Soft power: the forces of attraction in International Relations
Soft power: the forces of attraction in International Relations
复制标题
软实力：国际关系中的吸引力
DOI：
10.1093/ia/iiab017
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Froehlich T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Froehlich T
在约瑟夫·奈将软实力概念引入国际关系理论30年后，亨德里克·奥内索格对这一概念进行了详细和更新的描述。Ohnesorge的研究通过三个主要贡献推进了讨论：对国际关系理论中权力的详尽描述和理解，软实力的新分类以及将这种分类应用于研究的方法。就像Nye的最初工作一样，Ohnesorge通过观察全球权力转移的现实为他的书定下了基调，随着时间的推移，这种转移变得更加明显。关于美国世纪的结束已经说了很多，但在这种背景下的权力转移不仅仅是中国的崛起或美国的衰落。民族国家逐渐开始与国际领域的其他行为体分享权力，主要是建立非政府组织和跨国公司。除此之外，特别是在有限的国家范围内，武装团体正在挑战民族国家对使用军事力量和提供秩序的传统垄断。民族国家（尤其是美国）对抗此类行动所需的合法性，正是软实力成为这场关于权力转移的辩论的核心的原因。虽然这是一个直观的概念，但Ohnesorge试图回答的首要研究问题是“什么是软实力，它如何在国际关系中发挥作用？”(p. 16）。在定义了这一概念之后，他转而讨论如何操作和应用软实力。关于软实力的可操作性的部分概述了一个值得注意的分类。在这里，作者建立了软实力的四个子单元：资源，工具，接收和结果（pp。18，91 ff.）。资源和手段由发送者支配，而接收和结果则取决于接收者的反应。每个子单元都由几个部分组成：在发送方，资源包括文化、价值观、政策和个性，工具是公共外交和个人外交。接受者的潜在反应可以分为吸引、冷漠或排斥，这可能导致顺从、中立或反对。所有这些组成部分都详细讨论了，在某种程度上是最令人信服的。Ohnesorge提供了一个方便的表格，其中包含所有组件和相关指标（第204页）。到目前为止，这个模型是连贯且有充分论据的，但Ohnesorge又增加了两层。第一，被动层面，建立在奈和贾尼斯·比阿里·马特恩的基础上，软实力产生了“山顶上的城市效应”。但由于这方面的研究不足，这一举动恰恰证明了为什么批评软实力作为一个概念往往是适当的。第二，Ohnesorge借用了市场营销的语言，指出软实力与AIDA（注意力、兴趣、欲望、行动）和CAB（认知、情感、行为）模型之间的相似之处（第92页）。这一相当肤浅的步骤在理论上的好处是值得怀疑的;然而，它确实如此。
A good 30 years after Joseph Nye introduced the concept of soft power into International Relations (IR) theory, Hendrik Ohnesorge presents a detailed and updated account of the concept. Ohnesorge’s study advances the discussion through three main contributions: an exhaustive description and understanding of power in IR theory, a new taxonomy of soft power and ways to apply this taxonomy into research.Just like Nye’s initial work, Ohnesorge sets the tone for his book by observing the reality of global power shifts, which have become even more apparent over time. Much has been said about the end of the American century, but the power shifts in this context go beyond the rise of China or American decline. Nationstates are gradually starting to share their power with other actors in the international realm, mainly to create non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and multinational corporations. Beyond this, particularly within areas of limited statehood, armed groups are challenging the traditional monopoly of nation-states on the use of military force and the provision of order. The legitimacy that is required of nation-states, and particularly of the US, to counter such operations is what puts soft power at the centre of this debate about power shifts. While it is an intuitively accessible concept, the overarching research question Ohnesorge tries to answer is ‘what is soft power and how does it take effect in international relations?’(p. 16). Having defined the concept, he then turns to addressing how soft power can be operationalized and applied. The section on the operationalization of soft power outlines a noteworthy taxonomy. Here, the author establishes four sub-units of soft power: resources, instruments, reception and outcomes (pp. 18, 91ff.). While resources and instruments are at the sender’s disposal, reception and outcomes refer to the receiver’s reaction. Each of these sub-units consists of several components: on the sender’s side, resources include culture, values, policies and personalities and the instruments are public diplomacy and personal diplomacy. The receiver’s potential responses can be divided into attraction, apathy or repulsion, which can result in compliance, neutrality or opposition. All of these components are discussed in detail, in a way that is mostly convincing. Ohnesorge offers a handy table with all components and related indicators (p. 204). This model is coherent and well argued until this point, but Ohnesorge adds two more layers. First, a passive level, building on Nye and Janice Bially Mattern, where soft power produces a ‘city-upon-a-hill effect’. But as this aspect is under-researched, this move demonstrates precisely why criticism of soft power as a concept is often appropriate. Second, Ohnesorge borrows the language of marketing by pointing out similarities between soft power and both the AIDA (attention, interest, desire, action) and CAB (cognitive, affective, behavioural) models (p. 92). The theoretical benefit of this rather superficially introduced step is questionable; however, it does