By: Ananya Singh
The author is a third-year B.A. LLB student at the Jindal Global Law School of Jindal Global
University. She can be reached at 22jgls-asingh10@jgu.edu.in
Introduction
Since its popularisation by Joseph Nye in the 1980s, the concept of soft power—a persuasive
influence that enhances a nation-state’s impact—has been framed as a hidden hand for states to
establish power in the international arena. Soft power in the modern world of geopolitics has
become a representation of a nation’s cultural significance, political values, and foreign policy.
Politics at any level can be understood to be a pursuit of power. Power has been understood in
terms of a country’s military and economic strength, but there are elements, even out of the realm
of politics, that further a country’s ability to influence the world around it, such as Bollywood
and K-Pop.
In the post-colonial, post-war world order of the 20th century, soft power was framed to be a
legitimate way to maintain a smart hand, However, if analysed carefully, it is evident the ‘ace’ of
soft power may be less of a trump card and more of a feather in the cap. The heft of a state’s
cultural reputation and influence has not been as effective in transforming its international
leverage.
This paper seeks to critically examine the evolving role of soft power in contemporary
international relations, illustrating the waning efficacy of its role in the face of emerging
geopolitical realities. Through a theoretical analysis and examination of relevant case studies,
this paper aims to elucidate the factors contributing to the diminishing scope of soft power and
explore the implications for future diplomatic strategies.
Theoretical Framework
To understand soft power, it is crucial to juxtapose it with realist theories of international
relations. Realism, as articulated by scholars such as Hans Morgenthau (1948) and Kenneth
Waltz (1979), posits that states operate in an anarchic international system where power –
articulated in military and economic terms– is the key determinant of outcomes. From this
perspective, soft power might be seen as a secondary consideration, and potentially irrelevant in
matters of high politics and national security.
Nye's concept of soft power challenged this view by suggesting that attraction and co-option can
be as effective as coercion in achieving foreign policy objectives. Soft power derives from a
country's culture, its political values, and its foreign positioning. This form of power operates
through channels such as public diplomacy, cultural exchanges, and the global appeal of a
nation's political ideals. Recent global developments have reignited this debate, such as the resurgence of hypernationalism, conflicts rising tensions between nations weakening of multilateral institutions, indicating the waning of Soft power as a driver in geopolitics.
The Good Turns of Soft Power
Nye’s arguments have proven their weight, in an interdependent global sphere, good reputation
and influence car heft. A notable case is Taiwan, which has successfully leveraged soft power
to enhance its international standing despite its precarious geopolitical position. Taiwan's soft
power strategy has focused on promoting its democratic values and technological innovations.
The country's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, characterised by transparency and effective
public health measures, significantly boosted its global reputation. By donating medical supplies
to other countries, Taiwan further enhanced its soft power despite not being ‘recognized’ as a
sovereign nation.
Another example is South Korea's successful use of cultural exports, often referred to as the
"Korean Wave" or "Hallyu," to enhance its global influence. Through strategic investments in its
entertainment industry, South Korea has significantly increased its cultural soft power, leading to
economic benefits and improved diplomatic relations with many countries. Using their
proliferating pop culture, These cases prove that targeted and well-executed soft power strategies yield significant results, particularly when aligned with broader national objectives.
Limitations
However, these instances can be countered by examples that indicate the limitations of soft power as a central measure of foreign policy. The USA has been the leading global soft power. With its media, entertainment, educational and cultural richness, the USA has established its cultural impact worldwide. Yet with the rise of other powers such as Russia and China, American cultural influence has not been able to affect any improvement in either of the bilateral relations. US-Russia and US-China relations show no signs of softening and American influence has been strongly rejected by both states. Both reject American influence in the soft realm and consequently, America seeks to maintain its dominance through its hard power elements.
Similarly, while India has considerable soft power due to its historical and cultural legacy and
avowed pacifism, the cold reality of geo-politics has forced its hands viz-a-viz Pakistan which is
influenced by Indian culture, especially cinema and music.
The Realist Demands
The notion of soft power primacy in a realist world is in essence contrarian, and recent global
developments illustrate the waning of the soft and the primacy of the hard for an effective
external strategy.
