Social Power vs. Soft Power in the Realm of Foreign Policy

Joseph Nye describes soft power as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.” As the world advances to a globalized community with greater access to communication tools, soft power has become a dominant force in every day life. However, is soft power the best term in foreign policy makers? In the sphere of foreign policy, social power can better categorize the actions and intentions of foreign policy makers.

Soft power focuses more on the diffusion of culture, political ideals, and policies, which can help promote a state’s international image, but in the realm of foreign policy, soft power is too passive. Social power on the other hand, which Van Ham describes as “the ability to set standards and create norms and values that are deemed legitimate and desirable without resorting to coercion or payment” is more suited to the realm of foreign policy making as it takes more of an active role.  Social power is more proactive as it advocates new standards, norms, and values, which is a large part of foreign policy making. Soft power is more “being “ than “doing”, and traditional foreign policy methods encourage direct behavior in achieving certain objectives.

Soft power has 3 key limitations that might deter foreign policy makers: the issue of time, control, and credibility. Soft power is a central aspect to foreign policy and public diplomacy efforts, but the effectiveness of soft power is difficult to measure and most often the effects seen after long periods of time. As Wilton indicates, soft power can be difficult for policy makers as  “it offers less scope than harder instruments to demonstrate achievements in foreign policy goals”. As is such, soft power results offer the long term do not serve well for the short-term elected officials who often demand short-term accomplished goals to promote to the public.

Once soft power has been unleashed, it is difficult to control it as the “success in terms of outcome is more in the control of the target than often the case with hard power” (Nye). The diffusion of a certain culture or government policy leaves the perception and opinion to the targeted audience. Whether it is received positively or negatively depends on the public. For foreign policy makers, the lack of control on the outcome of an initiative rooted in soft power is difficult to grasp.

In order for soft power to be effective, the perception of credibility/legitimacy by the public is paramount. If the people do not legitimately recognize a state often, its attempt of soft power is viewed as propaganda efforts to influence the public. The role of the government is to empower the citizens to create communication lines to increase the powers of attraction. Also, as soft power needs the cooperation of international players such as NGO’s, trans and supranational network, legitimacy first needs to be established.

Soft power can be an effective tool, but might not be the best term to adequately apply to the foreign policy realm. As social power supports a greater sense of advocacy and the establishment of international norms it is better suited. Van Ham’s assessment of social power in the international realm is very comprehensive but he lacks a clear distinction between soft power and social power. Soft power though a great tool for promoting ideas can also be very limiting to policy makers in the issue of time, control, and legitimacy.