Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
THE NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,
BHOPAL
Political Science II Project
‘Rise and Evolution of American Soft Power’
Academic Year 2015-16
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:
Dr. Raka Arya Manasvi Tewari
2014BALLB75
IVth Trimester
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
PREFACE
The subject of Political Science was further elaborated to us in the fourth trimester. A major
concept that we studied was the concept of poer. This project is my attempt to understand and
explore this topic.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to The National Law Institute
University (NLIU) for providing me with the opportunity to make this project.
I extend my sincere thanks to everybody who helped with the completion of this project. I am
greatly obliged to our teacher for Political Science Dr. Raka Arya for her guidance,
monitoring and approval throughout the course of this project. I am also thankful to the
Library Administration for the provision of necessary books and texts needed for the
completion of this project.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
INDERX
Contents
PREFACE..................................................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................3
INDERX.....................................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................5
OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................6
UNDERSTANDING POWER...................................................................................................7
APPROACHES TO POWER....................................................................................................9
HARD POWER.......................................................................................................................10
UNDERSTANDING SOFT POWER......................................................................................12
SOFT POWER RESOURCESs...............................................................................................15
US STRATEGY OF POWER..................................................................................................17
END OF US SOFT POWER....................................................................................................19
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................21
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................22
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
INTRODUCTION
As the use of military force to resolve disputes between nations becomes less plausible in
most regions of the world, the struggle for influence intensifies. Among the consequences has
been the rise to global fame of the concept of ‘soft power’, in theory a means to turn a
country’s attributes and achievements into a lever for gaining advantage in international
politics. Soft power is a useful tool, and cultural operators have used it to justify everything
from the Olympic Games to student exchanges to movies.
In the past few years the Chinese government has embraced it with passion. Russia has
officially announced its belief in the concept as a foreign policy tool. The new President of
Iran has taken to Facebook and said that his state should develop it. The EU, a soft power
institution if ever there was one, can see its impact in the Ukraine.. But no Country has
mastered the art of soft power better than USA. They have maintained a position of
dominance throughout the past few decades by simply selling the ‘American Dream’.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
OBJECTIVES
Through this project I attempt trace to trace the basic concepts of power and the evolution of
power. The United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world and exercises
power in various forms. Not only in the sense of Hard power using military control but also
in the form of soft power and manufacturing consent. Soft power is the ability to voluntarily
coerce people. USA has managed to maintain position dominance because of its excellent
ability to sell to people the ‘American Dream’. This project aims to evaluate the rise and
evolution of American soft power and the extent of its influence around the world as well as
the effect of this soft power on polices across the world and the dynamics of power.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
UNDERSTANDING POWER
Power is one of the most central and yet problematic concepts in international relations. “Few
problems in political science are more perplexing than the problem of social power; […] yet,
despite widespread use, power remains a slippery and problematic concept. There is little
agreement upon basic definitions, individual theorists proposing their own more or less
idiosyncratic terminology, and surprisingly little consideration of the implications of
alternative usages” “That some people have more power than others is one of the most
palpable facts of human existence. Because of this, the concept of power is as ancient and
ubiquitous as any that social theory can boast. If these assertions needed any documentation,
one could set up an endless parade of great names from Plato and Aristotle through
Machiavelli and Hobbes to Pareto and Weber to demonstrate that a large number of seminal
social theorists have devoted a good deal of attention to power and the phenomena associated
with it; […] if so many people at so many different times have felt the need to attach the label
power, or something like it, to some Thing they believe they have observed, one is tempted to
suppose that Thing must exist. “Power is one of the key concepts in the great Western
tradition of thought about political phenomena. It is at the same time a concept on which in
spite of its long history, there is, on analytical levels, a notable lack of agreement both about
its specific definition and about many features of the conceptual contexts in which it should
be placed” If political power is taken as one of the central phenomena to be explained by
political science, then propositions of political science will necessarily contain sentences and
phrases like «the power of A is greater than the power of B», «an increase (or decrease) in the
power of A. From Niccolò Machiavelli and David Hume to E. H. Carr and Hans
Morgenthau, power has been an important (some would say too important) variable in
international political theorizing. Although some may regard power analysis as old-fashioned
