Civilian Power
Jim Arkedis suggests “civilian power” as an alternative term to the much-derided “soft power.” I think this suggestion actually shows that we don’t need one term to replace soft power, but rather that the underlying concept can probably be split into a few different ideas. One thing, that seems to be well-described as “civilian power” is the idea that the government needs to mobilize more of the non-military instruments available to us — things like diplomatic resources, technical assistance, development aid, etc. There are a lot of problems on the planet and not all of them can be solved primarily by blowing things up. But right now our budget is heavily tilted toward the “blowing things up” side of the ledger. We would do well to balance better.
But there’s also something else that, as I said before, I don’t think is well-captured by the term “power” at all. Maybe it’s easier to think about it in terms of another country. One thing that’s good about the United States is that we have a brand that, when we’re at our best, is very broadly appealing across ethnic and religious lines. By contrast, Iran can have strong appeal in southern Lebanon or in Iraq, but theocracy based on Shiite Islam is an inherently tough sell. Similarly, Putin-style Russian nationalism is a potent force in Russia, but hardly an ideology that’s ready to travel the globe. But insofar as the United States comes to be identified with torture, bullying, and aggressive warfare rather than with humane liberal values we lose that brand advantage.
46 Responses to “Civilian Power”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“government needs to mobilize more of the non-military instruments available to us — things like diplomatic resources, technical assistance, development aid, etc”
But then we get a right wing president who’ll militarize them for their wars across the globe, like the National Guard. We should probably just hire some Blackwater folks to do our do-gooderism.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Wait, so “civilian power” is supposed to counteract the stereotype of liberals as limp-wristed ninnies who want to send the Peace Corps out to fight in place of the Marines? Good luck with that.
You need to attack the other side as well. As long as the bomb-droppers can call their approach “hard power” or “military power” they’ve won the argument before it’s started.
You need a term that implies intelligence, prescience, vision, long-term thinking — and contrast it with the short-sighted, unimaginative, reactive approach of simply shooting at every problem. Like “smart power” or “strategic power” or something.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
But insofar as the United States comes to be identified with torture, bullying, and aggressive warfare rather than with humane liberal values we lose that brand advantage.
Right. And there’s an adjunct to that, which is that our prior rep in the world is what makes accusations of torture and war crimes so damaging. That’s one of the reasons a lot of practical-minded folk deplore those tactics–even ignoring their moral dimension, they’re fodder for some very high-traction world criticism.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
How about calling it the Jobs for People with Liberal Arts Degrees program? It sound like the Stuff White People Like version of the WPA.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Or you could call it ‘foreign relations,’ or ‘negotiations,’ or ‘civilized behavior’, and so forth. Or we could just append the word “power” to everything we do.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Influence.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
You may want to check out an organization called 3D Security. They’ve been wrestling with this issue, and more importantly, the framing of it both within and outside the Beltway for several years (www.3dsecurity.org/).
December 5th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
power of example, or exemplary power
December 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Hard power vs.
leverage?
influence?
So we need to use less hard power and more smart leverage?
From thesaurus.reference.com/browse/influence
leverage, influence, direction, grease, guidance, imprint, juice, pressure, pull, sway
December 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
cultural attraction
December 5th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
leverage, influence, direction, grease, guidance, imprint, juice, pressure, pull, sway
cultural attraction
ninjitsu
“the clear option” (so that the next rt-wing President is sorely tempted to pun on it and invoke “the nuclear option”)
December 5th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I disagree with your assumption that the word “power” is a problem. We can call soft power other things that mean something like ‘leadership by example’ or ‘culivation of good will’ or ‘making people like us.’ But the point of the term “soft power” is that it emphasizes that these things do constitute power, and that this power is actually more useful than military power in the new world. We have words for goodwill, popularity, etc, but these words don’t have the rhetorical bite, the ability to remind the receiver that the purpose of these things is to influence the world, just as military power does.
I’d suggest you should be looking to replace the term “hard power” to emphasize its limitations. Perhaps the new dichotomy should be “subtle power” vs “blunt power” or some such.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I would imagine that the right-wingers would love to start using this phrase in conjunction with “soft power.” It would allow them to continue their argument that diplomacy is “anti-military” and thus “anti-American.”
December 5th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Re: One thing that’s good about the United States is that we have a brand that, when we’re at our best, is very broadly appealing across ethnic and religious lines.
Nonsense. American values are appealing to the cosmopolitan elites in foreign countries. Which is not surprising, because those cosmopolitan elites have typically made their wealth and power, and lifted themselves above their countrymen, by catering to the whims and wants of American capital. American liberal values are hardly very appealing to the average peasant in Egypt or Bolivia. And that is just as it should be.
Plenty of anti-liberal ideologies have enjoyed mass international appeal before now. Christian clericalism, Islamic jihadism, syndicalism, socialism, Marxism, anarchism, nationalism being only some among them. And that makes sense, since the fundamental assumptions of the liberal ideology are gravely contrary to nature. It is also not unlikely that some kind of coalition of anti-liberal forces will form, whose only commonality is that they oppose the empire. Something of that inchoate nature today is beginning today, as Russia begins to strengthen its ties with the socialist nations of the Latin America.
