What We Talk About When We Talk About Soft Power

Abstract

Abstract Soft power is a perennial buzzword in policy discussions, but its popularity has not translated into scholarly or policy impact. In this policy article, I argue that this is because many references to soft power are vague and undefined, referring to any use of culture or ideology in a state's foreign policy and leaving unclear soft power's relationship with hard power. Drawing on recent scholarly work on nonmaterial sources of power, I address this issue by arguing that soft power is one among several forms of cultural–symbolic instruments of power that can either complement or substitute for material resources. I also provide a typology to categorize these forms, according to whether they involve direct or diffuse relations, and whether they are intended to integrate or fragment international collective action. This approach can provide more specific language to both analyze and advocate for alternatives to military and economic tools in statecraft. I demonstrate its utility with illustrative case studies on Saudi and Russian foreign policy. This article can contribute to policy debates by allowing for more clarity in discussions on soft power and related forms of power. It can also contribute to scholarship in this area by helping to better connect it to policy discussions.