Last week I attended the 2023 Asia Forum co-organised by the Goethe University Frankfurt and the Research Project on Cultural Entrepreneurship and Digital Transformation in Asia and Africa. The theme of the forum was In Hallyu We Trust? Revisiting "Soft Power" in the New World Order of Cultural Production, and it brought together experts from a variety of geographic regions and disciplines, including cinema and cultural studies, politics and international relations, cultural industries and economy, and area studies. My own talk that opened the forum was titled '"I don't know what it means" (Donald Rumsfeld): reflection on soft power, politics, and culture". I questioned the value of focusing on culture and suggested that Hallyu reflects South Korea's values and democratic political culture, its vibrant civil society, the free spaces for creativity, innovation, and collaboration, and indeed subversion, and the government's commitment to the arts and culture. In other words, the soft power is revealed in the infrastructure - the 'enabling environment' - that has allowed and encouraged Hallyu to develop and flourish. Just knowing that someone somewhere in the world is watching a K-drama or downloading a K-pop song does not indicate soft power.
After two days of intensive and challenging, but illuminating discussions I was moved to consider my takeaways from this meeting.
1. The definition of soft power remains elusive; and this is not necessarily a problem, for the absence of a precise definition opens spaces for the kind of interdisciplinary dialogues we had at the forum. My talk was part of a panel on the theory of soft power; and while soft power informs and is informed by disciplinary theoretical perspectives, especially in International Relations, I am not aware of a theory of soft power.
2. However, while we may not require a single and precise definition of soft power, there is still much confusion about whether soft power is a resource or an instrument. I opt for the former, suggesting soft power is generated within political, social, and cultural structures and is then communicated. It is a by-product of: the legitimacy and the credibility of actors, institutions, and processes; the behaviour of actors at home and abroad, and the company they choose to keep; the levels of transparency, accountability, and the capacity for correction; the free flow of ideas, genuine dialogue, discussion, and the freedom to consider and circulate ideas that challenge and possibly subvert the political and social norms; and the capacity to build networks for collaboration, especially within civil society. It is the final two markers of soft power in this list that provide the environment for creative inspiration and innovation that transpire in the cultural industries and create such phenomena as Hallyu.
3. Moreover, there is a still a frustrating level of confusion about the differences between soft power (a resource) and the instruments built to communicate it (public and cultural diplomacy, transnational cultural relations, branding). These terms are too often used interchangeably and as synonyms for soft power.
4. The field needs to move on from referencing work published on soft power over thirty years ago that may be considered out of date and which suggest a stationary and stagnant field. Instead, we should recognise the valuable recent scholarship undertaken by different authors from those writing about soft power three decades ago and in different locations that advance our understanding in new and significant ways.
5. Participants at the forum called for a shift from focusing on the state and/or nation to understand alternative loci of soft power. Also, we can and should do more to broaden our approaches beyond single geographic case-studies and adopt more thematic approaches - race, class, gender, and indigeneity were mentioned.
6. We are still some way from understanding effects. The methodologies, especially among practitioners, still prefer the bean counting we associate with the awful and unhelpful soft power rankings that are commissioned and published on a regular basis and which turn soft power into a beauty contest. It was encouraging that several contributors to the forum had undertaken qualitative work, which means we can begin to understand how soft power influences the opinions, attitudes, and behaviours of the audiences for cultural products that may communicate soft power. But I still seek evidence to convince me that familiarity with, attraction to and the popularity of Hallyu translates into "soft power outcomes".
7. Soft power is not just about attraction. It can also repel, inspire fear, and encourage suspicion, and represent odious values and behaviours. I suggest this means we do not need yet more categories of power to understand what are essentially soft power processes. The term 'sharp power' is particularly unnecessary if we accept the categories of soft and smart power.
8. Finally, the power of soft power does not reside in the source - in governments, civil society, or the cultural industries. Rather the most powerful agents are audiences who choose whether and how to respond to public and cultural diplomacy programmes or flows of cultural products; and we must always be mindful that one man's soft power or cultural diplomacy may be another's propaganda, cultural imperialism, or even a form of hard power.
The forum coincided with the publication of two books:
The second edition of The Routledge Handbook of Soft Power that I co-edited with Naren Chitty and Lilian Ji. You can find more information here Handbook of Soft Power
and The Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy edited by Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor and which includes my chapter on 'Soft power in the digital space', another prominent theme of our forum in Frankfurt (see Handbook of Digital Diplomacy)
