[By Guancha Net Columnist Wei Zhan Meng]
According to Harvard Kennedy School's local message on May 7, renowned international relations theorist and the proponent of the "soft power" concept, Joseph Nye (Joseph Nye), passed away recently at the age of 88.
Joseph Nye first proposed the concept of "soft power" in 1990, defining it as "the ability to influence other countries not through force but through attraction and persuasion." Soft power stems from factors such as a country's cultural appeal, political values, and the legitimacy of its foreign policy.
Nye's concept quickly entered China and garnered attention. In the 1990s, when Chinese scholars translated and introduced Nye's theories, although a few scholars held critical views, most found that Nye's advocacy of "leading by virtue" coincided with the traditional Confucian "rule by virtue" concept. The Chinese proverb "righteousness wins many allies, while unrighteousness leaves one isolated" aligns with soft power, emphasizing the role of morality in gaining support.
Famous international relations theorist and the proponent of the "soft power" concept, Joseph Nye, passed away recently at the age of 88. Harvard Kennedy School of Government
In 2007, the Chinese government officially proposed to "enhance the country's cultural soft power." It can be said that China's enhancement of comprehensive national strength and international influence over the past 20 years is closely related to the借鉴 of Nye's soft power ideas. From promoting Confucius Institutes to developing external cultural exchanges and shaping "Chinese stories," China actively uses culture and values to enhance its international image.
Especially during the inward-looking period of the Trump administration in the United States, China has declared itself as an advocate of globalization and multilateral cooperation, hoping to shape a great power image through soft power. On the occasion of Nye's passing, his theoretical legacy deserves China's remembrance, and we should sincerely thank him.
Do Not Deify Soft Power: Reflections on Soft Power
Although the concept of soft power has had a profound impact and was once regarded as a panacea for leadership, both China and the United States have experienced certain degrees of misunderstanding and exaggeration in practice. In recent years, many strategic experts have begun to reflect; indeed, we should attach importance to soft power, but we must not deify it or overly depend on it.
Soft power is important, but ultimately just one part of a nation's power structure. There are boundaries to the role of soft power. Hard power—economic and military strength—is still the core element in great power competition. If there is an unrealistic fantasy about soft power and neglect of hard power construction, it often leads to costs in international competition.
Since the end of the Cold War, American foreign policies have always swung to extremes, either overly emphasizing hard power and abusing force, consuming national resources, or overly relying on soft power, attempting to maintain American security through value output. But both approaches have failed.
Misunderstanding One: Emphasizing Soft Power While Neglecting Hard Power
The concept of soft power was proposed by Joseph Nye at a time when the Cold War was nearing its end. At that time, the American academic community and political circles had expectations for the "peace dividend." Nye believed that under the trend of globalization, "great powers can no longer achieve their goals solely through traditional military power," advocating the use of cultural values and institutional attractiveness to maintain America's leadership position. However, this concept became popular precisely because of America's then superpower hard power. This is akin to everyone living in the air but ignoring its importance.
During the Clinton administration, the U.S. promoted liberal democratic values and economic globalization, hoping that the charm of America's system would lead to the "end of history." However, history soon proved that soft power alone cannot replace the foundation of hard power. Important strategic achievements during the Clinton era were all achieved through hard power. Without the support of hard power, American diplomacy would falter at every step.
Abe Greenwald once pointed out, "During Nye's 'intangible forces' had almost no effect in governance during Clinton's tenure; traditional hard power remained the key to compelling cooperation and maintaining American dominance."
After George W. Bush took office, the U.S. suffered the September 11 attacks, and his foreign policy exhibited a series of contradictory phenomena. During the anti-terrorism war, Bush once neglected the importance of soft power, excessively relying on naked military force. This not only caused significant depletion of American hard power but also weakened America's international reputation. After the anti-terrorism war encountered setbacks, he again overly relied on soft power, believing that America could achieve various strategic objectives by continuously exporting values and instigating 'color revolutions.' However, contrary to his intentions, the U.S. experienced a double loss of soft and hard power during Bush's era, with the 2008 financial crisis marking the beginning of American decline and political polarization.
During Obama's administration, efforts were made to correct the image damage of previous administrations, proposing the "smart power" strategy, advocating the combination of soft power and hard power. Although Obama's foreign policy achieved some results, it did not truly reduce external intervention, and thus did not reverse the trend of American decline. The U.S. economy indeed recovered and continued to develop, but excessive external intervention depleted American hard power, reducing the overall wealth of the nation and exacerbating the wealth gap within the country. Additionally, Obama took American "political correctness" to a distorted level, causing serious problems in the country's ethnic structure and laying the groundwork for greater domestic conflicts.
