The Role of Soft Power in Advancing Foreign Policy Goals

Culture Unbound, 2016

Cultural diplomacy has grown in importance in recent years. But there is no consensus on the definition of this governmental strategy. This policy is commonly framed in the concept of soft power: the capacity of persuasion and attraction that allows the state to construct hegemony without using coercive methods. In this article we offer a critical analysis of this theory's limitations to explain this activity. To shed light on this situation we firstly propose a historical analysis of cultural diplomacy. Then, based on this study, we analyze the dominant methodological and conceptual articulation of soft power in cultural diplomacy literature. In this way, we clarify how the logical framework of soft power favors a specific and restrained conception of these policies, narrowing therefore its understanding and legitimating its economic and political instrumentalization.

The concept of power is central to the analyses of international relations, politics, society, economy as well as human life. Power could be regarded as the lifeblood of a social and political system. Power is multifaceted and, therefore, is hard to measure in concrete quantitative use of the term. It is of two basic types: hard and soft power. Nearly three decades ago, American political scientist Joseph Nye put forth the idea of soft power, a concept that caught fire and went on to define the post-Cold War era (Nye 1990). He asserts that soft power is the 'ability to affect others by attraction and persuasion rather than just coercion and payment' (Nye 2017, p. 17). A country's soft power comes from its civil society and culture rather than from the government. The conceptual definition of soft power offered by Nye is indeed precise, useful and also impactful. The state apparatus; especially the military, police, para-military, and border forces constitute the core of the hard power. The use of force is conceptually linked to hard power. Soft power and hard power are not mutually exclusive, and that soft power complements hard power. This current book entitled, Soft Power: The Forces of Attraction in International Relations by Hendrik W. Ohnesorge, Managing Assistant and Research Fellow at the Center for Global Studies/Chair in International Relations at the University of Bonn (Germany) is a new addition to the literature on the study of soft power. The book, originating from a doctoral dissertation, provides a detailed examination of the concept of soft power both from theoretical and empirical perspectives. It seeks 'to elucidate and elaborate on the concept of soft power in international relations' (p.1). In total, the book has five chapters. In chapter 1, the author illustrates the concept of soft power, its current state of research and importance of the study in light of the existent research gap. The author raises a number of pertinent questions, including:

2019

The concept of soft power has become increasingly significant in the realm of international politics. As nations seek to exert their influence on the global stage, the ability to shape the preferences and perceptions of others through non-coercive means has emerged as a vital tool. China, with its rapidly growing economic and political clout, has substantially engaged in exercising strategies and means as soft power politics to accomplish its presence in the global politics. This research paper examines China's soft power diplomacy in international politics, focusing on the strategies and means employed by the Chinese government to enhance its global influence. The primary objective of this research is to investigate how China strategically employs soft power and assess the implications of these strategies on international politics. To achieve this, the study utilizes a qualitative approach, considering key indicators such as culture, diplomacy, education, and public opinion. By examining China's soft power initiatives and their effects, this research sheds light on the evolving dynamics of international politics in the 21st century, where soft power plays a significant role in shaping global perceptions and relations

In 1989, Joseph Nye coined the term "soft power" to describe "the power to get what you want," not through coercion or money, but attraction and persuasion. The concept authorized a new approach to transnational relations, one that went beyond government elites to appeal directly to foreign publics in order to cultivate and instrumentalize goodwill. The concept now exerts enormous influence on international statecraft: governments and state authorities worldwide dedicate sizable resources toward public diplomacy; develop "strategic communication" policies to coordinate national representation; invest in international aid projects, broadcasting services, and educational programs; and hire "nation branding" consultancies. If critics of soft power charge the concept with vagueness, initiatives as these concretize the concept across worlds of transnational diplomacy, media production, and commerce. Rather than taking soft power as a self-evident social good, this panel critically examines the history and the political imaginaries that authorize soft power projects, and interrogates the broader social and political consequences of these projects. In what ways do soft power projects articulate a fantasy of the "attention economy" and of the power of PR, and to what effect? How do technologies of inscription, evaluation, and measurement make "soft power" legible in policy worlds? How do we reconcile policies of promotion and openness with hardening migration policies and border control? How might emphasis on national image abroad undermine care for current residents? How can a study of soft power sharpen our understandings of the rationalities and inequalities that propel processes of staying, moving and settling?

The 21st century has brought about a critical global transformation, resulting in a more globally connected community where nation-states are increasingly faced with various political and socio-economic issues. The current global context, considering the geopolitical tensions that have been growing, has nation-states concerned about their influence and power. Throughout history, superpowers and other states have been utilized various power tools in order to achieve their goals. Given the transformation of many societies from aristocracies to democracies, mass political participation has been generated, allowing countries to harness the power that rests within the public but also forcing governments to be responsive to their demands. These factors have changed the way that countries interact with one another and conduct diplomatic efforts. The two types of diplomacy, ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ diplomacy, both have advantages and disadvantages in the realm of foreign policy. This paper will begin with a brief exploration of the concept of power as discussed in academia before turning to the explanation of soft power and hard power diplomacy. Upon discussing some advantages and disadvantages of each, the interaction of the two forms of diplomacy will be examined, with a conclusion following.

The power of attraction (soft power), as developed by Joseph Nye, has been increasingly discussed in international relations literature and policy, yet soft power has not been fully utilized because of under‐specified tools and mechanisms by which soft power influences international actors. This article revises the concept of soft power by generating a continuum of power based on the tools useful for implementing different degrees of soft or hard power. In addition, the article describes two mechanisms through which soft power influences international actors, beginning the call for exploration of other such mechanisms. Reconceptualizing soft power in terms of objects that are controlled and utilized by policy‐makers, such as agenda‐setting and framing, provides us with more useful analytical variables to understand international relations and to provide policy recommendations.

University of Milan, PhD thesis, 2018

This thesis problematises the bases of soft power, that is, causal mechanisms connecting the agent (A) and the subject (B) of a power relationship. As the literature review reveals, their underspecification by neoliberal IR scholars, the leading proponents of the soft power concept, has caused a great deal of scholarly confusion over such questions as how to clearly differentiate between hard and soft power, how attraction (soft power’s primary mechanism) works and what roles structural and relational forces play in hard/soft power. In an effort to ascertain the bases, I address this issue not from the viewpoint of A’s policies or resources, like do IR neoliberal scholars, but in terms of B’s psychological perception of A. Employing social psychological accounts, I argue that attraction can be produced in three distinct ways, namely 1) through B’s identification with A (“emotional” attraction), 2) via B’s appreciation of A’s competence/knowledge in a particular field (“rational” attraction) and 3) by means of the activation of B’s internalised values which contextually prescribe B to act in A’s favour (“social” attraction). Importantly, depending upon the way attraction is produced, it is peculiar in a number of characteristics, the main of which are power scope, weight and durability. Insights from social psychology also show that unlike soft power, hard power requires not only B’s relevant perception of the A-B relationship (as coercive or rewarding), but also A’s capability to actualise a threat of punishment and/or a promise of reward. I argue this difference can be fairly treated as definitional rather than empirical, which implies that coercion and reward necessarily have both relational and structural dimensions, whereas for attraction, a structural one alone suffices, while a relational one may or may not be present. Having explicated the soft power bases, I illustrate each of them using three “most likely” case studies, namely Serbia’s policies towards Russia (emotional attraction), Kazakhstan’s approach to relations with the EU (rational attraction) and Germany’s policies vis-à-vis Israel (social attraction).