| |
On Soft Power - Political Communication
Media, Terrorism, and the “Other”
1.Introduction soft power
2. Terrorism and soft power
2.1 Terrorism—hard power
2.2 Implications of soft power by terrorism
3. Hard power and soft power
3.1 Relationship of soft and hard power
3.2 Implications for us
4.Conclusion
On Soft Power
1.Introduction soft power
According to Joseph Nye（2004）, soft power can be understood
as follows: “… When one country gets other countries to want
what it wants… in contrast with the hard or command power
of ordering others to do what it wants.” (75). To be more
specific, soft power is “the ability of a country to structure
a situation so that other countries develop preferences or
define their interests in ways consistent with its own” (77).
To sum up, soft power s power as exercised through technology,
value-added skills, diplomacy, economic growth, communication,
and culture.
Nye’s definition of soft power is against a dominant school
of thought in political science known as "realism” that
views global politics as a competition between states for
power in a conflict-ridden and unstable world: the accumulation
of power is the goal of realist foreign policy. (Black, 2-5)
Different from that, Nye believes that non-state political
actors have come to a position of power increasingly greater
than that of states. It is the realists’ emphasis on state
power that makes critics blind to the emergent "soft"
nature of power and the role of non-state agents in global
politics.
From the perspective of realists, the object of power was
the control of resources (e.g., people, energy, land, sea
routes) and other states while from that of Nye, the object
of power is to control the outcomes of various actions, patterns,
and behaviors, thereby influencing the direction of events
so as to benefit one's collective national self-interest.
(Black, 2-5)
Richard Gwyn is one of Canada's most respected political
journalists and authors. In this article from the January
2005 Toronto Star, Gwyn argues that "soft power"
is a tool that is more complicated and less reliable than
Joseph Nye, the author of the "soft power" concept
and the reading in our package, would suggest. Gwyn's article
invites a three-part question.
(i) In an essay, and after reading Gwyn's article, argue
for or against Gwyn's thesis as it's stated in the following
paragraph:
"Soft power, though, needs to be hard itself. This is
to say that soft power has to be wielded efficiently and it
has to be well-financed. Otherwise it becomes little more
than self-indulgent and self-congratulatory niceness. It can
also become an excuse for avoiding the hard, and sometimes
risky, decisions that are involved in exercising actual hard
power."
Demonstrate your knowledge of the soft power material in
the unit notes and in Nye in your answer.
(ii) Terrorism is a form of hard power that, nonetheless,
is very much concerned to communicate something to a larger
public. It's a form of hard power, in other words, that is
sensitive and interested in soft power-related issues: communication,
influence, drawing attention to a cause or grievance. In your
answer to (i), draw on Karim's chapter, "Violence and
the Media," in evaluating Gwyn's argument, and with particular
reference to what terrorism - a timely topic for our terrified
age - has to teach us about soft power.
(iii) Machiavelli's chapter from The Prince, "How A
Prince Should Conduct Himself As To Gain Renown," is
itself a reflection on the significance of image and reputation
- soft power, as it were - and its relationship to the hard
power that is Machiavelli's concern throughout The Prince.
In your response to Gwyn's article, draw on Machiavelli's
observations on soft power in the 640 excerpt from The Prince
in your answer. Ask yourself as you write, based on the excerpt
you read: what would Machiavelli have to say about the relationship
of soft and hard power? What can we learn from Machiavelli
on this issue?
|
