I'm thinking of a usage for "diplomacy" such as:

"Unlike his predecessor's isolationist policies, Schultz's diplomacy favored providing aid unconditionally to neighbors in the region on the premise that they would be more likely to support the country's interests should the need arise.

I think this sounds more eloquent than "Schultz's style of diplomacy" or "Schultz's diplomatic policy" but I haven't seen this usage before and it sounds a bit foreign. We do this with other words, e.g. "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" or "a whole different ballgame" or "we wanted to breed a sweeter apple." Perhaps it's a more idiomatic convention and not technically correct grammar?

  • One definition of diplomacy is The profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations... So your example could be read as specific acts of diplomacy. This could be in contrast to "X's style of diplomacy was often criticized, but few argued with its success."
    – DjinTonic
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 1:26

1 Answer 1


It's perfectly acceptable. A genitive NP marking a specific style of diplomacy can readily be found in high quality English, therefore it's grammatical.

Trump's diplomacy is hardly the only part of his presidency shaped by his experiences with golf courses. (Washington Post, 2017)

The two distinctive contributions of the Conservative Party's diplomacy in this century have been at the time of Suez when we committed aggression ourselves, and at Munich where we supported it in another. (British House of Commons, 1960)

Even those allies who supported the United States complained privately about the paucity of consultation and the ineffectiveness of the administration's diplomacy. (Foreign Affairs, 2003)

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.