Soft Power: An Enduring Notion in Contemporary International Politics

Introduction

Definitions of power in political science are usually based on various power theories and concepts of power found in other traditions related to the humanities. The study of power in political science is fundamentally based on this scientific discipline to make its concepts useful for studying interstate conflicts (Pietrzak, 2023). Power can mean something different in other scientific disciplines, independent of international politics; hence, power processes between states should be examined as structurally analogous to power processes between people.

Formative definitions of power in the past can be attributed to Max Weber's sociological definition. For Weber, power is every opportunity to assert one's own will within a social relationship, even against resistance, regardless of what this opportunity is based on (Mucha, 2007). Weber understands power as arising from a social relationship between at least two actors. The basis for power is diverse, as is the nature of its effect. For Foucault, too, power represents a relationship that cannot be reduced to a pure understanding of power as coercive power.

Hence, it is less about power than a means of repression, as described by Habermas, when he applies power to the systemic structures of society. This is an understanding of power that also appears somewhat in Machiavelli. He writes about securing success through power, equating this with violence, i.e., coercive power, and serves primarily to ensure the survival of a state and the unrestricted accumulation of power (Clarke, 2022). Realist theories were later founded on this basis. Therefore, with Thucydides and Hobbes, Machiavelli truly represents historical realism. Machiavelli's negative view of humanity, the great importance attributed to the military in maintaining and acquiring power, and the renunciation of moral inhibitions by the end justifying all means are principles that can be applied either way and found similarly in the more recent political theories of realism.

Foucault is more concerned with power as an object of relationships between actors, as he expressed in his nominalist formula that power is the name given to a complex strategic situation held in society (Bevir, 1999). This is reminiscent of Arendt and her understanding of power not as a property of a person, a class or an institution but as a relational phenomenon in the interaction between actors (Penta, 1996). According to Elias, power only arises through the interaction between individuals, first designating power as a social relationship because no one can have power or be powerful alone (Newton, 1999). However, Elias views power as a structural characteristic of human relationships. Therefore, social interaction, the imminent contextuality, and the relationships between actors and themselves constitute power production. Accordingly, no resource located only in one actor can be described as power. A state can have hard power, i.e. military capacity, but conceptually, this is not permitted. The logical consequence of this understanding of power is that it is equated with power; similarly, an individual can certainly have power or strength. However, he can only produce power with others.