The hard truths about soft power

Abstract

While the concept of soft power has rapidly moved from the academic theory to ubiquitous political buzzword, it has, to this point, not received adequate critical assessment. Because of this, the soft power has been misused and misunderstood despite the cautions of its proponents. This article attempts to provide a critical analysis of soft power, developing a rigorous epiction of its conceptual core, delineating its scope and limitations, and uncovering implicit assumptions and implications that have thus far served to confuse, rather than clarify the soft power's theoretical and practical contributions.

China's recruitment of African university students: policy efficacy and unintended outcomes

“…Critics assert that it is a chaotic conception, encompassing different mechanisms that operate through discrete pathways (Hall 2010). Arguably, the catch-all quality of the term may in part explain its popularity (Kearn 2011). Moreover, tracing observable causeÁeffect linkages and outcomes is problematic (Heng 2010).…”

Brazil’s Soft-Power Strategy: The Political Aspirations of South–South Development Cooperation

“…Various observers, such as Bially Mattern (2005) and Kearn (2011), have highlighted the lack of clarity in Nye's notion of soft power when it comes to distinguishing its different manifestations: it is considered a natural condition (the country or agent already has a stockpile of values and successes, which consequently generates attraction), a behaviour or behavioural outcome (the actions a country takes to improve its image) and an outcome (the power that is translated into legitimacy and credibility given by the subject). Because Nye introduces two levels of soft power by viewings a country's attraction as both a natural condition and a social construct, there has been little analytical development regarding the role of actors and the 'how' of soft power (Lukes 2005).…”

“…This represents the major difference between great and middle powers: the first traditionally use their coercive capabilities, while the second tend to favour the use of soft power (Gratius 2007). However, in its empirical application, academics have pointed to the misunderstandings that have arisen from varying conceptualisations of soft power, ranging from the resources used, the results obtained, and changes in a subject's perception or an agent's behaviour (Vuving 2009, Kearn 2011, Hayden 2012).…”

The production of soft power: practising solidarity in Brazilian South–South development projects

“…A key challenge in this debate is to obtain more empirical data about Brazilian project implementation, which in this article means describing how three Brazilian bilateral projects are conceived. In terms of soft power analysis, because there is confusion between expressions of soft power in the resources used and the agent's behaviour, academics have called for more studies of the actual expressions and production of attraction in the way these maintain or change perceptions in the targets' minds (Bilgin and Elis 2008;Kearn 2011). As Kearn (2011, 66) points out, before the soft power concept becomes a "buzz word" in public diplomacy, it is important to understand what it is, "how it works, and the conditions under which it is most likely to be influential".…”