Review: Soft Power: the forces of attraction in international relations, by Hendrik Ohnesorge
This book aims to offer a comprehensive conceptual taxonomy of soft power in international relations, develop a methodological roadmap for the empirical study of soft power, and position and discuss soft power in current debates on power and global power shifts. So, how well does it do?
Soft power being an American idea, it is fitting that in his introduction, Ohnesorge reminds readers of the episode in Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer where Tom “…faced with the unpleasant and wearisome chore of whitewashing a vast fence” acquires assistance, not by threats or bribes, but by attracting another boy to paint the fence for him by extravagantly pretending to enjoy the task. This is a variety of soft power at the core of which is Joseph Nye’s notion of “getting others to want the outcomes you want”. Tom succeeds through pretence, illustrating Ohnesorge’s point that soft power “…is by no means a mere normative concept but is explicitly impartial — being available for noble and selfish or downright bad purposes alike”.
Ohnesorge however goes on to say that this is soft power because other forms of power — coercive or economic — were not available to Tom. This may have been true in relation to Tom, but it is less clear that states and others have no alternatives. Could it be that soft power has other advantages, not least its relatively low cost, that makes it one attractive element in the toolkit of foreign policy?
As power shifts, so soft power changes in relative importance — the USA certainly has hard power but is losing its soft power. The book argues that soft power is becoming more important — in fact it is becoming dominant and therefore more interesting than before. At the same time, the concept is limited — it is contextual. Ohnesorge notes Michael Mandelbaum’s reference to the appeal of “influence without exertion” to Western Europeans.
The book starts by tackling head on the question of “what is soft power and how does it take effect in international relations?” It offers up a new taxonomy of soft power by breaking it down into its component areas: resources, instruments, reception and outcomes. Refreshingly — for discussions of definitions of soft power can verge on the drily tedious — Ohnesorge includes personalities as a resource. He also proposes a methodology for the study of soft power which is: comprehensive (not selective); focused on a distinct soft power relationship; comparative to allow for the detection of soft power shifts over time and spanning a specified period of time to allow for robust results.
Starting with power itself, which he sees as relational, he notes that it is asymmetrical and contextual. In other words, what gives power in one place, may not in another. A country may have great resources — including soft power resources — but they simply may not work in the same way everywhere. Talking about resources is not the same as talking about actual power — which of course renders problematic the use of power indices based on measurement of resources. This lack of a magic formula for measuring or predicting power in international relations is revealed by the way attempts to do so fall short.
In his discussion of soft power, Ohnesorge points to the roots of the idea in Classical Antiquity and in China. The idea of getting what you want by not fighting, or through authority rather than brute force, goes back a long way. He pays tribute to Nye and notes the varieties of power discussed today, hard, soft, and sidling in-between, smart. He also stresses that in his view, soft power is not normative — it is simply another form of power which can have a very hard edge. It is also a highly contested, vague, and imprecise term, which he sets out to address in his new conceptual paradigm.
This consists of the four elements mentioned above through which Actor A seeks to get Actor B to want the outcomes it wants through soft power:
Actor A
Resources includes culture, values, policies and personalities,
Instruments includes public diplomacy and personalities and their modes of activity such as listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, speeches. and symbolic acts.
Actor B
Reception — attraction, apathy or repulsion.
Outcomes — compliance, neutrality or opposition.
Does the taxonomy stand up? For me, up to a point. The categories follow Nye perhaps a little too closely. Ohnesorge oddly enough does not explicitly include institutions, media, or basic resources such as money, or the evidence of other forms of power, in his taxonomy, though he notes them in passing later. Nor does he consider whether countries with lots of military power and strong economies are also the countries with the most effective soft power. It is hard to be definitive, given the contextual nature of power, and problems of measurement, but it is also hard to think that they do not play any part in how any B sees any A.
There is not space here to go into a detailed consideration of the individual elements which make up the taxonomy, but it is clear that each element has its strengths and weaknesses. While the elements are certainly those which theory suggests constitute soft power, they are in themselves just as hard to define — if not more so — than the concept of soft power itself. “Culture” is a good example.
Ohnesorge is certainly right, however, to draw attention to the role of personalities and the iconic significance of individuals. Is it OK here to say “Donald Trump”? In our social media-saturated age with its “influencers”, its “echo chambers”, its “fake news” and fake people in the form of bots, we are clearly in need of an understanding of how the attention economy and the information space impact on soft power both as a concept and as a practice. Personality is currently reshaping the global order.
He is also right to point to the importance of reception, given that reciprocity is an important element of soft power. As Peter van Ham said: “It’s not what you say, but what others hear, that is important!” He also rightly draws attention to the lack of good empirical evidence as to how soft power activities are received. Does “culture” work better when it is presented in a similar cultural context, or is the lure of the “exotic other’ more powerful? The jury is, of course, out.
Finally, the important but elusive category of outcomes. The changing of behaviour is the desired outcome of all soft power. Does soft power actually change anything? If not, does it matter? Scholars have tried to determine the answer, but this is the element that is least susceptible to empirical study. Ohnesorge proposes 3 possible outcomes but admits that causality is hard to establish. Nye and others typically respond to this by saying that “soft power doesn’t solve every problem” and noting that it is a long-term endeavour. Despite these difficulties, Ohnesorge is convinced that soft power does matter. Public opinion matters in international relations. Future leaders can be positively influenced by participation in exchange programmes. He suggests that probabilistic explanations and eliminating other possible explanations for change can be ways forward. Outcomes can be defined in terms of goals. If the goal of a soft power programme is to create a more favourable impression of a country, and that can be measured in the target population, then an outcome has been achieved. It all comes down to the application of methodology and analysis.
This is a useful, personable, and helpful book. Its strength is its willingness to tackle head on, questions that scholars and practitioners have been grappling with, with varying levels of success, for years. As Ohnesorge rightly says, more empirical research is needed. This matters in today’s world. Clearly it is in everyone’s interest for potential conflicts to be avoided. Whether or not soft power is normative, it leads to fewer casualties and less human suffering than the alternatives.
The book is also very readable and admirably wide in its scope. It is a breath of fresh air which I enjoyed and found thought provoking. I look forward to hearing more from Ohnesorge in years to come.
Ohnesorge, Hendrik. (2020). Soft Power: The Forces of Attraction in International Relations. 10.1007/978–3–030–29922–4.
