Editing Soft power (section)

== Limitations of the concept ==
Soft power has been criticized as being ineffective by authors such as [[Niall Ferguson]] in the preface to ''Colossus''.{{citation needed|date=October 2024}} [[Neorealism (international relations)|Neorealist]] and other rationalist and neorationalist authors (with the exception of [[Stephen Walt]]) dismiss soft power out of hand as they assert that actors in international relations respond to only two types of incentives: economic incentives and force.{{citation needed|date=October 2024}}

As a concept, it can be difficult to distinguish soft power from hard power. For example, Janice Bially Mattern argues that [[George W. Bush]]'s use of the phrase "you are either with us or with the terrorists" was in fact an exercise of hard power. Though military and economic force was not used to pressure other states to join its coalition, a kind of force – representational force – was used. This kind of force threatens the identity of its partners, forcing them to comply or risk being labeled as evil. This being the case, soft power is therefore not so soft.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1177/03058298050330031601|title = Why 'Soft Power' Isn't So Soft: Representational Force and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction in World Politics|year = 2005|last1 = Mattern|first1 = Janice Bially|journal = Millennium: Journal of International Studies|volume = 33|issue = 3|pages = 583–612|s2cid = 144848371|url=https://www.academia.edu/1141856}} Page 586.</ref>

There are also recent articles about the concept's neglect of its defensive use. Since Nye's approach "mainly focuses on how to get others to do your bidding", some researchers argued that rising powers, such as China, are creating new approaches to soft power, thus using it defensively.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1111/pafo.12153 |title=China's Charm Defensive: Image Protection by Acquiring Mass Entertainment |year=2020 |last1=Eliküçük Yıldırım |first1=Nilgün |last2=Aslan |first2=Mesut |journal=Pacific Focus |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=141–171 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Additionally, others have argued that more attention needs to be paid towards locating and understanding how actors' attempts at soft power can backfire, leading to reputational damage or loss, or what has been termed 'soft disempowerment'.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1093/ia/iiy125 |title=The soft power–soft disempowerment nexus: The case of Qatar |year=2018 |last1=Brannagan |first1=Paul Michael |last2=Giulianotti |first2=Richard |journal=International Affairs |volume=94 |issue=5 |pages=1139–1157 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Amit Kumar Gupta has written on what he regards as a flaw in the definition provided by Nye,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Nye |first=Joseph S |title=SOFT POWER: The Means to Success in World Politics |date=2004 |publisher=Public Affairs |isbn= 978-1-58648-306-7 |edition=1st |location=New York |publication-date=2004 |pages=X |language=English}}</ref> and has made an effort to redefine the concept. Citing Nye's definition, the author writes that, "a country's behaviour in the international platform is not in the least determined by the other parties' attraction in soft power terms. Every country weighs its interest and follows its convictions before taking any decision."<ref name="auto1">{{Cite journal |last=Gupta |first=Amit Kumar |date=2023 |title=Re-examining the Concept of Soft Power and Initiating a Debate on How to Define the Concept from the Negative and Positive Connotations |url=https://www.softpowerjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SOFT-Taco-19-ottobre-2.pdf |journal=Soft Power Journal: Euro-American Journal of Historical and Theoretical Studies of Politics and Law |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=164–187 |via=University of Salerno and Universidad Católica De Colombia}}</ref> Gupta proposes the terms "positive soft power" and "negative soft power" to replace Nye's definition.<ref name="auto1"/>