Traversing the soft/hard power binary: the case of the Sino-Japanese territorial dispute

Abstract

Soft power and hard power are conceptualised in International Relations as empirically and normatively dichotomous, and practically opposite – one intangible, attractive, and legitimate, the other tangible, coercive, and less legitimate. This article critiques this binary conceptualisation, arguing that it is discursively constructed with and for the construction of Self and Other. It further demonstrates that practices commonly labelled and understood as soft power and hard power are closely interconnected. Best understood as ‘representational force’ and ‘physical force’ respectively, soft and hard power intertwine through the operation of productive and disciplinary forms of power. We illustrate this argument by analysing the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Both governments exercise representational force in constructing their respective versions of events and Self/Other. The soft/hard power binary itself plays a performative role as the Self is typically associated with soft power and the Other with hard power. The operation of productive power, moreover, privileges the attractiveness of the former and the repellence of the latter, and disciplinary power physically enforces these distinctions on subjects in both states. Finally, reinforced Self/Other distinctions legitimise preparations for violence against the Other on both sides, thus exposing how fundamentally entangled soft and hard power are in practice.

Struggling for Recognition? Strategic Disrespect in China’s Pursuit of Soft Power

“…In any case, the PRC appears to strategically maximize China's identity and reduce those of others. This is similar to what Hagstöm and Pan [19] suggest in their recent study. The gist of the discourse is to present the Self as a soft power and the Other as a hard power.…”

“…To further enhance the 'Self', the practitioners also 'Other' the West. In fact, I suggest that the PRC soft power discourse depicts the Self (China) as a soft power and the Other (the West) as a hard power, which is in line with the recent findings of Hagström and Pan [19]. Many practitioners of the soft power-related discourse also seek to destabilize the Western Self.…”

“…Echoing the more subtle points raised above by Xi, the notion of a decadent globalization and a corrupt Western culture is frequently highlighted by Chinese state media, often in opinion pieces by Chinese academics, who are quick to point out any shortcomings of Western powers, in particular the USA, in global conduct and preferably in the context of globalization. The discursive practice was recently carried out in the Global Times by Professor Cheng Yawen: 19 "[Globalization] is an instrument that induces weaker states to obey the will of the stronger ones. Globalism is keen on promoting universal values, taking the moral high ground, blaming countries whose actions do not accord with universal values and even intervening militarily in some nations."…”

Ontological (In)Security and Neoliberal Governmentality: Explaining Australia's China Emergency

“…120 In this way, domestic discontent against the state can be more easily managed because "[t]hose who cross the boundary by choosing the 'wrong' side are […] met with an ontological threat". 121 For instance, those who criticise Australia's China policy and call for "nuanced" diplomacy and pragmatism have been routinely branded as part of the "China lobby", and accused of undermining "Team Australia" or "selling soul" for "Chinese money". 122 Even more importantly, perhaps, the China narrative directly helps strengthen the regulatory power of the neoliberal state in general and the national security apparatus in particular.…”

Disciplinary power: Text and body in the Swedish NATO debate

“…As such, disciplinary power targets and seeks to control distinct bodies that inhabit what can be construed as the national self (Agius and Edenborg, 2019: 58), punishing the bodies of those who do not side with the emerging construction of the self or who fail to disavow the other clearly enough (Hoffman, 2011: 28). I expect such people to be lumped together and made abnormal along with the other, but they may also be subjected to verbal or physical sanctions such as direct threats, phyical violence or forced resignation (Hagström and Pan, 2020). For instance, the scholars and journalists who did not clearly support the dominant self/other representations mobilised in support of the US ‘war on terror’ were exposed to various types of discipline (Bruneau and Turk, 2004).…”