For example, in the South China Sea, the host of disputed claims over the resource-rich area
between China, Brunei, Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, has witnessed China
establishing its supremacy through sheer force. Through its ‘nine-dash line’ it has utterly
disregarded the UNCLOS, notwithstanding the other countries’ abundant soft power.
Conversely, Taiwan reflects the very same principle, from the other side. Despite its abundant
soft power, the country is hard-pressed to even be acknowledged as a sovereign nation (even
India does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan). Taiwan is a case study of soft power being
trumped by hard power.
India has striven hard to present itself as soft power, But geo-political realities have driven it
towards a greater hard power stance reflected in larger, stronger military and strategic
alignments like the Quad partnership with the United States, Japan, and Australia. While India's
soft power remains an asset, particularly in cultural diplomacy and the global spread of its
diaspora, it is increasingly seen as supplementary to its growing military and economic power.
These case studies collectively illustrate a broader trend of hard power re-emerging as the
principal measure of a state's influence.
A Changing Landscape
Many factors can have impacted this transition. The rise of nationalism has made it more
difficult for nations to exert soft power across borders. The backlash against globalisation has
similarly reduced the appeal of cosmopolitan values and international cooperation, key elements
of many soft power strategies.
Ideological divide polarisation is evident in the growing rift between democratic and
authoritarian systems of governance, as well as in the intensifying great power competition
between the United States and China.
Moreover, the proliferation of digital media and the rise of disinformation campaigns have made it
increasingly difficult for nations to control their international image and narratives. While social
media platforms and digital technologies offer new avenues for cultural exchange and public
diplomacy, they also provide channels for the rapid spread of misinformation and propaganda.
This dual nature of digital media has made the soft power landscape more complex and
unpredictable.
Soft Power as a Supplement
Just as India has not disavowed its soft policies, the shifting sphere doesn’t imply its irrelevance
and redundancy. Nye himself postulated that soft power is not necessarily meant to exist in
opposition to hard power. The global sphere does not function in a binary, and influences of soft
power manifest over decades and subtly. This also raises the question: Was soft power ever
intended to be an enduring force on par with hard power, or was it conceived as a supplementary
tool to mitigate the negative perceptions associated with overt displays of military and economic
might?
An analysis of Nye's writings indicates that soft power was designed to address a key limitation
of hard power: its inability to foster genuine goodwill and voluntary cooperation among nations.
In this light, soft power can be seen as a means of enhancing the overall effectiveness of a
nation's foreign policy by making its hard power more palatable and legitimate in the eyes of
other nations. This complimentary application was later coined as the concept of ‘Smart Power’
a skilful combination of both theories in practice to maximise a state’s influence materially and
culturally legitimately and agreeably.
Conclusion
While soft power remains a valuable concept, its practical effectiveness has been challenged by
Recent geopolitical developments have favoured more traditional hard power approaches.
However, this does not negate the value of soft power entirely. Rather, it highlights the need for a
more nuanced understanding of how different forms of power interact and complement each
other in the international arena. The concept of smart power, which emphasises the strategic
integration of soft and hard power elements, may offer a more realistic framework for
understanding and leveraging influence in today's complex global environment.
As nations navigate an increasingly volatile and uncertain world, the future of soft power will
likely depend on its ability to adapt to these new realities. This may involve strategies that can
effectively combine soft power initiatives with other forms of influence.
The challenge for scholars and policymakers alike is to develop a more comprehensive and
nuanced approach to power that can navigate the complexities of the contemporary global
landscape.
References
Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153–171. https://doi.org/10.2307/1148580
the nature of realism. Oxford Academic. (n.d.).
Li, E. (2018, August 20). The rise and fall of soft power. Foreign Policy.
The globalisation of politics: American foreign policy for a new century. (2016, July 28). Brookings.
(n.d.). U.S.- CHINA | ECONOMIC and SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION.
Navigating fissures in an evolving global landscape. (2024, April 29). orfonline.org.
Nye, J. S. (2009). Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power. Foreign Affairs, 88(4), 160–163.
Dargiel, J. (2009, June 22). 'Smart power': A change in U.S. diplomacy strategy. E-International
Jansson, P. (2018). Smartness as prudence: smart power and classical realism. Journal of Political Power,
11(3), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2018.1523317
The views expressed in this article are those of the author (s). They do not reflect the views or opinions of Diplomania or its members.
Comments