Question 1: How has the concept of soft power
and public diplomacy been interpreted in the context of China? How is it
distinct?
The concept
of soft power and public diplomacy is typically interpreted in the context of
China through the “China threat theory” (Yiwei, 258). If you view international
relations from our Westernized viewpoint (which it typically is), we usually
interpret China’s sustained high rates of economic growth and technological
development, as a threat to our “superpower position” in the world. However how does their public diplomacy and
soft power play a role in the hierarchical structure of our global society?
For China itself, how public
diplomacy is viewed, promoted, and maintained is quite different than what we
do to promote our ideals in Western countries.
There is a huge distinction between how China believes they can achieve
their foreign policy goals, and in actuality how it is interpreted and
translated to not be inline with the beliefs in most Western societies. The Chinese assume that Chinese concepts are
too culturally specific to be understood by Westerners, but if the Chinese
government expresses itself like other countries through international relation
jargon, they will lose their authentic Chinese characteristics and will be
criticized by the Chinese people for being too Westernized. This is because
there is a huge differentiation between how China is traditionally a
collective society and the West is more individualistic. Ellis makes a good
point in his article when he states that soft power is based on perceptions and
emotion, and not necessarily on objective reality. Though we believe that the “China threat
theory” is largely due to their sustained market growth, part of their soft
power and public diplomacy efforts is projecting themselves as a strong, big
nation with a long history that can combat with a strong, big nation like the
United States.
I really liked your article Katie. I thought that the Wang article was really helpful in understanding a multilayer context on Chinese PD and soft power. When you referred to the culturally specific ways in which China brands itself, I immediately thought of how Wang said that China was contemplating changing its national symbol from the Dragon to the Panda. The assumption was that the Panda would be deemed too "Westernized," and not represent Chinese ideals. But, I have to wonder, would changing a national symbol have a drastic effect on how China is viewed and understood by those from outside its borders?
ReplyDeleteI think that China's view that development flows from economic development, which Wang pointed out, is a very unsure method for soft power. As Rawnsley points out in his article, and I'm paraphrasing, but a country's economic solvency and power will only attract others to that country if they have interests beyond trade. If a country with a more "Westernized" (We could argue what exactly is Western, but we shall save that for another time) style of public diplomacy were to deal with China, would its status as an economic power undue its reputation for human rights violations or unwavering adherence to its one-party system?
I think that more than anything, China needs to work more on its credibility abroad, and engage more with foreign publics. I think that it has shown, as exemplified again in Rawnsley, that it is interested in beginning a dialogue. As Rawnsley points out on page 9, China has developed an official government arm for public diplomacy, and has renamed the Communist Party's Propaganda Department to the Publicity Department.
Overall, I thought that your arguments were well thought out, but when it comes to China, I just don't think there is any easy solution. I think that the readings from this week offer up some insight, but, I think we are many, many years away from seeing any of the spillover effects from how China engages with foreign publics.
-David R
Good post and response. What I am most interested with this question is how China interprets what is required to cultivate and wield soft power. For China, soft power is tightly integrated with its concept of Comprehensive National Power, and is reflected in what it sees as Western media "hegemony" that contrains the way it is perceived by publics abroad. I also think that Chinese PD reflects the assumption that its rich, historical cultural traditions will translate into some kind of "power" as publics identify with the norms and values represented in China. Where it gets interesting, I think, is in how this belief is translated into programs designed to "promote" these values.
ReplyDelete