Part Ⅰ Soft Power and Culture
1 The Notion of “Soft Power Relationship”
Naren Chitty A.M.[1]
Abstract：This article examines the acceptability of Lasswellian pyramids through cultures of soft power that are inherent in a system. The purpose of this paper is to explore a new concept：soft power relationship. In order to do this it first sets soft power within a symbolic interactive frame-work；it examines the relationship between attraction-coercion and equitability- inequitability under a Lasswellian theoretical framework. It then proposes what I call Joseph Nye’s single-column model of soft power can usefully be bifurcated as two pillars；it elaborates on instrumental and non-instrumental soft power and then discusses war，peace and soft power and their bearing on the notion of ‘soft power relationship’.
Keywords：attraction；coercion；constructivism；equitability；harmony；Lasswell；public diplomacy；soft power relationship；systems；win-win
The terms “harmony” and “win-win” are important ones in contemporary Chinese discourse. Not exactly the same，but sufficiently close to “harmony” and “win-win”，to be interesting，are the terms “system stability” and “equitability”. This article sees merit in revisiting systems theory.[2] Systems theory offers potential for articulating the non-violent vision of world politics envisioned in the system of international organizations. Fisher and Lucas have noted that I take an interdisciplinary approach to theorizing how public diplomacy might be conducted，drawing particularly on the influence of Confucianism. PD is no longer the preserve of the public sector，but a public project with the goal of sustainable world politics focusing on a collective non-exclusionary security，based on the principles of humanitarianism and reciprocity，rather than....assertive leadership and predominance of power.”[3] In a book that envisions what amounts to a stable public diplomacy system，Zhao Qizheng advocates a “network for harmonious dialogues” in his conception of public diplomacy in a harmonious world.[4]
For states，public diplomacy is the modus operandi of winning over opinion leaders and public opinion or at least explaining one’s foreign policy generally to other countries. For non-state actors there is an emphasis on the development of people-to-people interaction. The attractiveness of the cultural assets of a country is often used as a resource in public diplomacy. For a social organization，whether international，national or subnational，to be harmonious，its subsystems must be in harmony-a condition of system stability. For the parties to any discussion who are seeking to resolve problems of distribution to feel that all parties have won，there needs to be an understanding that all parties have received a satisfactory quantum of benefits-even if benefits are not equal. In examining these concepts this article draws on the thought of Harold Lasswell[5]. Laswellian influentials are symbolic，mercantile and security elites. The interactions between Lasswellian influentials and the mass of people in a society are seen as leading to perceptions of increased security in both groups. Order，security and stability are the preferred aggregate outcomes of the processes of interaction that include social mobility and therefore potential repopulating of elite （influential） and mass subsystems in the Lasswellian pyramid.
For the Lasswellian pyramid to be stable in the absence of coercion—that is for elites and masses to accept the differential distribution of benefits—there needs to be a leitmotif of fairness，a fairness that is attractive in one way or another to all. The attractiveness of fairness is an example of deep cultural soft power. This may be contrasted with the strategic deployment of softpower as a resource，residing as it does in the Lasswellian skill domain of symbolic exchange. Fairness can be seen in the body economic as a belief in equality of opportunity for social mobility，in the body politic as equal rights and in the body legal as equality before the law. Economically，the emphasis should be on equality on the input side，in the sense of access to education and a work ethic that can lead to success. Where conflict arises through different outcomes along divides such as ethnic ones，the narrative of equal opportunity and social mobility has been variously challenged—hence the emphasis on equality or equity in terms of distribution. Theoretically，acceptance of international or domestic Lasswellian pyramids could be facilitated either through coercive ［hard power （HP）-based］ or incentive （soft power-based） systems. This article examines the acceptability of Lasswellian pyramids through cultures of soft power that are inherent in a system. The purpose is to explore a new concept：soft power relationship. In order to do this I first se soft power within a symbolic interactionist frame-work：I examine the relationship between attraction-coercion and equitability-inequitability under a Lasswellian theoretical framework；I then suggests what I call Joseph Nye’s single-column model of soft power can usefully be bifurcated into two pillars：I elaborate on instrumental and non-instrumental soft power and then discuss war and peace and their bearing on the notion of “soft power relationship”.
