2. Is "soft power" a useful term for foreign
policy-makers? Why or why not? What are the limitations? Is social power a
better term?
In our era of globalization,
foreign policy-makers realize that “hard” power is not the best way to achieve
foreign policy goals, due to its commonly perceived connection with
military power. “Soft” power, on the other hand, is a fluffier, descriptive
term, but is not a concrete concept. Nye
states that the three sources of soft power are a country’s culture, political
ideals, and foreign policy legitimacy.
These are all aspects that are socially constructed through attraction
and persuasion to garner favorable public opinion. This can be achieved through programs such as
foreign exchanges, broadcasting and foreign assistance (Nye, 95). Due to the fact that
soft power is a socially constructed ideal, I do think that social power would
be a more appropriate term. However in the foreign
policy world, it’s not just the soft power, socially conscious image of a nation being the “cool” but rather the combination of hard and soft power that helps achieve foreign policy goals. Heng describes this as the largest differentiation between
Japan and China. While Japan possesses
the greatest soft power potential in Asia, it faced legal, constitutional, and
public barriers on hard power. Though this made Japan experienced on using soft power, some argue it allows China to soon overpower them (p 283).
I think that since soft power
itself is not absolute, and it is not easily associated with a firm end goal,
it a useful term for foreign policy makers because it does not hold them
accountable to what “soft power” is being used for. It seems at times to be a filibuster. Yes, soft power helps advance our
foreign policy agenda but unless it is associated with a country’s hard power,
it is an abstract concept without any firm military, constitutional, and legal “muscle”
to back it up.
I agree that I think that social power is a better word for soft power. However I think that one of the advantages of changing it would be an elimination of the soft/hard duo. I think in many respects the idea that one has to use either hard or soft creates to much of a black and white image of foreign affairs.
ReplyDeleteTo me social power implies the ability to create change. In some instances organization that utilize this also have military power and influence. However I think changing the name will help to change the either or mindset.
I think this change is also important because to me soft power implies strictly state action, and i think others have this same feeling. Where as social power is something that can be had not just by a state but by a famous person, and NGO or any number of other organizations. I think this opens up the definition to include the many different actors that are currently playing in the international field.