Russian nationalism has, obviously, great popularity in Russia and in former parts of Greater Russia like the Ukraine. It has appeal also in nations like Serbia and Armenia which were traditionally in the Russian sphere of influence. And it has further great appeal among anti-liberal forces in places like South America, who look with pleasure on the fact that Putin has made his country great again by denying everything that the Western economic and political meddlers told him to do.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“Civilian power” has been part of the problem: the belief by certain civilians, an inordinate number of whom took unusual steps to avoid military service, that military officers had an excessively risk-averse and negativist view of the use and limits of military power. While we certainly want “civilian power” in an institutional sense and in the sense of favoring non-military over military presence in the world in support of our national interests, the term itself makes the last eight years sound like the fault of a military run amok, which isn’t at all the case.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I was going to post one word: “influence.” But Ben Ross got there first. So I’m with Ben.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Well are we looking for a word that the righties won’t misconstrue? There is no such word. Still, I think the word “influence” captures a lot of what I think the US should be doing.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I’m less annoyed by the fact that people keep using various “X power” formulations than that it’s simply so idiotic a discussion environment that they have to do so.
I.e., ‘We are going to sit down for discussions with Nation X over issue Y… No, no, it’s okay, instead of just negotiating we’re applying ’soft power’, so it’s still okay, ’cause, you know, we’re exerting power!’
December 5th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
“Civilian power”? Really? This is what he wants? Why not just call it “gay power”?
If you must rebrand, call it “Civil Power” – that is probably the best formulation. The words itself has a pretty good reputation and the virtue is in line with what “progressives” seem to like. Plus you can call republicans who deride it “uncivilized”
December 6th, 2008 at 12:02 am
damn! …strength of our integrative power.
December 6th, 2008 at 12:02 am
The economist Kenneth Boulding figured this out in The Three Faces of Power (1989). You have Threat Power (the ability to get someone to do what you want through force), Exchange Power (the ability to get someone to do what you want by offering something of value if they do) and Integrative Power (the ability to get someone to do what you want because they want to). Soft/civilian power is Integrative Power. The only drawback is Boulding also called it “Love Power,” which isn’t a useful term in most circles. This definition works week at the international level and the interpersonal. Your talk about the brand of the US relates to the strength of our
December 6th, 2008 at 12:27 am
“Sway” is the kind of thing you read in 19th-century diplomatic histories (or RPG/fantasy stuff) but it has a certain applicability here.
December 6th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Good Lord, this is tiresome.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:09 am
El Cid’s #20 also describes the potential downside to “influence”, which otherwise enjoys popularity as being accurate and already used commonly in this context. Influence contrasts with control: it sounds weaker because it implies you _might_ affect behavior, or you might not. “Power” suggests a guarantee of the result you want (if you’ve got enough).
I’m stunned that “non-military power” and “civilian power” has come up but no one’s mentioned “peaceful power” or a variation. Maybe other people think “peace” sounds too weak also, but I think it’s got rhetorical weight. No one calls himself a warmonger; no one says they’re against peace. Opponents could imply “peaceful” means unwilling to use military force, but I don’t see that gaining traction.
I think Matt’s second notion — the “appeal of the brand” — can be summed up as “Respect”. Respect, like “political capital”, can be thought of as an element of peaceful power (look! it’s catching on!). However, it’s a cleric in the Peace Power party: respect doesn’t make other nations do what you want, but it makes the diplomatic resources, development aid, etc. more effective. (Curse you, pseudonymous in nc at #24, for planting the RPG analogy seed!)
December 6th, 2008 at 5:25 am
http://makkale.blogcu.com/denizlispor-fenerbahce-macinin-golu-emrenin-attigi-gol-denizlispor-fenerbahce-macini-izle-emrenin-attig-golu-izle_30491151.html
December 6th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Soft power in some of the senses Nye talks about it isn’t the exercise of power but rather its encapsulation in cooperative processes. It’s about co-opting countries to your goals, which never goes without some of the reverse also happening. Jamais Cascio talks about administrative power in this sense. But that doesn’t get at it either. It’s more something like communality.
As for brand appeal, why not simply talk about the US brand and be done with that? Steve Clemons has been doing so quite successfully for a long time.
December 6th, 2008 at 8:00 am
American values are appealing to the cosmopolitan elites in foreign countries. Which is not surprising, because those cosmopolitan elites have typically made their wealth and power, and lifted themselves above their countrymen, by catering to the whims and wants of American capital
An excellent marxist analysis. However, Matt is talking specifically about “humane liberal” values, which is quite different to the “American” (read: capitalist) values you’ve critiqued.
In the first instance, humane liberal values are hardly going to appeal to those cosmopolitans that have, as you described, lifted themselves above their countrymen in the service of American capital.
Humane liberal values are shared by many in other countries, independent of America or American capital. So Matt is correct to write that the ‘brand’ has some appeal.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t help Matt all that much. Because, having broadly agreed on shared (humane liberal) values, genuine adherence to those values precludes the exertion of unfair influence of, say, the strong over the weak. Which contradicts, of course, the point of this whole discussion.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:59 am
SJK,
I’m not a Marxist, although I do acknowledge much truth in the Marxist analysis.
Liberal values, humane or otherwise, cannot form the lasting basis for any attempt to uplift or succour the weak. The reason is that liberalism is fundamentally an incoherent and un-natural ideology. Please see Simone Weil’s excellent book for more. It would be better to ground arguments for social justice in Christian arguments, solidly grounded in reason, revelation and the inherent nature of man, rather than in the chimeras of liberalism.
December 7th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Hector, I didn’t mean to imply that you were a Marxist …
On your substantive point, I am not sure how it is possible to ground arguments for social justice in both reason and revelation at the same time.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:46 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 1st, 2009 at 6:38 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:42 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:16 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 9th, 2009 at 6:15 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra