Social Power and Diplomacy

(Week 3) Blog Response - Question 2:


Measured in all shapes and sizes, power exists within all elements of the state.  Its measurability however is not pre-determined, but can be viewed long-term by its positive or negative effects.  


Soft power, (a term coined by Joseph Nye) is an essential power that all nation-states hope to utilize alongside with their own foreign policies.  Many nation-states within the last few decades have chosen to use soft power as an alternative to raw power politics (Nye 2011), strengthening  their national image, by spreading their culture and values.  While both a useful and strategic power for foreign-policy makers, soft power can not be solely controlled by the state itself.  Here in lies soft power limitations.  Soft power, can be generated or developed only in part by what a state chooses to pursue through its policies and Public Diplomacy (PD).  Initially, pursuing its own national agenda when engaging in the  use of soft power, states must now be open to integrating third-party actors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),  and private corporations as prospective partners, to achieve an effective soft power approach.  The strong reasoning behind the increase in partnerships, was addressed in the 2011 Wilton Park Conference Report, which openly stated that the dissemination of soft power assets relies heavily on networks, including those provided by non-state actors.  Therefore, expanding one's network, has become a recently viewed trend in how most states conduct their PD, and foreign policy engagements today.  


While networking can be considered a limitation for states, it can also be viewed as an asset to the game of politics. Soft power, in regards to networking, builds off of a social power approach toward engagement.  According to  Alain Touraine referenced by Peter van Ham in his book Social Power in International Politics, all social relations include power relations (van Ham 2010).  Social power, similar to soft power relies on and is also molded by culture, and values.  Open to non-state actors, and not only so-called 'classical players' of international politics, social power could be considered a most-suited term, and approach for the rise of active engagement of states in incorporating non-states actors into diplomacy, more so than soft power. 


In a social power approach, power moves via communications and relations.  Social power, lies within not only an individual, but a states interactions, communications, relationships, and institutions.  As a power that lies beneath the surface, a states social power influence can be measured on a global scale, by a states relations with other states, both on a public and official level.  In the case of the U.S., the U.S. possesses a strong social power influence abroad with popularity in many other states (i.e. Canada, France, South Korea) on a public  level where the civil society  is enthralled by U.S. culture (i.e. fashions, tv shows, food, etc.), and on an official level where the U.S. maintains close diplomatic ties.  But, overall, social power influence, is heavily weighted on the maintenance of close relations, interactions, and communications with other states, by both states themselves and non-state actors who are becoming more influential agents.  Lacking visibility, but continually important for all future engagements, social power should remain an ever-present element consistently incorporated within a state's foreign policy agenda. 


Works Cited:
Joseph Nye. (2011) “Soft Power” in The Future of Power. Pages 81-109.
“Putting the Power in Soft Power” (2011) Wilton Park Conference
Report. Pages 1-7.
Peter van Ham. (2010). Social Power in International Politics. Chapter 1.