"Soft Power"

Ilan Goldenberg wisely proposes that progressives ditch the term "soft power." He focuses mainly on the marketing aspects of the particular labels "soft power" versus "hard power" but I would go further and say that the distinction Joseph Nye was trying to draw is a bit ill-conceived. People here those words and they think of two kinds of power -- two kinds of means of coercion -- some of which might be "hard" and others might be "soft." In fact, what Nye is trying to draw a distinction between all forms of coercion (including "soft" ones) on the one hand, and then stuff that's not coercive at all -- qualities that make a country likable.

But that stuff -- the fact that American political ideals are attractive to people whereas Chinese political ideals aren't -- isn't really a kind of power at all. It's important, but if you think of it as a kind of power you're just going to wind up thinking of it as a kind of really shitty and second rate power, rather than simply as something that's different and important in its own right.

Comments

If there's so much interest in these silly sorts of categorical phrases, maybe it's some weird cultural assumption which holds that anything not phrased in terms which reference coercion & power are considered not-serious policies by our fine foreign policy establishment thinkerate.

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 1:02 PM

Perhaps the concept of authority in the sense used by Augustus in the word auctoritas would be better: that is, getting people to do what you want because they wish to be in your good graces and like you.

Posted by Evan | May 31, 2008 1:04 PM

Really though, what could be shittier and more second-rate than Bush McCain hard power? It's an all cost, no benefit approach where every victory is Pyrrhic.

We blow up buildings better than anyone, but what have we got to show for it? We spend a million dollars to level a $10,000 building, and all we get in return is a dozen more buildings in need of leveling.

So in addition to ditching "soft power," let's stop using "hard power" as phallic window dressing for brute force.

Posted by aatos | May 31, 2008 1:31 PM

Power /= coercion. Persuasive power, powers of attraction, etc.

Posted by K | May 31, 2008 1:32 PM

Power /= coercion. Persuasive power, powers of attraction, etc.

Posted by K | May 31, 2008 1:33 PM

So ideas aren't powerful?

Posted by Matthew Struhar | May 31, 2008 1:39 PM

Frankly, it's the difference between power and leadership. People follow leaders, but are coerced by powers.

Posted by Schwa | May 31, 2008 1:42 PM

How about "The pen is mightier than the sword"?

Or, in response to Stalin's question, "How many divisions does the Pope have?", consider the role of John Paul II in Poland.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | May 31, 2008 2:14 PM

Duncan, that's a facile comparison.

JPII was allowed to affect Poland only after the Soviets lessened their yoke.

In Stalin's day, this was not true; Stalin's methods were totally effective. No man, no problem.

Posted by Greg | May 31, 2008 2:38 PM

Nye's works tend to be evasive in relation to US policies in the Middle East.

Posted by otto | May 31, 2008 3:02 PM

The corruption of the term "soft power" proves to me that people don't read books.

Posted by M | May 31, 2008 3:47 PM

The kernel of Goldenbergs argument is here:

Every time a Democratic politician, a progressive intellectual or a foreign-policy expert talks about Soft Power, it simply reinforces all of these stereotypes. The implication is that they are uncomfortable with the use of traditional Hard Power and wish to use Soft Power as a substitute instead of a complement. This isn't necessarily an accurate or fair conclusion, but like it or not, it is the implication drawn by a public.

There is a place for Soft Power, but the critique is that the Left has concluded that hard power notably war, should be avoided at almost any cost and Soft Power like these examples will solve nearly any "situation":

1. Endless talking and negotiation is always better than any action, which is always "rash and hasty" if "talks are still underway".

2. Like war, economic hard power exercising always hurts "innocent civilians" vs. "guilty soldier draftees" - and diplomacy is better, even if it goes on years or decades..

3. "Soft, never Hard!! policy" Lefties have now placed their faith in International Law, Human Rights lawyer's annual reports, and the Morally Supreme UN to solve problems with the international community.

Unless people "fail to listen", warrants demanding people voluntarily surrender themselves to the ICC, bold UN statements of "double strong deploration", and nasty HR activists reports should solve most global problems and disputes.

Except most people don't listen and Soft Power, without the real threat of coercive state power behind it, is toothless.

Posted by chris ford | May 31, 2008 4:00 PM

The kernel of Goldenbergs argument is here:

Every time a Democratic politician, a progressive intellectual or a foreign-policy expert talks about Soft Power, it simply reinforces all of these stereotypes. The implication is that they are uncomfortable with the use of traditional Hard Power and wish to use Soft Power as a substitute instead of a complement. This isn't necessarily an accurate or fair conclusion, but like it or not, it is the implication drawn by a public.

There is a place for Soft Power, but the critique is that the Left has concluded that hard power notably war, should be avoided at almost any cost and Soft Power like these examples will solve nearly any "situation":

1. Endless talking and negotiation is always better than any action, which is always "rash and hasty" if "talks are still underway".