Joseph Nye，the renowned neoliberal international relations scholar and defence technocrat in Democratic U.S. administrations，was responsible for coining the term “soft power.”[6] The term has been criticized for overlapping with other terms such as charisma，[7] discursive power，[8] hegemony，[9] propaganda and persuasion[10] that are often alluringly close to soft power in some ways. “Allure” and “charm” are common sense terms that are synonyms for “attraction”. Additionally one might argue that Machiavelli seems to have seen the limitations of soft power in a Renaissance world when he spoke of princes needing to be both loved and feared，noting that it would be safer to be feared than sorry[11]. Perhaps he was the first to see that soft power can arise from hard power—though there is the biblical reference “...out of the strong came forth sweetness” （Judges 14：14）. Fear and love are sentiments that arise as responses to hard （coercive） and soft （attractive） power as the case may be—but to rely on a security calculus of love is often viewed as being imprudent. Additionally soft power being anchored in the power of attraction differentiates it from other terms and gives it grounds for an independent existence. The term “power” here should not be confused with force. An infant exercises power over its parents before it has developed a mind that allow it to use resources to achieve a purpose. Its power is involuntary and does not amount to exercised hard power or strategized soft power.
There is also an intra-state dimension—soft power as a characteristic of governance. Soft power approaches are associated with participatory democratic political cultures or dramaturgical variations of this.[12] Governance at an international level through construction and operation of international regimes，expounded on by Krasner and others，may also be examined in terms of soft power.[13] This is another way of approaching the anarchy problematique—the natural disharmony in world politics perceived by realist international relations theorists. The ability of international regimes to manage conflict without using hard power may be an indication of the health of the “political culture” associated with world politics. But it needs to be said that the web of international regimes that criss-crosses，emanates from and nurture the United Nations family and other international and regional organizations is also shaped institutionally by recognition of hard power balances，as may be seen in the shape and rules of the UN Security Council.
Nye’s notion of soft power arises from a reading of complex interdependence，a concept that recognizes multidimensional transactions between multilevel actors around a multiplicity of issues that were ranked on the basis of context rather than issue type.[14] Nye took pains to explain that soft power is not inherently ethical，it is used strategically by states，and indeed it is.[15] However I argue normatively for an ethical soft power based on dialogic rather than strategic communication.[16] This should be compatible with a neoliberal approach that sees international regimes as “institutions possessing norms，decision rules，and procedures which facilitate a convergence of expectations” around issue areas and which are largely social constructions.[17]
While the interpersonal context allows one to apply a dialogic approach more easily，such an approach may still be transferred to the larger international context as well—even if the strategic-dialogic continuum is likely to linger retaining a strong strategic influence.[18] Soft power was a disruptive concept that arises in the field of international relations （IR） in a space of contestation between neo-realism and neo-liberalism.