In the Biden era, the U.S. has raised the banner of democratic values, repaired alliances, and pushed soft power tools to the extreme. However, it must be noted that the true bottleneck facing the U.S. today is not simply that "others no longer yearn for America," but rather the depletion of hard power due to years of warfare and domestic constraints. For example, the U.S. government's expenditure on repaying interest on public debt in the 2024 fiscal year has already exceeded the defense budget for the year—the massive debt interest is squeezing resources used to maintain military strength and technological investment. Biden's foreign policy has achieved some successes, but the decline of hard power is insufficient to sustain the sustainability of soft power tools.
During the Obama administration, then Secretary of State Hillary proposed the concept of "smart power."
It can be seen that the principle of prioritizing hard power has never been outdated in international competition. As Nye himself admitted, "Soft power can never replace hard power; the key lies in cleverly complementing the two." Soft power can only enhance existing strengths but cannot create new ones. However, valuing hard power does not mean abusing force; reducing external interference,韬光养晦, hiding brilliance and nurturing potential, accumulating strength for future use, is the way of a strong nation.
Misunderstanding Two: Equating Soft Power with Free Democratic Values
The second common misunderstanding of soft power is equating it simply with the export of American values. For a long time, many Western discourses have viewed free democracy and human rights as the sole source of soft power, as if only Western ideologies possess the magic to attract others. However, soft power is not exclusive to the U.S., nor is it limited to any single value system; different civilizations and institutional models may each nurture their own forms of soft power.
Russia excels in using unique soft power strategies to maintain influence. Since 2012, Russia has established a unique universal value system, employing various strategies targeting specific audiences to attract recognition from the citizens of other countries. Research has summarized Russia's soft power into four aspects: First, Russia's long history and culture; second, nostalgia for the Soviet legacy; third, contemporary Russia's conservative and anti-Western values; fourth, Russia's fighting spirit on the international stage.
With these elements, Russia has fostered recognition among specific groups in Western countries. For example, Russia's advocacy of traditional family values and Orthodox Christian values resonates with some conservative societies. Through media promotion and diplomatic practices, certain political parties and their voter representatives in Western countries have come to view Russia as a spiritual home. This non-Western-oriented soft power has been termed "sharp power" by Western scholars. However, this term carries value bias; in fact, it operates in the same manner as America's approach to influencing other countries through free democratic values, following similar paths.
Consider East Asia's South Korea. As a non-Western democratic country, South Korea has achieved a rise in soft power over decades through cultural charm. The global popularity of "Hallyu" (Korean Wave) has deeply embedded the South Korean image through K-pop, Korean dramas, films, and other cultural products. 2020 was considered the most successful year for South Korea's soft power. On one hand, South Korea earned widespread praise for its outstanding performance in combating the pandemic; on the other hand, its film "Parasite" won an Oscar award, and the pop band BTS dominated the European and American music charts, significantly elevating South Korea's international prestige and adding powerful new tools to its soft power toolbox.
South Korea's case demonstrates that even countries with smaller scales can greatly enhance their attractiveness and international standing by excelling in creative culture and social governance, provided they have unique features in these areas.
This shows that equating soft power simply with American values is narrow-minded. While American mainstream values undoubtedly constitute an important source of soft power, they are far from the only form. The sources of soft power are diverse. Civilizational diversity means that different countries can explore suitable paths for their own soft power. Any culture or system has the potential to inspire, and as long as a suitable strategy is formulated, it can succeed.
On May 31, 2022, former U.S. President Joe Biden invited the South Korean boy band BTS to visit the White House.
Indeed, American values are not universally accepted in some regions and may even provoke resistance. For instance, Nye himself admitted that American soft power influence is much weaker in the Middle East than in other regions. The failure of internal governance in the U.S. and the pursuit of impractical "political correctness" will ultimately harm the appeal of free democratic values. Meanwhile, China's economic development model, Russia's conservative values, and Islamic world religious culture each have a certain "fan base." Every country may combine its own advantages to shape a discourse charm distinct from the West.
