chat

There are several reasons for this framing:

1. The Liberal Internationalist Assumption

• Nye’s theory emerged in the post-Cold War era, when Western triumphalism framed liberal democracy and free-market capitalism as universally desirable.
• The idea that soft power is "earned" through benevolence (e.g., aid, cultural exports, diplomacy) ignores how historical dominance (colonialism, economic coercion, military interventions) laid the groundwork for Western cultural supremacy.

2. The Myth of Meritocratic Influence

• Soft power discourse often assumes that cultural influence is "naturally" accrued by countries that are "likable" or "admirable."
• This ignores how racialized hierarchies elevate Euro-American cultures as "universal" while marginalizing non-Western alternatives (e.g., African, Latin American, or Islamic soft power is often dismissed as niche).
• Japan and South Korea are exceptions, but their acceptance as "honorary" influential nations aligns with their economic and geopolitical alignment with the West (e.g., US military alliances, capitalist development models).

3. The Invisibility of Structural Racism in IR Theory

• International Relations (IR) as a discipline has long been dominated by Eurocentric perspectives that treat Western dominance as neutral or earned.
• Concepts like soft power rarely account for how white supremacy shapes global media, language (English as lingua franca), and beauty standards—all of which inflate Western cultural prestige.
• Non-Western countries must often mimic Western forms (e.g., Hollywood-style filmmaking, Eurovision participation) to gain recognition.

4. The Case of Japan and South Korea: Conditional Acceptance

• Both nations are celebrated for their soft power (K-pop, anime, technology), but their global status is contingent on not challenging Western hegemony.
• Compare this to how China’s soft power is often framed as "propaganda" or Russia’s as "disinformation," while the BBC or Hollywood are seen as "independent."
• Their "honorary" status reflects hierarchies of race and empire—they are "safe" non-white powers because they don’t fundamentally disrupt the Western-led order.

Conclusion: Soft Power as a Racialized Hierarchy

Soft power isn’t just about benevolence—it’s about who gets to be seen as globally desirable and why. The framing you critique exists because mainstream IR theory often ignores how white supremacy and colonial legacies shape cultural influence. A decolonial approach would ask:

• Why are certain cultures deemed "universal" while others are "exotic"?
• How does Western military and economic power reinforce cultural dominance?
• Why are non-Western soft power successes (e.g., Bollywood, Turkish dramas) still marginalized in global discourse?

Would you like to explore specific cases (e.g., how African soft power is constrained, or how Qatar/Al-Jazeera challenges Western media dominance)?

Here’s a breakdown of why soft power is often framed in depoliticized or sanitized terms—and why that framing is problematic:

1. Origins of Soft Power: Liberal Ideals Over Structural Critique

The term "soft power" was coined by Joseph Nye in the late 1980s. His framework was rooted in liberal internationalism, which tends to:

• Emphasize cooperation, shared values, and attraction rather than coercion.
• Downplay the role of racialized power structures or historical legacies like colonialism or imperialism.
• Focus on the voluntary "pull" of a country’s culture, political values, and foreign policies, without acknowledging how that pull may be shaped by asymmetries of power rooted in race and history.

2. White Supremacy and the Global Cultural Hierarchy

The cultural dominance of Euro-American countries is not just about attractive values or Hollywood films—it is deeply tied to:

• The legacy of European colonialism, which established European cultural norms, languages, and institutions as superior.
• A global racial hierarchy in which whiteness is valorized and remains associated with "modernity," "progress," and "universal values."

This isn’t neutral appeal—it’s appeal underwritten by centuries of military conquest, epistemic violence, and institutional dominance.

3. “Honorary Aryans” and Racial Gatekeeping

Countries like Japan and South Korea have been called “honorary Aryans” or "honorary whites" in critical theory because:

• They are non-Western but have aligned themselves with Western power structures economically, militarily, and culturally (e.g., through NATO partnerships, neoliberal capitalism, etc.).
• Their soft power is often accepted or celebrated only insofar as it affirms or mirrors Western liberal-democratic values.
• They gained global cultural legitimacy in ways that reinforce, rather than challenge, the global racial hierarchy.

4. Depoliticizing Soft Power Benefits the Status Quo

By framing soft power as a matter of benign attraction:

• It obscures the coercive and racialized foundations of why some cultures are seen as more attractive or legitimate.
• It allows powerful countries to claim moral superiority ("People just admire us because we’re free and open!") while avoiding scrutiny of the systems of global domination that make such admiration structurally likely.
• It leaves out the voices of countries or cultures whose power and influence are constrained not by lack of appeal, but by racial, economic, or geopolitical marginalization.

5. Alternative Viewpoints: Critical Soft Power Theory

Scholars in postcolonial studies, critical race theory, and critical IR (international relations) have challenged mainstream soft power narratives. They argue:

• Soft power is not "soft" at all—it can discipline, exclude, and reassert hierarchy in subtle but powerful ways.
• Cultural appeal is often the result of imperial cultural hegemony, not just inherent attractiveness.
• The legitimacy of non-Western soft power is often conditional, and subject to scrutiny when it challenges Western norms (e.g., China's Confucius Institutes or Russia's media networks).

Summary

Soft power, as typically understood, is shaped by a liberal framework that avoids confronting how race, empire, and whiteness structure global perceptions of legitimacy and cultural value. The prominence of Euro-American and aligned countries in soft power rankings reflects not just their appeal, but a deeply embedded global order in which white supremacy and Western dominance are normalized, reproduced, and rewarded.

If you're interested, I can recommend scholars who write about this critically.