Winning Hearts and Minds via "Credible Messengers"

The other morning I heard a story on the Morning Edition of NPR News, titled Agencies Aim To Counter Threat Of Online Extremism by Deborah Amos (you can listen to it here). The story describes how Carie Lemack, (whose mother died on Sept. 11 aboard American Airlines flight 11), was invited to speak in Saudi Arabia regarding terrorism.

“Lemack is often called on to talk to youths who are considered susceptible to violent ideologies. When speaking recently to a group in Britain that tries to de-radicalize kids, Lemack says, she had to convince one group that her mother had actually died in the Sept. 11 attacks…. ‘They were shocked because they had been told that there were no passengers on the planes… and they hadn't heard from someone who had actually lost a loved one." Lemack is what is now being called a "credible messenger. “Richard Barret, coordinator of the U.N.'s al-Qaida/Taliban monitoring team, says finding messengers is a new trend in fighting terrorism.” They believe it will help dissuade people from being recruited into terrorism.

Which got me to thinking, what kind of activity is this? Is if soft power? A state’s soft power is founded upon acceptance, attraction and legitimacy, and in this instance the state is utilizing Lemack to exert soft power. In other words, it could be argued that Lemack is attempting to affect these students, on the state’s behalf, in order to convince them not to become radicalized, by personalizing her story to them, rather than through coercion or payment. But this begs the question, “what is coercion?”

If “any rupture of consent brings forth elements of coercion”, how can there be soft power without coercion? My understanding is that in Zahran and Ramos’s conception of hegemony, unlike Nye’s construction of soft power, coercion and consent are interconnected; “hegemony is the purist for consent where it doesn’t exist.” Does this therefore mean that Lemack is a tool for spreading hegemony, and if so is that negative?

Perhaps the problem here is, “the assumption that universal values exist.” While universal values may not exist, it remains clear that the US government wants to win the “hearts and minds” of populations. So whether we label Lemack’s utilization by the Saudi/American government(s) as “soft power” or “hegemony”, I’m sure that we can (almost) universally agree that it beats dropping bombs.