Misunderstanding Three: Equating Soft Power with National Image
In Chinese literature, soft power is often equated with national image and public relations. However, there are subtle differences between them, and there is no direct connection between national image and soft power. For example, some countries have high resident quality, good environment, high levels of social governance, and a good international image, yet they do not provide other countries with a unique and emulatable set of values. Nye particularly emphasized that soft power refers to the emulation of certain unique values by the governments or people of other countries.
Nye intended to discuss how soft power refers to the ability to influence, assimilate, and shape other countries using culture and values. Specifically, soft power refers to the power to assimilate other countries, sway and change their desires, and absorb their emulation and reliance on American culture and values. This power often comes from cultural and ideological appeal, the ability to formulate international mechanisms and dominate international systems, and the ability to change other countries' choices to serve American goals. However, some scholars, when using this concept, have expanded its scope, even suggesting that non-national administrative units might possess some soft power, which deviates significantly from Nye's original intent.
Nye's soft power and Gramsci's concept of "cultural hegemony" express the same logic; the former is a positive description of this phenomenon from an American perspective, while the latter is a critical expression. Cultural hegemony is an invisible force, and most people consider it "common sense," so they neither notice it nor resist it. Other countries seeking soft power must oppose American cultural hegemony, as they are inversely proportional.
Today, many countries are trying to emphasize unique values distinct from those of the U.S., escape American cultural control, and promote their own ideas worldwide, such as France, Turkey, India, Russia, and South Korea.
It is worth noting that when a country overly relies on soft power methods, its internal political and social structures may also suffer damage. The success of soft power is based on the absence of severe economic, political, and social problems within the country. In Western countries, overly believing in the soft power of liberal democracy without addressing domestic issues will backfire on its political system. If one cannot strengthen oneself, then one will deform or even shatter.
This is because the Western-dominated international order and liberal democratic society inherently have high openness. If domestic social contradictions escalate to a certain degree, alternative values and political forces will gain rapid growth opportunities through this openness. Especially when an alternative value system is fully discussed and successfully practiced in other countries, its soft power can continue to influence the domestic political order of Western countries. This will lead Western politicians to resort to "pan-securitization" measures to exclude the soft power of other countries, but the result will be the destruction of the free democratic value system in Western countries, and internal political struggles will enter a vicious cycle.
How to Formulate the Correct Soft Power Strategy: Some Insights
If we can avoid the three misunderstandings above, we can objectively understand world patterns and better formulate soft power strategies. When national resources and capabilities are abundant, both hard and soft power should be valued simultaneously. When national resources and capabilities are limited, hard power should be developed first, followed by soft power. Even when a country is very strong in both hard and soft power, it should be vigilant against misusing both, and we should learn from America's lessons.
Insight One: Understand the Cyclical Nature of America's Hard and Soft Power Changes
From a broad historical trend, America's decline and the multipolarization of the world are inevitable. However, in discussing America's decline, we should proceed cautiously in the short term and make judgments only after observing international affairs for a longer period. America's relative decline may be a cyclical fluctuation, not yet irreversible.
Trump's decision to close the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was criticized as "self-mutilation," providing China with an excellent opportunity to enhance its soft power.
Nye once reminded us not to prematurely declare the "end of the American Century"—America has repeatedly risen from adversity and still has good conditions for revitalization in the future. America's temporary decline in soft power may create an illusion affecting our judgment. China should recognize America's strategic inertia in alternating between hard and soft power, not underestimate its self-adjustment capabilities.
America has historically alternated between soft and hard power strategies: on one hand, exporting values and institutional charm; on the other hand, resorting to force to maintain hegemony. For example, McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt expanded American territory extensively, while Wilson later advocated international morality and international law. These seemingly contradictory ideas are actually inherited. After World War II and the end of the Cold War, America twice led the world order, first defeating opponents through strong hard power, then establishing its moral soft power.
When a particular method encounters setbacks, America can adjust quickly. For example, after the Iraq War severely damaged America's soft power, Washington soon implemented "smart power" diplomacy to reshape its image; when dialogue and compromise fail to solve problems, America returns to a more hardline stance, even resorting to force. As Nye said, each U.S. president uses both hard and soft power, the key lies in how to combine them well without weakening each other.
The real problem facing America today is the depletion of hard power due to years of overseas wars and internal crises, not merely a lack of soft power. Some Americans pursue soft power to an impractical extent, ultimately harming themselves. For example, impractical affirmative action, unrestricted immigration, excessive cultural pluralism, and excessive external intervention not only violate common-sense laws but also undermine American unity, weaken material strength, and exacerbate domestic crises.
In the near future, America abandoning some soft power and re-emphasizing hard power is actually in line with America's long-term interests. We should not view America's abandonment of some soft power as a sign of decline, which will lead to misjudgment. Over the next period, America may achieve resource conservation and hard power recovery through fiscal conservatism, supply-side tax policies, administrative efficiency, and technological accelerationism, thereby maintaining and prolonging its hegemony.
America's decline in soft power provides China with a valuable opportunity to enhance its discourse influence: when America's global image suffers damage, China can proactively spread its own concepts and gain recognition from middle-ground countries. However, China must avoid being carried away by superficial opportunities. While America's soft power declines, its actions to adjust hard power should not be overlooked. After America strengthens its hard power again, it will once again focus on soft power, similar to the McKinley-Wilson cycle, the Truman-Kennedy cycle, and the Reagan-Clinton cycle in history.
We should seize favorable opportunities to expand China's international public opinion advantage while remaining vigilant and doubling our efforts to develop the real economy, break through "chokepoints" in technology, and enhance defense capabilities. This is not only to compensate for possible resurgence of American soft power but also to ensure that China has the confidence to face any changes in the international situation. Only with solid and robust hard power can the enhancement of soft power have a firm foundation, ensuring steady and long-term international image and influence.
Insight Two: Value Soft Power but Do Not Worship a Specific Type of Soft Power
In pursuing soft power, China should remain rational and avoid worshiping a fixed paradigm or blindly copying foreign models. Most of Nye's discussions on soft power are essentially aimed at serving American national interests. We need to thoroughly understand the essence of Nye's theory rather than treating it as an absolute truth and mechanically applying it.
Nye once considered soft power an important tool for American foreign policy, used to "make other countries willingly provide what America wants." Clearly, soft power theory, under Nye's framework, carries a strong American-centric color, emphasizing how to maintain America's leadership position through values and public opinion advantages. If China blindly copies this without discernment, it risks falling into a trap of seeking mere surface approval while neglecting core national interests.
Specifically, China should shape soft power according to its own national conditions and strategic needs. For example, promoting excellent traditional Chinese culture and combining it with modern values in the cultural domain; focusing on equality and mutual learning rather than indoctrination in international communication; adhering to principles while demonstrating flexibility and goodwill in diplomatic practice. All these require clear strategic determination, and we cannot simply copy the American-style "value diplomacy" template. Forcing other countries to accept our soft power may well backfire and prove counterproductive.
Of particular importance is that population quantity and quality, economic and technological development, military strength, and reasonable ethnic structures—especially the proportion of the main ethnic group in the total population—are the fundamental reasons for ensuring national strength. Realist international relations theory has never become obsolete; the essence of international relations has always been the competition of national power. However, realism theory is not about abusing force but emphasizes prudent strategy.
China should learn from the experiences of Duke Huan of Qi, Duke Wen of Jin, and Duke Mu of Qin, and draw lessons from the mistakes of Duke Xiang of Song, Duke Wen of Teng, and King Huai of Yan. There is no permanent international order or rules in the world; China should face the changes in international order and rules with composure and not be nostalgic for a past order. We should avoid rigid thinking and path dependence and adjust policies when necessary to maximize benefits and avoid losses.
Insight Three: Adopt Different Soft Power Strategies for Different Groups Within the U.S.
In the past, when political polarization in the U.S. was not severe, cultural exchanges between China and the U.S. were relatively easy. However, today, the U.S. is experiencing unprecedented internal division. We should adopt different soft power strategies for liberal and conservative groups. Here, China can learn from India's experience.
On April 21, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with visiting U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris.
For example, when Democrats are in power in the U.S., India claims to be the "world's largest democracy," finding common ground with the Democrats; during Trump's presidency, India's strategies and rhetoric changed. Modi stated, "I deeply admire President Trump's principle of placing national interests first, which is what I learned from him." Modi also shared his experiences in combating terrorism with Trump and applauded Trump's anti-terrorism policies.
After coming to power, Modi vigorously tackled corruption and streamlined administration, which greatly inspired Trump. Trump consistently praised Modi's reforms in streamlining bureaucracy. The two respected each other, and Trump's slogan of "draining the swamp of Washington" resonated with Modi's vision of building a "New India."
In the U.S., Indian-American politicians have played a crucial role in spreading India's soft power. Indian-American politicians supporting Democrats promote the spirit of multiculturalism within India. Vivek Ramaswamy, a rising Republican political star in the U.S., frequently discusses Hindu principles, especially the logic of karma, in public settings. Kash Patel attributes his success to the respect Indians have for law, discipline, and justice, particularly the "spirit of truth prevailing over all." National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard frequently promotes the Hindu principle of "all humanity is one family" and often cites the Bhagavad Gita as her moral compass.
In fact, ancient Chinese traditional thought contains richer philosophical insights and political power, capable of establishing a diversified soft power system to attract different groups within the U.S. For example, Laozi's thoughts are often interpreted as朴素自由ism, Mozi's ideas are considered compatible with ancient socialism, and Confucius' ideas are closer to conservatism. Michael Schuman, a senior researcher at the Atlantic Council, wrote an article suggesting that Confucius' way of thinking aligns more closely with the political主张 of Republicans, and many of the political and social problems Confucius explored are faced by today's America. Confucian thought can address the current disorder and social disintegration in America.
If China could emulate India by aligning its soft power with the needs of different American social strata, it would produce twice the results with half the effort. China can reform its Confucius Institutes to actively respond to the demands of the American public. Confucius Institutes can actively engage in civilizational dialogue and cultural exchange with American conservatives, exploring experiences in maintaining social order and cultural traditions, and jointly constructing a new form of human civilization.
In the foreseeable future, the globalization of civilization will replace the globalization of liberalism, and Chinese traditional culture can play an important role in the new context of Sino-Western cultural exchanges, facilitating friendly exchanges between China and emerging Western political forces and expanding connections at the grassroots level.
Moreover, China's poverty alleviation and eradication experience can also become an important source of soft power. China's poverty reduction experience provides a practical example showing that large-scale poverty alleviation can be achieved in the short term, with the government playing a key role. This undoubtedly holds appeal and persuasiveness for the grassroots population in the U.S., who have long witnessed stagnant poor communities and persistent homeless camps in their country, while impoverished villages in China have built roads and power grids within a few years, relocated impoverished households into new homes, and developed industries. This stark contrast may prompt reflection on their own policies among some grassroots Americans. Some progressive American politicians have already taken China as a mirror, with Senator Bernie Sanders advocating learning from China.
A homeless camp in a slum area of Los Angeles, California, Visual China
In fact, the U.S. has indeed borrowed poverty alleviation experiences from other developing countries. Bangladesh's microcredit practices were once regarded by Western society as an innovative model to help the poor stand on their own feet, widely praised and partially transplanted into community development finance in the U.S. The governing philosophy of "leaving no one behind" proposed by China's leaders can transcend ideology and be interpreted as a universal humanitarian concern.
Conclusion
Joseph Nye's soft power theory has provided a unique perspective for international relations research. While we mourn this pioneer, we should delve deeper into the essence of his ideas rather than merely superficially praising or misinterpreting them. Looking at the current international landscape, the realistic undertone remains unchanged—the competition for national power still primarily depends on hard power elements such as economic volume and military technology, with soft power being an important auxiliary tool.
Strong leadership, efficient government operations, social stability, and optimized ethnic structures are crucial for the proper coordination of hard and soft power. Nye once emphasized that power is not only manifested in bombs and bullets but also in an intangible appeal. A truly sophisticated national strategy should combine hard and soft power: having the backbone to withstand all challenges while skillfully winning hearts through values and diplomatic artistry.
While commemorating Nye, we should remember his insights, and we must not talk about soft power in isolation from national interests and security needs. Many Americans are already reflecting on this, and China should not go astray. For China, the most effective soft power is the success of its socialist practice, the improvement of people's living standards and social progress, and the harmonious unity of all ethnic groups. This attractiveness based on its own development achievements is more persuasive than any external propaganda.
Looking ahead, China should steadfastly follow its own path, flexibly applying soft power tools on the foundation of solidifying hard power, and conduct foreign exchanges and cooperation creatively while maintaining principles. Friendly exchanges with emerging political forces in Western countries are essential. Only in this way can China remain invincible in fierce international competition. This is the valuable intellectual legacy left by Nye and a proven practical truth in today's international relations. China should keep this in mind and put it into practice during its journey toward national rejuvenation.
This article is an exclusive contribution to Guancha Net. The content purely reflects the author's personal opinions and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, and legal liability will be pursued accordingly. Follow Guancha Net on WeChat (guanchacn) for daily interesting articles.
Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7502332705498087955/
Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. Feel free to express your attitude by clicking the "Top/Downvote" buttons below.