By Mr. Maverick,
“Of the infinite desires of man, the chief are the desires for power and glory”. Some might find Bertrand Russell’s statement somewhat extravagant, while others right on point. It certainly holds some truth. After all, power is an aphrodisiac we all pursue, either conscientiously, or not, as we mentioned in our previous article.
The subject of power is a subject of such great practical importance. All assumptions on power can be tested against generally accepted historical evidence and most of them against everyday observations and common sense. However, the majority of the relevant scholarship tends to complicate rather than shed some light on this subject. In this article, we will try to touch upon the intricacies of this alluring topic.
On our last intellectual rendez-vous, we adopted a broadly accepted and practical definition of power, within the context created by Max Weber. The German sociologist and political scientist, while deeply fascinated by the complexity of the subject, came up with a definition close to everyday understanding: power is ‘the possibility of imposing one’s will upon the behavior of other persons.’ Change the word “persons” with the word “states” and there you have it, a sound definition of power in international affairs. When it comes to wielding or enforcing power, winning submission is, therefore, the primary goal/holy grail. The question is, how do you win submission?
In analyzing the instruments of power, many scholars have used various approaches, producing numerous definitions. The most suitable and accessible within our widely extended framework, however, are probably the following. There are, fundamentally, three means through which one can obtain the outcomes he/she wants: coercion, compensation or appeal and attraction.
Hard power or coercive power wins submission by inflicting or threatening appropriately adverse consequences. In the sphere of foreign policy, hard power encompasses a wide range of coercive policies by using economic and, most importantly, military muscle. Restrictive measures or sanctions, financial assets freeze, embargoes and naval blockades, military alliances and, most importantly, brute military force itself, are some of the most typical instruments falling under hard power.
Now, one might wonder, why do economic means like sanctions pertain to hard power, which is mostly associated with military force? And, where does compensation, pecuniary in nature, stand? There is a key qualitative difference among coercive and compensatory economic instruments. More precisely, the key difference between hard power and compensatory power is the difference between negative and affirmative reward respectively. In essence, hard power wins submission by the promise or reality of punishment, whereas compensatory power wins submission by the promise or reality of benefit.
Compensatory power works through the magic of incentive. The greater the incentive, the more effective and irresistible the compensatory reward for the desirable submission. Let’s presume for a moment, that John just started working at a multinational corporation. Long hours, long weekends, extreme pressure and huge responsibilities make for a deadly combo only a few could manage. After a few months, the idea of a higher salary provided a stimulus for John to perform greatly, giving the impression to his employer that he is fit for purpose. Following his impressive work and reliability, his employer decided to give him a raise, in other words a ‘carrot’ or compensatory reward for John’s further submission to the purposes of the organization. This is a classic case of how compensatory power works, along with many other daily similar examples related to tax, monetary, wage and labor policies. At a higher political level, a common example is bribery of government officials. It’s hardly surprising that in the last years of the 19th century, the United States Senate was commonly referred to as a rich man’s club; in other words it was a well-paid instrument of the capitalist age.
Is that all there is? Well, we already spoiled the answer. The equation of power has another, third variable. The great British realist E. Carr classified power into three categories: military, economic and the opinion-forming force. The third plane then, on which power is exercised, is the plane of conditioning, by means of appeal and attraction, otherwise known as soft power. While hard and compensatory power are visible, quantifiable and objective, soft power is, in contrast, stealthy, immeasurable and subjective.
Soft power aims towards shaping opinions and preferences, forming as such a desirable frame of reference. Through this conditioning, the subject develops a preference for the acceptance of authority, the submission to another will. This preference can be either explicit, in other words deliberately cultivated, by education and persuasion, or implicit, that is dictated by existing cultural, religious and other social norms. For instance, you might be a liberal or a conservative due to past familial and educational references. If you prefer Pepsi to Coke that could also be the result of conditioning, namely an old Pepsi advertisement which, designed to appeal to your emotions and desires, shaped your consumer behavior up to this day.
As we have said in the past, in international affairs, according to the originator of the concept of soft power Joseph Nye, the main but not exhaustive sources of a state’s soft power are the following: its culture, especially in regions where the culture is widely attractive and respected, its political values, when they are compatible with both its internal and foreign affairs and lastly its foreign policy, when it is regarded as legitimate and morally prestigious. Some other key features of soft power include a country’s commercial ‘brand-name’, institutional structure and its overall international standing. To put it differently, soft power is a currency, which reflects how well a nation’s profile is perceived internationally. The better the profile, the stronger its currency in the “market” of international politics. This explains why the media, the educational system, religious leaders and advertising companies are paramount in the conduct of foreign policy. Pizza and espresso do indeed help Italy further capitalize on its cultural imprint on a global scale.
Having now been introduced to the enticing topic of power, here are a few questions you can ask yourself to keep you going:
– In comparison to others, where does my country land on each source of power?
– Is my country’s foreign policy multi-faceted and balanced, or does it rely heavily on a certain source of power?
– Which source of power do I incorporate more in my life?
– Can I distinguish patterns of power in everyday life?
– Can I identify any kind of conditioning that I have undergone?
– Which kind of power do I consider more effective in interpersonal relations? And which in the spectrum of international relations?
The post The triple frontier of guns, funds and brains appeared first on Pecunia et Bellum.