Social interaction is to a great part symbolic interaction and the social world is to a great part a symbolic world. As Onuf states：
[S]ocial relations make or construct people—ourselves—into the kind of beings that we are. Conversely，we make the world what it is，from the raw materials that nature provides，by doing what we do with each other and saying what we say to each other. Indeed，saying is doing：talking is undoubtedly the most important way that we go about making the world what it is.[19]
Soft power is a constructivist paradigmatic manifestation in IR.[20] It arises out of the symbolic interactionist tradition.[21] Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical bridge that links soft power’s original foothold in IR with the field of international communication，the latter being a natural space for inquiry into soft power.[22]
Constructivism has bi-directionality；as with many processes that originated from the mists of evolutionary time，ontological correctness is here an elusive pursuit. One can simply say that people’s behaviours construct social structures and social constructions shape behaviours. Noting the bi-directionality Onuf proposes that：
...[i]n order to study it，we must start in the middle，so to speak，because people and society，always having made each other，are already there and just about to change. To make a virtue of necessity，we will start in the middle，between people and society，by introducing a third element，rules，that always links the other two elements together. Social rules （the term rules includes，but is not restricted to，legal rules） make the process by which people and society constitute each other continuously and reciprocally. A rule is a statement that tells people what we should do. The “what” in question is a standard for people’s conduct in situations that we can identify as being alike，and can expect to encounter. The “should” tells us to match our conduct to that standard. If we fail to do what the rule tells us to，then we can expect consequences that some other rule will bring into effect when other people follow the rule calling for such consequences. All the ways in which people deal with rules—whether we follow the rules or break them，whether we make the rules，change them，or get rid of them—may be called practices. Even when we do not know what a rule says，we can often guess what it is about by looking at people’s practices. Among much else，rules tell us who the active participants in a society are. Constructivists call these participants agents. People are agents，but only to the extent that society，through its rules，makes it possible for us to participate in the many situations for which there are rules. No one is an agent for all such situations.[23]
If constructivists see world politics as a constantly morphing sum of human interactions shaping and being shaped by social constructs，hard power and soft power offer both resources and behavioural approaches to social interaction and construction. Hard power as a resource could，for instance，be an enormous stockpile of intercontinental ballistic missiles possessed by a country. To make the example clearer，the stockpile may have been built by a hawkish military government and inherited by a dovish democratic one. Despite the dovish government’s avowed policy of relying on diplomacy rather than military coercion，the very existence of the stockpile can add an overt or covert coercive dimension to the dovish government’s foreign policy. This coercive dimension may be voluntary or involuntary in the minds of different actors within the government. Similarly，the possession of attractive values of one kind or another by a country，whether these are cultural，environmental，political，philosophical or historical values，would exert soft power over those who see these as being attractive. Again，to take a particular example，despite having an unsavoury military government in the present，the ancient heritage of a country that is under military rule after a coup would continue to be attractive to others and therefore exert soft power. If a social object “A” exerts a force of attraction （sans inducement or coercion） on a social object “B” keeping “B” effectively within its orbit，“A” may be seen as exerting soft power on “B”. The exertion of soft power may be voluntary or involuntary or may have some involuntary elements that are then garnished with strategic intent and strategy.
In the world of ordinary experience soft power in the international context is seen as being freshly generated through international programs （educational mobility and cultural mobility and tourism—and even investment，trade and investment） and through strategic communication （branding，marketing，persuasion，public relations） by an international actor to secure support by targeted international display of that actor’s interests，values and foreign policies. Based on Nye’s inclusion of economic inducement under hard power，it appears that strategic intent will be what colors aid，investment and trade as hard or soft power. If for instance aid is tied instrumentally to the achievement of foreign policy goals，as it often is，I would see it under Nye’s definition as being a form of hard power.
Within international communication this symbolic world is the preferred theatre of operation for one of the three classes of agents or Lasswellian elites or influentials-viz. the manipulators of the flow of symbols （knowledge /culture /communication elites）[24]. However the other two Lasswellian elites，the manipulators of flows of instruments of violence （security /military elites） and the manipulators of flows of goods and services （wealth /economic elites） also generate symbols through their interaction，and certainly military elites are usually associated with hard power. However governing elites are essentially communication elites and they draw on the whole spectrum （particularly in relation to foreign policy） from persuasion to inducement and on occasion，to coercion. In an ideal-typical sense communication elites representing a state seek to publish symbolic values，military elites seek to protect values and economic elites seek to produce and exchange values. This elite behaviour is based on the attractiveness placed by society on the values behind that which is manipulated by the three types of elites. So if attraction is at the heart of the three types of values，what makes the attractiveness of soft power different？ The fundamental social values of knowledge，economic security （through wealth accumulation） and military security are first order attractions. The second order relates to how these values are exchanged with others. The key question to ask is whether the exchange is based on coercion or inducement （hard power） or whether it is based on the party wishing to accept the values of the other because of the attraction the first party feels for the values of the second （soft power）？[25]
Whether in hard or soft power domains，rules arise through symbolic interaction generated from the manipulation of values by Lasswellian elites.[26] Increasingly in today’s economy，values are produced and distributed by ordinary people over the internet. The dialogic rather than manipulative approach therefore becomes increasingly important in the soft power domain. However with the growing trend among some powers to centralise soft power generation and deployment through policy and programs，state co-opted soft power efforts often are tilted to the strategic rather than dialogic end of the spectrum both in terms of policy and processes.
“But it is important to note that in state-led soft power exercises that include various agencies （whether state-owned，non- government or private） and members of the public，there could possibly be various ratios in the strategic-dialogic mixed in different loci of operations. While the central state policy may be mostly strategic in intent and operationalization，it might have a dialogic component introduced for strategic reasons. Additionally，despite the strategic nature of the policy structure，individual participants from among members of the public may have nothing but an ethical intent in their minds.”[27]
Lasswellian pyramids may be viewed as functional systems where elites retain ascendancy through exchanging political，economic and symbolic values with the masses in a purely equitable way，a largely equitable way，a partially equitable way，a partially inequitable way，a largely inequitable way or a purely inequitable way （Figure 1.1）.
Figure 1.1 Lasswellian Pyramid
In Nye’s words “[s]oft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture，political ideals，and policies. When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others，our soft power is enhanced”[28] Coercion （C） and payments （P） may be viewed as belonging to the coercion spectrum and is labeled as “C&P” here while attraction is labelled “A”. Combinations of C&P and A are what keep the Lasswellian pyramids from falling apart. The proposition here is that equitability is innately attractive and higher orders of equitability would afford masses and elites with better ability to pursue better lives. Table 1.1 contains some ideal typical combinations，but there would be intermediate combinations as well.
Table 1.1 Inequitability-Equitability and Coercion-Attraction
Nye’s definition can be configured as a single column illustrating sources of soft power （and attraction factors）. At the base is culture （attractiveness of a culture）. Arising from this are political values （fidelity to political values at home and abroad） and foreign policies （their legitimacy and moral authority）.[29]
My own description of soft power is based on three positively and one negatively characterised “make-ups”. The term “make up” has a dozen or so senses in the English language. I select four of these for discussing soft power. The first meaning is make-up as constitution. A book is made up of chapters. Our culture is made up of deep traditional values. This is my make-up. This make-up is consonant with Nye’s emphasis on culture and values and I call this make-up ‘identification’—the core values with which a society identifies or of which it is made up. This is a non-instrumental form of soft power in that it is propositional. What one does to operationalize it，in terms of enhancing soft power，is instrumental soft power. Importantly，in post-conflict situations，reconciliation is a making-up. Because of the costs associated with reconciliation，when real，it is proximate in quality to the first make-up. This suggests that there are different qualities of soft power and I would say that I have ordered the make-ups in Table 1.2 in receding order of quality from one to three. Three，cosmetification，is an example of instrumental soft power in another sense of make-up. People wear make up on their faces to enhance their appearance. This is the accentuation of the positive that one sees in public relations. It is strategic in intent but is not necessarily deceptive. Making up as in disguising oneself，putting on a costume，is a kind of falsification. Falsification is in soft power terms a kind of propaganda，the fourth make-up and the one on the dark side.
Table 1.2 The Four Make-ups
In his longer definition of soft power Nye states the following：“Soft Power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture，political ideals，and policies. When our policies are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others，our soft power is enhanced.”[30] What is interesting here is that the first sentence has an instrumental tone while the second may be construed as being potentially non-instrumental.
It is useful to differentiate between the policy arena and popular or monetisable culture as I have done below（Table 1.3）. This provides a better basis for explaining how someone in country A could find country B’s cultural exports to be attractive but its policy exports to be unattractive. The three levels of soft power resources may all potentially be used instrumentally because of their potential intrinsic attractiveness.