and outdated, recent refinements in social science thinking about power suggest the
possibility of revitalizing this approach to understanding international relations”31. But why
is it such a controversial concept? One reason is that, at any rate in Western cultures, those in
a position of social power often find it awkward to acknowledge expressly that they indeed
occupy such a position, and enjoy the advantages it brings them. In fact, whatever the
definition we want to associate with power, it is sure that, having or not having power, is
different; exerting or undergoing power is different.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
APPROACHES TO POWER
Three approaches to the observation and measurement of power have been described and
compared here: 1) control over resources; 2) control over actors; and 3) control over events
and outcomes. According to Hart, the control over events and outcomes approach emerges as
the best approach for the measurement of power in contemporary international politics,
“because 1) it is the only approach which takes into account the possibility of
interdependence among actors and of collective action; 2) it is more general than the other
approaches; and 3) it produces a type of analysis which has both descriptive and normative
advantages over the types of analysis which are associated with the other approache. The fact
that it may be possible to talk about power, collective action, and interdependence in the
same theoretical context should be seen as a plus for the control over events and outcomes
approach. Perhaps the most important argument in favour of power-oriented theories is that
most, if not all, contemporary actors think about international politics in terms of power.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
HARD POWER
Hard power is a very simple and intuitive form of power. It is more easily experienced than
soft power and, to a certain extent, is less costly to put into practice - relatively costly, not in
terms of economic resources employed, but in relation to the capacity to understand what
hard power requires to be used effectively. Hard power is older than soft power and manifests
itself in a very practical and concrete way. Moreover, hard power is easier to see and its
effects are easier to measure. Like soft power it not only carries on its own ideological
approach but can also be found in different contexts. “Everyone is familiar with hard power.
It can rest on inducements (carrots) or threats (sticks)”. Hard power is defined as the capacity
to get what you want through the use of economic power or through the use of military force,,
by threatening others that you will use against them your economic superiority or your
coercive capabilities. Therefore, hard power is heavily resource-based. In this sense it is a
long way from soft power since it is viewed in classical terms, as a form of power that rests
on the capacity of an actor to accumulate as many resources as are necessary to impose its
will. By “resources” we mean, in this case, physical resources in the sense of tangible things
and not intangible resources like ideas and opinions. In this sense, hard power is basically
different from soft power and radically so.
Inducement is about the economic superiority of subject A towards subject B and can be
positive or negative. This latter manifests itself in being able to impose economic sanctions.
For instance, an employer can threaten to dismiss his employee if he refuses to obey. In the
same way you can use your economic superiority to oblige people to do Soft Power: the
means to success in world politics, Public Affairs what you want them to do. It is the
capacity of A to destroy every source of subject B’s economic survival that guarantees his
obedience.
Coercion is a general category that comprises different degrees of intensity. Nonetheless,
coercion has to do with the use of force. Since “force” is a tricky concept, it is better to say
that coercion has to do with the employment of violence and: even more precisely with the
employment of physical violence. Force, in fact, can be seen as a positive feature: when you
have force, you have the capacity and the willingness to do great things; you can use your
force to obtain noble, positive outcomes that are shared.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
The basic rule of the international system is that superiorem non recognoscens, meaning that
states do not recognize any superior authority. International organizations and international
regimes On this topic see among are not considered and neither is the possibility to establish
rules and bodies to resolve disputes and conflicts. States care about their own survival. This
driving force for survival is the primary factor influencing their behavior and in turn ensures
states develop offensive military capabilities for foreign intervention and as a means to
increase their relative power. This is basically the context in which hard power operates at the
international level.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
UNDERSTANDING SOFT POWER
Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others. In the business world, smart
executives know that leadership is not just a matter of issuing commands, but also involves
leading by example and attracting others to do what you want. Similarly, contemporary
practices of community-based policing rely on making the police sufficiently friendly and
attractive that a community wants to help them achieve shared objectives. – Joseph S. Nye Jr.
If power means the ability to get (or influence directly) the outcomes one wants’ from others
(mainly by coercion or inducements) then soft power is ‘the ability to shape the preferences
of others’. If ‘the others’ want the same thing because we share the same worldview, outlook
and culture, we can enlist their power in achieving ‘our’ goal.
Examples of ‘soft power’ are the number of foreign students enrolled in the U.S., the extent
of academic exchanges, the worldwide consumption of American media products – America
as the beacon of modernity with its values of openness, mobility, individualism, pluralism,
voluntarism, and freedom. Culture – both in its ‘high brow’ and popular forms - and sports.
An ‘attractive’ foreign policy takes pride of place. He quotes approvingly former Defence
Secretary Robert McNamara: “If we can’t persuade nations with comparable values of the
merit of our cause, we’d better re-examine our reasoning.”
