Week 3 - Question 1
I think sometimes we all get caught up in labeling things. We expect to have things fall neatly into different categories and public diplomacy is no exception. We separate between hard and soft power. And now, with these two articles by Slaughter and Fisher, we are differentiating “power over” from “power with.” I think we can definitely reconcile the two ideals of power. While I recognize the differences between the two, I also think they most commonly overlap and act in tandem.
I think sometimes we all get caught up in labeling things. We expect to have things fall neatly into different categories and public diplomacy is no exception. We separate between hard and soft power. And now, with these two articles by Slaughter and Fisher, we are differentiating “power over” from “power with.” I think we can definitely reconcile the two ideals of power. While I recognize the differences between the two, I also think they most commonly overlap and act in tandem.
Last week
many of our articles discussed the new public diplomacy, with a large focus on
discussion and talking with, instead of at, the target audience. In many ways
“power with” is an extension of that. We discussed how practitioners of public
diplomacy can’t completely rule out talking at their audience, but they also
can’t completely rely on it anymore. It’s the same idea for “power over.” Some
“power over” will need to remain to keep things running smoothly and to keep
public diplomacy as a field accountable. But practitioners also need to be open
to the idea that collaborative power will open a lot of doors that “power over”
might not open. Practitioners will have to be willing to share some of the
power and simply be an important cog in the machine of making things happen in
collaboration with many other players.
The
question was whether relational and collaborative power can be reconciled. And
I think the answer is pretty much that they have to. It would be difficult for
most practitioners, especially those in free countries, to stop collaborative
power from happening. The Slaughter article discusses collaborative power
through Twitter. Practitioners can’t and shouldn’t want to stop that. They
should just strive to be a part of that process. So just like proponents of hard
power have had to adjust to the use of soft power, practitioners of relational
power, will and can adjust to working under collaborative power, and they will
also continue using relational power where it is appropriate.
But what does "reconcile" mean here? I guess the question I have is: is soft power not as useful of an idea, when collaborative power captures what Nye is trying to say? Ultimately, I think it's hard to talk about collaborative power, however, when it implies that state's can't "own" power capacities.
ReplyDeleteI guess by reconcile, I just mean that all these different types of power must co-exist, because they all have slightly different definitions. and they are all real. Collaborative power could not replace soft power, because soft power encompasses so much more. But these definitions attempt to be so black and white and I just believe that all of these types of power exist and overlap. That's the problem with always trying to categorize.
ReplyDelete