assure foreign audiences that what they were viewing and listening to was authentically American, rather than censored in any way. While of course many of the Jazz Ambassadors did not experience such freedoms on American soil given the presence of segregation and other exhibitions of systemic racism, the programming abroad could set the example for future policy change at home.

The Cold War provided an opening for the United States to rethink its diplomacy, and particularly its soft power initiatives in a way that could persuade and educate foreign audiences in a positive way, and that is exactly what the Jazz Ambassadors did. The original goal of the program was to use the universal languages of music and jazz to communicate American culture and ideals to foreign audiences. No soft power diplomacy initiative is perfect, but the Jazz Ambassadors program came about at the right time; the State Department needed a cultural product that was universally understandable, impactful, and representative of American values and ideas. The Jazz Ambassadors fit the bill, and through their immensely popular worldwide tours and longstanding impact they had on audiences, the program sincerely met its goals of communicating America to the world.

Bibliography

“About the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.” U.S. Department of State. https://careers.state.gov/ds/

Baskerville, John D. “Free Jazz: A Reflection of Black Power Ideology.” Journal of Black Studies 4, no. 4 (June 1994): 484-97.

Berkeley, Hugo. “‘The Jazz Ambassadors’: Cold War Diplomacy and Civil Rights In Conflict.” Interview by Michele Martin. NPR. Last modified May 5, 2018. https://www.npr.org/2018/05/05/608802931/-the-jazz-ambassadors-cold-war-diplomacy-and-civil-rights-in-conflict

Berkeley, Hugo. “When America’s Hottest Jazz Stars Were Sent to Cool Cold War Tensions.”

The Guardian. Last modified May 3, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/may/03/jazz-ambassadors-america-cold-war-dizzy-gillespie.

Bryant, Clora, Buddy Collette, William Green, Steve Isoardi, Jack Kelson, Horace Tapscott,

Gerald Wilson, and Marl Young, eds. Central Avenue Sounds: Jazz in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1998.

Cox, Sunsariay, and J.P. Jenks. “Jazz Diplomacy: Then and Now.” United States Department of State. Last modified April 30, 2021. https://www.state.gov/dipnote-u-s-department-of-state-official-blog/jazz-diplomacy-then-and-now.

Coyne, Rebecca E. “The Jazz Ambassadors: Intersections of American Foreign Power and Black Artistry in Duke Ellington’s Far East Suite.” Inquiries Journal 13, no. 5 (2021).

Cull, Nicholas J. Public Diplomacy: Foundations for Global Engagement in the Digital Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2019.

Dave Brubeck. “The Real Ambassadors (1961).” Dave Brubeck. https://www.davebrubeck.com/the-real-ambassadors

“Evaluation of the Jazz Ambassadors Program – Report.” United States Department of State. Last modified March 2006. https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/jazz-amb-program-vol.-i-final-report-march-2006.pdf.

Fosler-Lussier, Danielle. “Music Pushed, Music Pulled: Cultural Diplomacy, Globalization, and Imperialism.” Diplomatic History 36, no. 1 (January 2012): 53-64.

 Gottlieb, Jed. “New Harvard Study says Music is Universal Language.” Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/11/new-harvard-study-establishes-music.

Iqbal, Haseeb. “‘There Is No Fear’: How a Cold-War Tour Inspired Pakistan’s Progressive Jazz Scene.” The Guardian. Last modified July 12, 2021 https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/jul/12/there-is-no-fear-how-a-cold-war-tour-inspired-pakistans-progressive-jazz-scene.

The Jazz Ambassadors. Directed by Hugo Berkeley. PBS, 2018.

“Jazz Style Periods.” Learn Jazz Standards. https://www.learnjazzstandards.com/wp-content/uploads/chord_charts/JAZZ_STYLE_PERIODS.pdf

Khatiashvili, Mariami. “Jazz Ambassadors: An Instrument of Public Diplomacy.” USC Center for Public Diplomacy. Last modified May 2, 2019. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/jazz-ambassadors-instrument-public-diplomacy.

Micucci, Matt. “A Conference of Ambassadors: Igor Butman and Wynton Marsalis Celebrate their 60th-Birthday in Moscow.” JazzIz. Last modified December 2021.

https://www.jazziz.com/a-conference-of-ambassadors-igor-butman-and-wynton-marsalis-celebrate-their-60th-birthday-in-moscow/

Perrigo, Billy. “How the U.S. Used Jazz as a Cold War Secret Weapon.” Time. Last modified December 22, 2017. https://time.com/5056351/cold-war-jazz-ambassadors/.

“Powell, Adam Clayton, Jr.” US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. https://history.house.gov/People/Listing/P/POWELL,-Adam-Clayton,-Jr–(P000477)/

Schneider, Cynthia P. “Cultural Diplomacy: The Humanizing Factor.” In International Cultural Policies and Power, edited by J.P. Singh, 101-12. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Sutton, Shan. “Dave and Iola Brubeck on ‘The Real Ambassadors’ and Working with Louis

Armstrong.” University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons. Last modified 2007. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/bohp/30/.

U.S. Department of State List of Embassies. https://www.usembassy.gov.