Scope, mechanism, and outcome: arguing soft power in the context of public diplomacy

被引:0
作者
Craig Hayden
机构
[1] School of International Service,
[2] American University,undefined
来源
Journal of International Relations and Development | 2017年 / 20卷
关键词
China; conceptual analysis; public diplomacy; soft power; United States;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Public diplomacy connotes a range of international programmes tasked with cultivating influence for nation-states. It is typically justified within the arguments that comprise the concept of ‘soft power’. Soft power, however, is a vague concept, arguably, which has been difficult to implicate as pivotal to foreign policy outcomes. Yet, despite its apparent shortcomings, the concept informs a variety of nation-state and international actors in their strategic formulations. States acting on soft power tenets via a diversity of policies suggest further attention is warranted to examine how soft power is adapted to the practice of public diplomacy among different nation-states. This article draws on Stefano Guzzini’s ‘performative conceptual analysis’ to explore how a comparative analysis of public diplomacy can account for differing articulations of soft power, and the kinds of tools that leverage communicative and cultural resources toward expected gains. The goal is to render soft power as grounded in localised, practical understandings of strategic necessity through public diplomacy tools of statecraft. Soft power is presented as an assemblage of practical reasoning that informs linkages between strategic arguments about communication power and the practice of public diplomacy.
引用
收藏
页码:331 / 357
页数:26
相关论文
共 60 条
[31]  
Guzzini Stefano(2008)China Debates Soft Power Chinese Journal of International Politics 2 287-308
[32]  
Guzzini Stefano(2005)Power and the Battle for Hearts and Minds Millennium – Journal of International Studies 33 477-93
[33]  
Guzzini Stefano(2011)Open Networks and the Open Door: American Foreign Policy and the Narration of the Internet Foreign Policy Analysis 7 89-111
[34]  
Hanrieder Tine(2012)Credibility Talk in Public Diplomacy Review of International Studies 38 393-422
[35]  
Hayden Craig(2011)The Concept of Practice in the English School European Journal of International Relations 17 611-30
[36]  
Hopf Ted(2002)Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy Millennium – Journal of International Studies 31 627-51
[37]  
Kaneva Nadia(2008)Public Diplomacy and Soft Power The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 94-109
[38]  
Kelley JohnRobert(2012)What Became of the New Public Diplomacy? Recent Developments in British, US and Swedish Public Diplomacy Policy and Evaluation Methods The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 7 313-36
[39]  
Li Mingjiang(1994)Rhetorical Experimentation and the Cold War, 1947–1953: The Development of an Internationalist Approach to Propaganda Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 448-68
[40]  
Lukes Stephen(2008)The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities International Organization 62 257-88