Table 1.3 Two-Pillar Model of Soft Power
It is useful to consider what might be meant by non-instrumental soft power（NISP）. Power will not always be instrumental in the practical world. This is generally the case in the realm of politics，including world politics. However there are other domains and instances where the term power is used in a non-instrumental sense because it is employed in relation to inanimate objects，plants or animals or infants. If this examination is limited to the power of attraction，inanimate objects—natural or crafted—can be attractive and elicit responses from people. The purpose of this discussion is to isolate a pure type of non-instrumental attraction that may be seen as an ideal type. Non-instrumental soft power and instrumental soft power （ISP） blends are ranged on a continuum between ideal typical soft power and ideal typical hard power（Table 1.4）—bearing in mind that this refers to the use of hard or soft power rather than the availability of hard and soft power as resources.
The moon and Venice are widely seen as attractive objects and locations respectively and elicit certain kinds of behaviours from people—such as the writing of verse. Flowers and various plants may be seen as attractive and therefore are cultivated by people on account of this quality.
Table 1.4 Non-instrumental Soft Power，Instrumental Soft Power and Hard Power
Similarly some species （e.g. canines） have had a long-term relationship with humans during which they are bred for values such as cuteness and are offered shelter in the homes of people. Infants are able to control the behaviour of adults around them，without design at the early stages，through cuteness and vulnerability. These examples illustrate the point that the natural environment and the constructed environment may be invested in our minds with a kind of soft power through our social interaction around these—as may be elements of culture that are social relationships around ideologies，nature，the social world，means of communication and technology. All of these constitute the cultural assets referred to at the outset and are listed in Table 1.5.
Table 1.5 Elements of Culture
It is by observing nature that positivists began to conceive of social systems.
Positivism holds the idea that the international system is essentially the same as systems in the natural world. The scientific approach of positivism views both the social and political world as having patterns and regularities，a type of naturalism，suggesting that observation and experience is crucial to formulating and reviewing scientific theories. Positivist IR scholars draw a basic distinction between empirical theories and normative theories，and therefore remain neutral between theories[31].[32]
Post-positivists can continue to draw insights from systems theory，particularly when social systems are explained as social constructions. Peace studies encourage the establishment of an international system that is in peace. There is a spectrum of war and peace discussed in peace studies which include hot war，cold war，cold peace and hot peace. Hot peace is an active peace-constructing relationship—it is a positive peace that is about cooperative interactions，justice and trust.[33] Positive peace seems to be an attribute of a healthy community. As Einstein said “[p]eace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of justice，of law，of order—in short，of government.”[34] In the absence of world government we might construe world politics as a loose confederation that is governed through the instrument of international regimes.[35]
Hard power has been employed in all societies at various times in response to security and resource—related challenges and opportunities—both in world politics and inter-group relations. Both soft power and peace relate to moments when hard power has been given up by parties in contention. Peace may be defined as a context （situation） in which conflicts are resolved without the use of coercion by the actors. Nye defines soft power as “the ability to achieve preferred outcomes without coercion”—but coercion includes both military and economic forms.[36] Peace is still possible if there is an acceptable degree of economic coercion，but a pure soft power approach disallows this. A pure soft power relationship should，therefore，be one that is free of any coercion. This suggests that it is beyond friendship，because friends can be coercive towards each other. A soft power relationship，in world politics，is ideal-typical. The relationships are depicted in Table 1.6.
Table 1.6 War，Peace and Soft Power Relationship
Important to the institution and preservation of peace are soft law and informal international regimes as well as international law and formal international regimes in issue areas including the diffused issue area of security.[37] Within the modern state conflict is contained through the legal codes that govern the nature of conflict and sanction the use of hard power by the state to punish transgressors. Peace is underwritten by hard power that the state is permitted to employ following due process. The degree of attractiveness or soft power of a legal system may be said to increase with public perceptions of its fairness—and this attractiveness is potent in that it can，for the “good citizen”，make compliance with the law more a matter of behaving according to an attractive set of values than one of seeking avoidance of punishment. Law has been defined as “a process of decision-making that is both authoritative and controlling.”[38] The legitimacy of the process is very much strengthened by the values of fairness （fair trial） and equality （equality before the law） and must certainly be transmitted through socialization.