Modern words would be ‘political capital’ – the ability of a leader to rally the electorate
around his political goals. Image and ‘public relations’ are everyday terms for ‘soft power’.
In the business world one would use the term ‘goodwill’.
There is no doubt that image can be a very powerful tool – witness the fortunes that rock
singers obtain for just about anything they might release. Or the mark-ups that brand names
command for what is essentially a generic product. In an international negotiation a country
would have to make concessions to achieve its goals – it would be a matter of give and take.
The great advantage of using ‘soft power’ is that it ‘does not cost anything’. Using ‘soft
power’ a country need not make concessions: it simply gets its way – softly.
Accumulation of ‘soft power’ is in any case costly, difficult, and time consuming. Solid
reputations are only made over years. ’Soft power’ has its drawbacks, though: it constrains as
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
much as it enhances power. ‘Honour’ a term much used by governments of yore – dictated
unpalatable political choices by excluding e.g. the possibility of compromise. As many an
actor knows, furthermore, image is very constraining. The public expects behaviour in
conformity with the image - sudden deviance may lead to severe loss of image. Coherence
too, however, may be treacherous – solidity may be perceived as boring. The key factor is the
availability of an alternative. There may be a smouldering dissatisfaction with the situation,
but no overt revolt against it. As soon as people have a choice, they may exercise it.
Whether states should enhance their image – spend to strengthen their ‘soft power’ – is an
issue debated in the book, without clear outcome. In an ideal world ‘soft power’ would
accumulate automatically through good and convincing deeds – anything else is
‘propaganda’. Visions of crude manipulation by Nazis or Soviets come to mind. But
convincing others of one’s worth might need some pro-active doing. And in any case as any
post-modernist intellectual might cynically interject – there is no truth, just opinions. So
what’s wrong with pushing a favourable opinion?
Many countries have ‘soft power’ to a different extent – Nye reminds us. Their origins are
different, but they work in the same way as ‘soft power’ of the US. These forces may be
competitive (e.g. France and U.S.) or supportive of each other (as the duo Bush-Blair has
shown).
After all, influence is not necessarily linked to legitimacy. For instance, influence can rest on
the hard power of threats and payments. Influence is sometimes confused as an equal to
power. This is not true: if you have power, you certainly exert influence but it is not always
so the other way round. It is true that influence is often associated with the use of instruments
and methods different from the use of force or violence, but influence is to a certain extent an
unintended capacity of subject A to get something it wants from subject. It is precisely this
state of unintention that forces us to exclude the possibility of equating influence with soft
power. This latter is, in fact, something more rational and scientific. People who adopt a soft
power approach are aware that the use of certain instruments, attitudes and methods will lead
to certain results. And most importantly, those who use soft power want to get that result.
Soft power supporters value success as important as those who use hard power. And soft
power is more than just persuasion or the ability to move people by argument, though that is
an important part of it. It is also the ability to attract, and attraction often leads to
acquiescence.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
SOFT POWER RESOURCES
The soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources: its culture, its political values
and its foreign policies. Culture. It can be defined as the “set of values and practices that
create meaning for a society”; it is common to distinguish between highbrow culture, which
includes literature, art and education and popular culture, which focuses on mass
entertainment. When a country’s culture includes universal values and its policies promote
values and interests that others share, it increases the probability of obtaining its desired
outcome because of the relationship of attraction and duty that it creates. It follows that
narrow values and parochial cultures are less likely to produce soft power. For example “US
culture, low-brow or high, radiates outward with an intensity last seen in the days of the
Roman Empire, but with a novel twist. Rome’s and Soviet Russia’s cultural sway stopped
exactly at their military borders. America’s soft power, though, rules over an empire on
which the sun never sets”133. Contrary to this view, some analysts make the mistake of
treating soft power simply as popular culture; in other words, they confuse the cultural
resources with the behaviour of attraction. For instance, historian Niall Ferguson describes
soft power as “non-traditional forces, such as cultural and commercial goods” and then
dismisses it on the grounds that “it’s, well, soft”134. Of course, Coke and Big Mac do not
necessarily attract people in the Islamic world to love the United States. Moreover, the North
Korean dictator Kim Jong II is alleged to like pizza and American videos, but that does not
affect his nuclear programmes. Nevertheless, this is not to deny that popular culture is often a
resource that produces soft power, but as we know, the effectiveness of any power resource
depends on the context. To clarify, tanks are not a great military power resource in swamps or
jungles. Coal and steel are not major power resources if a country lacks an industrial base.
