Socialized soft power: recasting analytical path and public diplomacy
- PDF / 666,165 Bytes
- 28 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 59 Downloads / 196 Views
Socialized soft power: recasting analytical path and public diplomacy Yooil Bae1 · Yong Wook Lee2
© Springer Nature Limited 2019
Abstract Soft power debate has not analytically moved beyond the questions of whether soft power matters and of whether soft power can work independent of hard power since Nye’s initial formulation. Furthermore, the question of how a state selects the source(s) of its soft power remains silent in the literature. This neglect leads to the underspecification of the nature and content of a given state’s soft power policy. In this article, we fill in these gaps by recasting the conventional understanding of soft power conceptually and analytically. Conceptually, we make the case that soft power should be understood as a form of productive power for its conceptual and analytical distinction. On the basis of this reformulation, we specify an analytical framework that helps map out how a state determines the sources of its soft power. The crux of the framework is the notion of ‘dual process’ of international recognition and domestic self-identification mutually informing and reinforcing each other for the identification of a specific source of a given state’s soft power. We illustrate the analytical framework with an empirical example of South Korea’s launch and consolidation of its new ODA policy, Knowledge Sharing Program. Keywords Soft power · Productive power · Self–other identification · Public diplomacy · Development assistance · South Korea · Knowledge sharing
* Yong Wook Lee [email protected] Yooil Bae [email protected] 1
Fulbright School of Public Policy and Management, Fulbright University Vietnam, 232/6 Vo Thi Sau, District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2
Department of Political Science and International Relations, Korea University, 5‑1 Anam‑Dong, Seongbuk‑Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Vol.:(0123456789)
Y. Bae, Y. W. Lee
Introduction Joseph Nye’s coinage and successful popularisation of the concept of soft power have garnered both accolades and opposition and have undoubtedly contributed to the burgeoning field of academic research and public debates on public diplomacy (Snow and Taylor 2008). At the same time, the concept has been accused of conceptual ambiguity and the associated impracticality of using it as a policy tool (Layne 2010; Lock 2010; Hayden 2012). Critics argue that the concept remains blurry analytically and practically so long as it fails to address adequately two interrelated questions: Can soft power work without hard power basis? If so, what is (are) the distinctive analytical path(s) through which soft power operates to achieve a policy goal? Put another way, Nye’s notion of soft power is conceptually and analytically not clear enough to explain when, and how, soft power produces its effect distinctively without what we term ‘hard-power contamination’ (or hard power overshadowing soft power).1 For example, a donor’s promotion of cultural and political values (such as human rights) can be understood by a target state as coercive cultural imperialis
Data Loading...