It should be said that whether in world politics or in intra-state relations，relations within issue areas may be more or less soft power-based and may be perceived variously as such by parties to a relationship—with differences between parties and differences within parties emerging over time.
Conditions of peace and security are also related to the notion of stability. Cold peace is a condition where order has replaced anarchy and where subsystemic imbalances are addressed by the system of peace based on distributions of military force；this has been a stable system of world order at times. War has been used in this system to nudge it into balance，e.g. in the Concert of Europe. While Table 1.7 shows a clear demarcation between anarchy and order in the real world order and anarchy is found in various combinations. Again，we must take an ideal type characterized by pure anarchy，and hot war on one side and a pure soft power relationship characterized by order on the other. The former is coercion-based and the latter is attraction-based.
Table 1.7 Soft Power Relationship Areas of Society
The subcategories for positive and negative peace identified in a study using a grounded theory method by participants are provided in Table 1.8.[39]
Table 1.8 Prerequisites of Peace
The measure of potential success of a system of peace is the prevalent and effective operationalization of the value of human dignity. The existence of peace between two potential or erstwhile contenders assumes that mutual security questions have been addressed—I would say more that mutual human security conditions have been addressed more generally including not merely military conditions for war but also imbalances in addressing human needs that may generate military conflict. “A public order of human dignity is defined as one which approximates optimum access by all human beings to all the things that they cherish：power，wealth，affection，respect and rectitude.”[40] There is the value of fairness embedded here that is encapsulated by distributive justice.[41] Noting that “while law is policy，” it is also recognised by the New Haven School that “there may be gaps between written constitutions and unwritten practice；myth system and operational code；and law-in-books and law-in-action.”[42]
The New Haven School outlines a framework that may be used to analyze the process leading to the emergence of consensus in relation to value sets；this is depicted in Table 1.9.
Table 1.9 The New Haven School Process
Albin and Druckman，in investigating an outcome characterized as “durability of peace” found that procedural justice （PJ） principles and the principle of equality—within distributive justice （DJ）incorporated in negotiated post-conflict dispensations—strengthen this outcome.[43]Both equal treatment and equal shares were found to be associated with agreements that looked to the future and proved to have high durability. While PJ is found to be useful it is not shown to be a guarantor for the success of peace agreements.[44] However this study focuses on outcomes rather than the other five components in the New Haven School process.
If a soft power relationship is seen as being congruent with peace characterized by attraction-based order and stability （Table 1.7），it could be argued that relations and formal agreements between two states in diffused and specific issue areas respectively would benefit from equal or equitable treatment and equal or equitable shares.[45] An ideal-typical soft power relationship needs to be free of all coercion. If an international relationship is “to achieve preferred outcomes without coercion”[46] it would need to be attractive to parties to the relationship either on an equal or equitable basis. Whether the rewards of the relationship are equally or equitably distributed，the distribution needs to be viewed as fair in a soft power relationship. Confucian ideology allows for there to be reciprocal duties and obligations between senior and junior partners. The principle of ren-yi（仁义）—which refers to the qualities of humanness/ humanity/ benevolence/ love and correct behaviour respectively—characterizes idealised behaviour.[47] The rule of reciprocal consideration is both cause and effect of these qualities. That is to say a soft power relationship is possible between non-equals if a benevolent ideology informs the relationship.
A soft power relationship in its purest form is not the same as a friendship. One of the characteristics of a pure soft power relationship is that there will be no coercion exerted between those in the relationship at all—no use of force or economic inducement. It is possible for friends to use force or economic inducement on each other. The special relationship between UK and U.S.，the values of European integration，the ideals of peaceful coexistence promulgated by the Non-aligned Movement in the 1950s and the Rancho Mirage identification of a “cooperative partnership based on respect and mutual benefit” are all cases that need examination in a detailed construction of an ideal typical soft power relationship.