2. Like war, economic hard power exercising always hurts "innocent civilians" vs. "guilty soldier draftees" - and diplomacy is better, even if it goes on years or decades..

3. "Soft, never Hard!! policy" Lefties have now placed their faith in International Law, Human Rights lawyer's annual reports, and the Morally Supreme UN to solve problems with the international community.

Unless people "fail to listen", warrants demanding people voluntarily surrender themselves to the ICC, bold UN statements of "double strong deploration", and nasty HR activists reports should solve most global problems and disputes.

Except most people don't listen and Soft Power, without the real threat of coercive state power behind it, is toothless.

Posted by chris ford | May 31, 2008 4:03 PM

Is that the only paragraph you read in the entire article, chris ford? Otherwise, I cannot imagine how you thought that was the kernel of Goldenberg's argument. The argument was about rhetoric and messaging, not on any disagreement with what some of the Resolutions passed by the Council of the Left that you listed. Since you are too lazy to actually read for comprehension, I will boil it down for you: The author urges progressives to ditch "soft power" as a rhetorical pitch because it makes progressive seem unwilling to forcefully defend American interests. He agrees with soft power theorists on the merits, i.e. that historically one of America's most valuable foreign policy assets has been leadership, and that this power is diminished when we act in domineering and imperial ways.

Posted by StJoe | May 31, 2008 6:29 PM

Is that the only paragraph you read in the entire article, chris ford? Otherwise, I cannot imagine how you thought that was the kernel of Goldenberg's argument. The argument was about rhetoric and messaging, not on any disagreement with the Resolutions of the Council of the Global Left that you listed.

Let me suggest an alternative kernel: The author urges progressives to ditch "soft power" as a rhetorical pitch because it makes progressive seem unwilling to forcefully defend American interests. However, he agrees with soft power theorists on the merits, i.e. that historically one of America's most valuable foreign policy assets has been leadership, and that this power is diminished when we act in domineering and imperial ways.

Posted by StJoe | May 31, 2008 6:32 PM

In defense of "soft power":

http://jocie-fong.blogspot.com/2008/05/pansy-power.html

Posted by Jocie Fong | May 31, 2008 7:07 PM

A better term is "indirect power." As opposed to the direct power of bombing and such. It's both more accurate and less likely to be twisted in meaning by an opponent.

Posted by Glacier | May 31, 2008 8:22 PM

There's a word called "legitimacy." You could, as they say, look it up.

Too bad we've devalued it in the past 8 years to a radical degree....

Posted by elle loco | May 31, 2008 10:04 PM

Hard power, I get: it comes out the barrel of a gun. Ultimately, it's a coercive style of leadership.

There are other styles of leadership. I like Ike's definition: "leadership is getting the other guy to want to do what you want him to do." THAT will never come from the barrel of a gun.

The problem with the label/framing lies with both words: soft connotes, oh, all kinds of things, few of them manly. Power does connote coercion.

But what is the proper/appropriate label for what Ike was talking about? Because it is that which the proponents of "soft power" are often advocating.

Posted by Wendell | May 31, 2008 10:08 PM

That, ah, is kind of a mistaken interpretation of soft power there.

(That's addressed at Matt, by the by. Chris is just being an idiot. Soft power already works: very, very few international issues are settled at the point of a gun or negotiated as if they were.)

And yes, "hard" sounds better from a "RARRR ALPHA APE" point of view, but considering that that is precisely the sort of attitude towards IR that's being jettisoned when you analyze soft power, I kind of think you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Especially when proponents of Hard! Power! Realism! have done such a terrible job of being either theoretically consistent, or predictively accurate. Sure, come up with another name, "diplomat-led foreign policy" or something like that, but going back to Kissinger's attitude towards the world does America no favors.

Posted by Demosthenes | May 31, 2008 10:16 PM

So why was NATO formed? It isn't as though western Europe was convinced that either the Soviets or the Americans would invade, so they had better get on the more powerful side. The fact that the US was largely seen as a country that wouldn't invade other (European) countries without cause, along with the Marshall plan, made it seem as though America was a benevolent superpower. That made it possible to have better diplomatic relations and to be able to station hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Europe. It should be noted that it isn't always possible to keep 100,000 + soldiers in a region without inflaming the local populace.

Posted by Client #11 | June 1, 2008 11:53 AM

"Kill 'em with kindness" has always struck me as a horrible way to think about getting along with people. "Win them with kindness," or "Help them with kindness" is the way to go.

Posted by ferd | June 1, 2008 12:15 PM

Client #11, the rationale you're looking for can be found in a quote from Lord Ismay (the first SecGen of NATO):

“The purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in”

Posted by Greg | June 1, 2008 2:53 PM

How about "power" vs. "influence"? Compare Congressman Dave Obey with Bill Clinton. Obey is far more powerful as the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, but isn't particularly influential. Bill Clinton on the other hand, has no real power at all, but because he's a popular former president, he wields a tremendous amount of influence.

Posted by Gpack3 | June 1, 2008 8:44 PM