Last week I discussed the Government's (ours and others) use of victims of 9/11 to aid in diplomacy efforts. A quick recap: governments are using victims of 9/11 and/or their family members to speak to various groups regarding their experience with the the terror attacks in order to help stem terrorist radicalization. I wanted to continue my discussion of this policy and soft power with this weeks readings of The Unbearable Lightness of Soft Power.
Layne critiques Nyes version of soft power, arguing that it is not the correct way in which to judge America's foreign policy. Layne summarizes Soft Power in Diplomacy as merely marketing, that has little actual effect on improving us relations. A better approach in Layne's view Hard Power has more substance and should be conserved and utilized only in an effective way.
Under Layne's critique, this policy of utilizing 9/11 speakers would be yet another instance of the U.S. attempting to spread its message of the benevolent hegemon, which will ultimately have little effect. However, in direct contrast, the Mattern article, Why Soft Power isn't so Soft, seems to take the opposite position. Mattern asserts that Soft Power can be used to foster feelings of attraction that can be called upon in an "as needed" basis (as opposed to feelings of fear, which may diminish). Furthermore, these feelings of attraction, although possibly hegemonic, are not only effective, but are preferable to acts of violence. Under Mattern's perspective, the utilization of 9/11 speakers could be used to form a foundation of attraction which will have then intended outcome, over time, of diminishing radicalization.
No comments:
Post a Comment