[1] Professor Naren Chitty A. M. is inaugural director of the Soft Power Advocacy & Research Centre （SPARC），founding chair in International Communication and associate dean （International） of the Faculty of Arts of Macquarie University，Sydney，Australia. He is an honorary professor of Jilin University. He is or has been a visiting professor at Paris III-Sorbonne，Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia，Communication University of China （Beijing），South West University of Politics and Law （Chongqing） and South China Normal University （Guangzhou）. Professor Chitty is editor-in-chief of the Journal of International Communication and an editor for several other international journals. He has authored a large number of publications on soft power，public diplomacy and international communication.
[2] Walter Buckley，Sociology and Modern Systems Theory，Englewood Cliffs，N.J.：Prentice Hall，1967.
[3] Ali Fisher and Scott Lucas，eds.，Trials of Engagement：The future of US Public Diplomacy，Leiden：Martinus Nijhoff Publishers，2011，p. 15.
[4] Zhao Qizheng，How China Communicates：Public Diplomacy in a Global Age，Beijing：Foreign Language Press，2012，pp. 27-31.
[5] Harold Lasswell，Politics：Who Gets What，When，How，New York：Meridian Books，1958.
[6] Joseph Nye，Jr.，The Future of Power，Philadelphia：Public Affairs/Perseus Books Group，2011.
[7] Max Weber，The Theory of Social and Economic Organization，New York：Free Press，1947.
[8] Michel Foucault，The History of Sexuality，New York：Vintage Books，1990.
[9] Antonio Gramsci，Prison Notebooks，London：Lawrence and Wishart Ltd，1998.
[10] Harold Lasswell，Propaganda Techniques in the World War，New York：Peter Smith，1927.
[11] Niccolo Machiavelli，The Prince，CSF Publishing，2011.
[12] This term draws on Habermas’s four models of action by individuals in society. These are （a） teleological （subsuming strategic action），（b） normatively regulated，（c） dramaturgical and （d） communicative. Teleological action is perhaps best translated as action based on an informed vision of a leader，but without the necessary inclusion of strategic action in dealing with co-actors. Normatively regulated action is based on the playing out on accepted group roles within a framework of accepted norms and values. Dramaturgical action is about the mutual presentation of “self” by actors and deals with the central feature of public diplomacy. Communicative action is a dialogic approach to understanding and coordinating action. Communicative action presupposes the ability to negotiate a common terminology for the situation. See Roger Bolton，Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action and the Theory of Social Capital，paper read at meeting of Association of American Geographers，Denver，Colorado，April 2005，（previous version read at meeting of Western Regional Science Association，San Diego，California，February 2005，http：//web.williams.edu/Economics/papers/Habermas.pdf.
[13] Stephen Krasner，ed.，International Regimes，Ithaca，NY：Cornell University Press，1983.
[14] Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye，“Interdependence in World Politics，” in George Crane and Abla Amawi，eds.，The Theoretical Evolution of International Political Economy：A Reader，New York：Oxford University Press，1997. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye，Power and Interdependence，London：Longman New York，2001.
[15] Joseph Nye，Jr.，The Future of Power，Philadelphia：Public Affairs Perseus Books Group，2011.
[16] Jürgen Habermas and Thomas McCarthy tr.，Theory of Communicative Action Volume One：Reason and the Rationalization of Society，Boston，Mass：Beacon Press，1984；Jürgen Habermas and Thomas McCarthy tr.，Theory of Communicative Action Volume Two：Liveworld and System：A Critique of Functionalist Reason，Boston，Mass：Beacon Press，1987.
[17] Stephen Krasner，ed.，International Regimes，Ithaca，NY：Cornell University Press，1983.
[18] Luc Chia-Shin Lin and Naren Chitty，“Plurk Politics—Microblogging is Changing Political Communication in Taiwan，” Journalism and Mass Communication，Vol. 2，No. 4，2012，pp.565-579.
[19] Nicholas Onuf，Constructivism：A User’s Manual，2010，Asrudian Center，http：//asrudiancenter.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/10-onuf-usersmanual.pdf，2014-06-02.
[20] Nicholas Onuf，World of Our Making：Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations，Columbia：University of South Carolina Press，1989.