Finally, American films that make the United States attractive in China or Latin America may
have the opposite effect and actually reduce American soft power in Saudi Arabia or
Pakistan. As we will see in the next chapter, the background attraction and repulsion of
American popular culture in different regions and among different groups may make it easier
or more difficult for American officials to promote their policies. But commerce is only one
of the ways in which culture is transmitted. It also occurs through personal contacts, visits
and exchanges. For instance, via the minds of more than a half a million foreign students who
study every year in American universities, America can be said to export its ideas and values,
which then tend to reach the powerful elite in their home countries on their return. Political
values and policies. Government policies at home and abroad are another potential source of
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
soft power. Similarly, foreign policies strongly affect soft power. Government policies can
reinforce or squander a country’s soft power. Domestic or foreign policies that appear to be
hypocritical, arrogant, indifferent to the opinion of others or based on a narrow approach to
national interests can undermine soft power. For example, in the steep decline in the
attractiveness of the United States as measured by surveys carried out after the Iraq War in
2003, people with unfavourable views for the most part said they were reacting to the Bush
administration and its policies rather than the United States generally. Therefore, they
distinguish American people and culture from American policies. It follows that the public in
most nations continue to admire the United States for its technology, music, movies and
television. But large majorities in most countries said they disliked the growing influence of
America in their country135. Hence - Nye argues - a change in policies can produce a change
in the opinion others have of the US. Foreign Policies. The values a government champions
in its behaviour at home, in international institutions and in foreign policy strongly affect the
preferences of others. Put another way, governments can attract or repel others by the
influence of their. But soft power does not belong to the government in the same degree that
hard power does. This is another crucial difference: some hard power assets such as armed
forces are strictly governmental; others are inherently national such as oil and mineral
reserves. In contrast, soft power resources are separate from the direct control of the
government and are only partly responsive to its purposes.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
US STRATEGY OF POWER
Since the election of the new US President, the debate on US instruments of power and
influence has become particularly relevant. A new foreign policy doctrine based on the
concept of ‘smart power’ is emerging in Washington, D.C. This doctrine relies on the idea
that the combination of ‘hard power’ and ‘soft power’ will allow the US to build an
appropriate framework to tackle today’s unconventional threats. ‘Smart power’ seems to be
the keystone of the US foreign policy, a concept that can be explained as follows: Thesis:
‘hard power”, power to coerce through military, economic and financial power. Antithesis:
‘soft power’, “power to attract”, “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather
than coercion or payments” (based on the policies, culture and political ideals of one
country). Synthesis: ‘smart power’: neither ‘hard’, nor ‘soft power’, but “the skillful
combination of both”. Though the United States has tended to over-rely on ‘hard power’ over
the last few years, today there is the will to “restore the full spectrum of US national power”
by reshaping ‘soft power’ tools. The new US President intends to strike a balance between
the three ‘Ds’ – defense, diplomacy and development – by rebuilding US civilian, diplomatic
and development capacities. Such a shift in US foreign policy could constitute one of the
most significant changes in US national security strategy in decades.
At first glance, the disparity between American power and that of the rest of the world looks
overwhelming. In economic size America’s roughly one-quarter share of world economic
output is equal to the next three countries combined. In terms of soft power and cultural
prominence, the United States is far away the world’s number-one film and television
exporter. The country also attracts the most foreign students each year to its institutions of
higher education. Hence, in terms of power resources the US is well ahead, but - Nye warns -
“power measured in resources is not the same as power measured in terms of being able to
produce the outcome one wants”. Central for him and embedded in the concept of smart
power is another understanding of power, based on its capacity to influence others to produce
the outcome one wants. This kind of power depends on contexts. Nye goes on to state that
“power today is distributed among countries in a pattern that resembles a complex, three-
dimensional chess game. On the top board, military power is largely unipolar. But on the
middle board, economic power among states is already multipolar, with the United States,
Europe and Japan representing a majority of world economic output, and China’s dramatic
growth rapidly making it the fourth major player”. As a consequence on this economic board
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
“the US is not a hegemon and often must bargain as an equal”. Finally, there is the realm of
transnational relations that involve actors crossing borders outside government control.
According to Nye, “this realm includes players as diverse as bankers electronically
transferring sums larger than most national budgets, terrorists transferring black-market
weapons and hackers disrupting Internet operations”, as well as “ecological threats such as
pandemics and global climate change that can do damage on a scale equal or larger than
major wars”.144 So, because of its leading edge in the information revolution and its past
investment in traditional power resources, the United States will likely remain the world’s
single most powerful country in military, economic and soft-power terms well into the
twenty-first century. The problem for American leadership in the twenty-first century is that
there are forever more things outside the control of states, even the most powerful one. Under
the influence of the information revolution and globalisation, world politics is changing in a
way that means Americans cannot achieve all their international goals alone. Consequently,
understanding the context is of crucial importance as well as understanding the variety of
forms power can assume and the different uses of them. Power defined as “the ability to
influence the behaviour but this is no longer the case. Power has transformed itself and
changed as the contexts in which it has been exercised has changed. As a consequence there
are several ways to influence others and therefore the ways in which power can be exercised
differ greatly.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
END OF US SOFT POWER
Anti American feeling has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft power -- its
ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them --
is in decline as a result. According to Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29 countries
say that Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view of the United States.
A Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believes that Washington has
hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, and maintain peace. Such
attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United States to achieve its goals
without resorting to coercion or payment.
Skeptics of soft power (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld professes not even to
understand the term) claim that popularity is ephemeral and should not guide foreign policy.
The United States, they assert, is strong enough to do as it wishes with or without the world's
approval and should simply accept that others will envy and resent it. The world's only
superpower does not need permanent allies; the issues should determine the coalitions, not
vice-versa, according to Rumsfeld.
But the recent decline in U.S. attractiveness should not be so lightly dismissed. It is true that
the United States has recovered from unpopular policies in the past (such as those regarding
the Vietnam War), but that was often during the Cold War, when other countries still feared
the Soviet Union as the greater evil. It is also true that the United States' sheer size and
association with disruptive modernity make some resentment unavoidable today. But wise
policies can reduce the antagonisms that these realities engender. Indeed, that is what
Washington achieved after World War II: it used soft-power resources to draw others into a
system of alliances and institutions that has lasted for 60 years. The Cold War was won with
a strategy of containment that used soft power along with hard power.
The United States cannot confront the new threat of terrorism without the cooperation of
other countries. Of course, other governments will often cooperate out of self-interest. But the
extent of their cooperation often depends on the attractiveness of the United States.
Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining
outcomes the United States wants. When Washington discounts the importance of its
attractiveness abroad, it pays a steep price. When the United States becomes so unpopular
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
that being pro-American is a kiss of death in other countries' domestic politics, foreign
political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions (witness the defiance of Chile,
Mexico, and Turkey in March 2003). And when U.S. policies lose their legitimacy in the eyes
of others, distrust grows, reducing U.S. leverage in international affairs.
Some hard-line skeptics might counter that, whatever its merits, soft power has little
importance in the current war against terrorism; after all, Osama bin Laden and his followers
are repelled, not attracted, by American culture and values. But this claim ignores the real
metric of success in the current war, articulated in Rumsfeld's now-famous memo that was
leaked in February 2003: "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more
terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and
deploying against us?"
The current struggle against Islamist terrorism is not a clash of civilizations; it is a contest
closely tied to the civil war raging within Islamic civilization between moderates and
extremists. The United States and its allies will win only if they adopt policies that appeal to
those moderates and use public diplomacy effectively to communicate that appeal. Yet the
world's only superpower, and the leader in the information revolution, spends as little on
public diplomacy as does France or the United Kingdom -- and is all too often outgunned in
the propaganda war by fundamentalists hiding in caves.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
CONCLUSION
Power as a relative capacity (we then say someone or some state is more powerful than
another state). The most powerful state in this regard would be a superpower, hyper power,
even Empire; through to middle powers; small states; microstates; to failing states where the
state has no capacity because it has imploded.There are American problems: how can one
ensure that smart is not seen by too many people in the USA as being ‘soft’? Will the USA be
seen as being soft and not smart both by enemies and allies. Then there is a European
problem: one can see the appeal, but does it tie the EU too much to yet another American
debate? Can Europe not have concepts of its own? Is there something rather parasitic here? Is
it also tying the EU to something that is still being contested in the USA?.
Political Science II IV Trimester Manasvi Tewari
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
1. Political Science in Contemporary World Politics – NCERT textbook for class XII
2. Given Course Material
PDF
1. Power and Its Forms: Hard, Soft, Smart by Matteo Pallaver
Websites
1. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2004-05-01/decline-americas-soft-power
2. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-29536648
3. https://zainabkhawaja.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/the-concept-of-power-in-
political-science/
4. http://study.com/academy/lesson/political-power-definition-types-sources.html
