ABSTRACT
When I coined the term ‘soft power’ in 1990, I envisioned it as a positive
rather than a normative concept. I was trying to explain why I disagreed
with the then prevalent view of the decline of American power (Kennedy
1987). After examining American economic and military power, I thought
that something was still missing – the ability of the USA to attract others
and thus increase the probability of obtaining the outcomes it wanted. It
has been interesting to see an academic concept migrate to the front pages
of newspapers and to see it used by leaders in China, Europe and elsewhere over the past decade and a half. But wide usage has sometimes meant
misuse of the concept as a synonym for culture, economics or anything
other than military force. For example, a Heritage Foundation paper refers
to ‘soft power options such as economic sanctions’, and one observer argues
that China thinks that ‘soft power implies all elements outside of the
security realm’ (Brookes 2006: 1; Kurlantick 2006: 1) The rock group
Ladytron even used soft power as the title of a song in a recent album. In
contrast, the contributions in this volume suggest thoughtful criticisms that point the way for further research on soft power. These notes are my
response.
