In referring to the US as our point of analysis, it is key to remember that relative analysis is as essential as absolute. In leveraging criticism of US policy (if I may naively ever do so - smiles*), I do so not because the US is unique in its manipulation and methods of maintaining superpower status. I do so on the basis of what the US has projected of itself internationally since its inception - a (correction - 'the') beacon of 'liberty' (there are two other principles, but this would be primary, especially through the Cold War). That, too, as it defines liberty (the French and international administrations might define it differently). If other nations are adept at projecting certain images abroad of themselves in this day and age, they have learnt only from the best.
So... if the US now faces harsh criticism for its policies, it's not because their aspirations are different from other states (although, I wouldn't go as far as to propose that every nation-state wants to be the 'leader' - for good or for bad). This evergreen trend prevails mostly because international publics feel a sense of betrayal (and regional political entities utilize this public emotion/view to their advantage). There is a true discrepancy between the ideals of Disney's 'It's A Small World' and that of its profit networks. The same can be said for the US in general. The Americanization of international cultures and ethos has resulted in not just power for the US, but certain expectations on the part of international publics (no matter what strata of society to which they may 'belong'): People around the world expect 'America' (the US admin) to 'behave'.
Comments (2)
I think this is a very important point. As we talked about in class, there are really TWO aspects to projecting soft power -- one is "ideals" (often called "values" though I do not like this term as it celebrates intransigence) and the other is "credibility," or "ethos."
The trick is that these work against each other. The lower your ideals, the easier it is to meet them. But with low ideals, who wants to be your friend. However, if you raise your ideals, it is harder to maintain them. It can also seem arrogant or insulting if your ideals are too high -- as though you expect yourself to live up to some godly standard. I also think it sounds manipulative when standards are set to high, like you are saying "how can you refuse me, look at how wonderful my terms are."
I think the U.S. would do better, at this juncture in world history, to lower its claim to ideals a little bit and improve its compliance with the ideals it does claim. This will make us seem less arrogant and, simultaneously, more trustworthy.
Posted by DM | February 6, 2007 10:27 PM
Posted on February 6, 2007 22:27
I agree.
Perhaps the biggest soft power advantage is the gap between pronouncements and actual policies and behavior. Maybe the French do well in diplomacy bec they say they pursue realpolitik (a non-French word, if every there was one, thus setting the rhetoric, and the expectations, lower.
Posted by ernest | February 6, 2007 10:29 PM
Posted on February 6, 2007 22:29