Karla Perez

A Constructivist View of Soft Power

            Soft power in the context of International Relations, places an importance on the reputation a particular State has in the eyes of other States and their wish to emulate it. For some, a State’s ability to employ Soft Power is a true indication of the actual power it has over others. The fact that no physical coercion and force is necessary to reach the desired outcome, in my opinion, makes it a most ideal form of power a power-hungry state could seek. This type of power often goes undetected but can be the most threatening because it sets the identity of a particular state on a pedestal as a goal to be reached. The danger lays in that this essentially gives superiority to the particular State and its people’s socially constructed identity, giving it power that it does not inherently have.

            The identity, or beliefs and ideology, of a State and its society are simply a product of the biophysical environment and subsistence technology of that society. This means that the literal environment and information/tools aiding the society's survival are the primary factors that shape the way the society operates. Societies or States that are advanced in their subsistence technology have a large advantage in inter-societal conflict, meaning that the ideas and values of the advantaged society are those that survive. This does not in any way mean that the ideas and values of the advantaged society are superior and should be taken more seriously, however it plays out this way in the material world.

            History plays an important role in shaping the identity of a society/ State. Through a sociological (or constructivist) perspective however history is contingent and mutable. The Great Men theory, proposed by Jared Diamond argues that the history of the world is simply the biography of Great Men, meaning that often in applying the past to the present a lot of glory is given to particular figures and their role in specific events, ignoring the fact that the course of human history could have been completely different. This can be paralleled to a particular identity, arguing that any society/state’s identity could have been different based on changing their history.

            Lastly, the identity of a State is the result of the specific social interactions and experiences of the society that comprises it. The ideology of a society is the interpretation and sensible explanation of the specific experiences of that society, creating a certain reality not necessarily applicable to other societies and therefore not necessarily intended to be relevant to other States. Reality is different for everyone because not everyone in the world has the same experiences and social upbringing, therefore deeming a particular reality as optimal/ preferable is by default setting that identity above your own. This is essentially implied in the application of Soft Power but is overlooked, making it all the more influential.

            Karl Marx said that “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.” In simplest terms this is saying that it is how people live their lives that guides the way they think and not the other way around. The way that any individual thinks is most often a reflection of the society they come from such that an identity (ideology, values, norms, etc.) is the product of a society. If asked, I think most people would agree that there is no inherently superior society; they are all constructed as the products of uncontrollable/random factors. I find Soft Power so threatening and most dangerous of all because it does label certain societies/ States better than others, subtly marginalizing the ideas and concepts of particular States.

(In developing my argument I applied concepts I recently learned in the Sociology200 class I am currently taking that blend nicely with Constructivism and its application in International Relations.)