A Theory of Soft Power and Korea’s Soft Power Stra

1ATheoryofSoftPowerandKorea’sSoftPowerStrategyGeunLee(GraduateSchoolofInternationalStudies,SeoulNationalUniversity)[e-mail]stotheorizethedynamicsofsoftpowerininternationalrelationsandtoanalyzeKorea’ssoftpowerpotential.Inthefirstsectionofthepaper,Iwilltrytoopenanewhorizonofsoftpowerdiscoursesbycategorizingandtheorizingvariousaspectsofsoftpower.Upuntilnowscholarsandjournalistshaveusedtheconceptofsoftpowermostlyindescriptivetermswithoutsuggestingconcretepolicyimplications.Ifwecanunderstandthewholemechanismsofsoftpowerexertionthroughatheoreticallens,itmaybepossibletodevelopactualsoftpowerpolicies,betheylong-termorshort-term.Inthesecondsectionofthepaper,IwilldelvemoreintodiscussionofKorea’ssoftpowerpotentialbyanalyzingKorea’s“softresources”whichcanpotentiallybetranslatedintosoftpowerofKorea.Thepaperendswithafewpolicyrecommendations.[PreviousStudiesofSoftPower]TheconceptofsoftpowerwasfirstintroducedbyJosephNyeinhisbook,“BoundtoLead,”toexplainandpredictthepersistenceoftheUShegemonyduringthedaysofAmericannationaldeclineinthe1980s.1Initsoriginalconception,softpowerwasdefinedasco-optivebehavioralpower,meaning“gettingotherstowantwhatyouwant.”2AlthoughsimilarconceptshadalreadybeenintroducedinotherdisciplinessuchasGramsci’shegemony,Bourdieu’ssymbolicpower,Weber’sauthority,Foucault’sdisciplinarypower,andHabermas’communicativepower,mainstreaminternationalrelationsscholarshadpaidlittleattentiontonon-materialaspectsofpowerandcapabilities.3Constructivistsininternationalrelationsrecognizedthepowerof1JosephNye,BoundToLead:TheChangingNatureofAmericanPower(BasicBooks,1990)2Ibid.,p.188.3Ondiscussionofsimilarconceptsinotherdisciplines,seeGeunLee,“ATheoryofSoftPowerinInternationalPolitics:APreliminaryAttempt(inKorean),”KukjeJiyeokYongu,Spring,2004,pp.1-18.2ideasandnorms,whichisquitesimilartosoftpower,buttheirdiscussionsdidnotdevelopintoanewconceptofpowerwithconcretepolicyimplications.4Rather,constructivistsspenttoomuchenergyinfightingabattleagainstrealistsregardingtheissueofdeterministicinfluenceofanarchicalstructureofinternationalrelationsonstatebehaviors.Therefore,eventhoughconstructivistdiscussionsofpowerininternationalrelationscontainmanycentralelementsofwhatNyecallssoftpower,constructivistideashavenotdevelopedintoasystematicmergeofseparateconstructivistdiscussionsofideationalpower.Inaddition,asNye’sconceptofsoftpowergainedjournalisticpopularity,constructivistdiscussionofideationalpowertendedtobesupersededbytheconceptofsoftpowerevenintheacademia.AlthoughNye’sintroductionoftheconceptofsoftpoweropenedanewhorizoninunderstandingsomeofthehiddenaspectsofinternationalrelationssuchasnon-violentandnon-coercivewaysofinfluencingothers,theconceptitselfwasnotbaseduponawelldevelopedtheoreticalframework.TheconcepthasbeenusedmainlyasadescriptivetooltodescribetheanomalyoftheUSpower5ortolistupacountry’ssoftpowerresourceswithoutrevealingthepowertranslationmechanisms.6Inother4SomeoftheexamplesareMichaelBarnettandMarthaFinnemore,“ThePolitics,Power,andPathologiesofInternationalOrganizations,”InternationalOrganization53(4),Autumn,1999,pp.699-732;PeterHaas,“Introduction:epistemiccommunitiesandinternationalpolicycoordination,”InternationalOrganization46(1),1992,pp.1-35;MargaretKeckandKathrynSikkink,ActivistsBeyordBorders(CornellUniversityPress,1992);ThomasRisse,“Ideasdonotfloatfreely:transnationalcoalitions,domesticstructures,andtheendofthecoldwar,”InternationalOrganization48(2),Spring,1994,pp.185-214.5JosephNye,“HardPower,SoftPower,andtheWaronTerrorism,”inDavidHeldandMathiasKoenig-Archibugieds.,AmericanPowerinthe21stCentury(Polity,2004).6TypicalexamplesareDavidLeheny,“ANarrowPlacetoCrossSwords:SoftPowerandthePoliticsofJapanesePopularCultureinEastAsia,”inPeterKatzensteinandTakashiShiraishieds.,BeyondJapan:TheDynamicsofEastAsianRegionalism(CornellUniversityPress,2006);AlanChong,“SingaporeanForeignPolicyandtheAsianValueDebate,1992-2000:Reflectionsonanexperimentinsoftpower,”PacificReview,Vol.17,No.1,March2004,pp.95-133;RobertCooper,“TheGoalsofDiplomacy,HardPower,andSoftPower,”ininDavidHeldandMathiasKoenig-Archibugieds.,AmericanPowerinthe21stCentury(Polity,2004);YoungNamChoandJongHoJeong,:China’sSoftPower:Discussions,Resources,andProspects,”AsianSurvey,Vol.XLVIII,No.3,May/June2008;WatanabeYasushiandDavidMcConnell,eds.,SoftPowerSuperpowers:CulturalandNationalAssetsofJapanandtheUnitedStates3words,Nyeonlypointedoutthatthereisadistinctionbetweenhardpowerandsoftpower,anddidnotsuggestanymeaningfultheoreticalframeworkstounderstandthepowertranslationmechanismfromwhathecallssoftpowerresourcestosoftpower.7Duetothelackoftheoreticaldevelopment,ithasbeendifficulttofindanysoftpowerdiscoursesorpoliciesofacountrywhichgofurtherthanmereemphasisonpublicdiplomacy,ODA,strengtheningofinternationalinstitutions,andculturalexchanges.Emphasisonthese“softresources”isnothingnew,andisnothingmorethanarevivalofoldwisdomswithoutnewtheoreticalandpolicyinsights.8Againstthisbackdrop,inthispaper,Idevelopedapreliminarytheoreticalframeworknotonlytounderstandthelogi