[21] Herbert Blume，Symbolic Interactionism：Perspective and Method，New Jersey：Englewood Cliffs，1969.
[22] Naren Chitty and Dong Leshuo，“Soft Power and IC Theory，” in Naren Chitty and Luo Qing eds.，China and the World：Theatres of Soft Power，Beijing：Communication University of China Press，2014.
[23] Nicholas Onuf，Constructivism：A User’s Manual，2010，the Asrudian Center，http：//asrudiancenter. files. wordpress. com/2010/01/10-onuf-usersma nual. pdf，2014-06-02.
[24] Lasswell 1958.
[25] Naren Chitty and Dong Leshuo，“Soft Power and IC Theory，” in Naren Chitty and Luo Qing eds.，China and the World：Theatres of Soft Power，Beijing：Communication University of China Press，2014.
[26] Naren Chitty and Dong Leshuo，“Soft Power and IC Theory，” in Naren Chitty and Luo Qing eds.，China and the World：Theatres of Soft Power，Beijing：Communication University of China Press，2014.
[27] Naren Chitty and Dong Leshuo，“Soft Power and IC Theory，” in Naren Chitty and Luo Qing eds.，China and the World：Theatres of Soft Power，Beijing：Communication University of China Press，2014.
[28] Nye 2004.
[29] Joseph Nye. Soft Power：The Means to Success in World Politics，Philadelphia：Public Affairs/Perseus Books Group，2004.
[30] Only this.
[31] Whyte，2012.
[32] Alexander Whyte，“Neorealism and Neoliberal Institutionalism：Born of the Same Approach，” E-International Relations Students，June 11，2012，http：//www.e-ir.info/2012/06/11/neorealism-and-neoliberal-institutionalism-born-of-the-same-approach/，2014-06-04.
[33] Leo R. Sandy and Ray Perkins，Jr.，“The Nature of Peace and its Implications for Peace Education”，http：//jupiter.plymouth.edu/～lsandy/peacedef.html，2014-06-03.
[34] Robert Wodenscheck，The Human Right to Peace：Why Such a Right Should be Recognized，American University，UMI Dissertations Publishing，2004.
[35] Stephen Krasner，ed.，International Regimes，Ithaca，N.Y.：Cornell University Press，1983.
[36] Joseph Nye，The Future of Power，Philadelphia：Public Affairs/Perseus Books Group，2011.
[37] Stephen Krasner，ed.，International Regimes，Ithaca，N.Y.：Cornell University Press，1983.
[38] W. Michael Reisman，Siegfried Wiessner and Andrew R. Willard，“The New Haven School：A Brief Introduction，” Yale Journal of International Law，Faculty Scholarship Series，2007，p.576.
[39] Kathleen Malley-Morrison，Andrea Mercurio and Gabriel Twose，eds.，International Handbook of Peace and Reconciliation，New York：Springer，2013.
[40] Only this.
[41] Cecilia Albin and Daniel Druckman，“Equality Matters：Negotiating and End to Civil Wars，” Journal of Conflict Resolution，Vol. 56，No. 2，2012，p. 12.
[42] W. Michael Reisman，Siegfried Wiessner and Andrew R. Willard，“The New Haven School：A Brief Introduction，” p.577.
[43] Cecilia Albin and Daniel Druckman，“Equality Matters：Negotiating and End to Civil Wars，” Journal of Conflict Resolution，Vol. 56，No. 2，2012，p. 12.
[44] Cecilia Albin and Daniel Druckman，“Equality Matters：Negotiating and End to Civil Wars，” Journal of Conflict Resolution，Vol. 56，No. 2，2012，p. 12.
[45] Stephen Krasner，ed.，International Regimes，Ithaca，N.Y.：Cornell University Press，1983.
[46] Joseph Nye，Jr.，The Future of Power，Philadelphia：Public Affairs/Perseus Books Group，2011.
[47] Zhang Dainian，Key Concepts in Chinese Philosophy，Beijing：Foreign Languages Press/Yale University，2005.