Why higher education plays a major role in building soft power for institutions, nations, and the Commonwealth.
Brendan Harrison
Senior Research and Evaluation Manager
‘Soft power’ was introduced as a concept by Joseph Nye Jr. in 1990 as ‘the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments’. Nye argued that a country’s culture, political values, and policies can influence other countries to align with its diplomatic agendas, reducing the need for force or incentives. This broadened the focus of international relations beyond military and economic strength to include the significance of things like culture and shared values, suggesting countries can reach their aims by attracting others through these assets.
While Joseph Nye’s 1990 explanation of soft power is widely cited, its continued use in public discourse, including in the space of higher education, reflects little engagement with criticisms it has received or further development of the concept.
Of particular importance are the following four criticisms:
-
Soft power is conceptually fuzzy: There is no clear common definition among users, and it is not clearly explained how assets like culture or media actually change the behaviour of others. Consequently, it is difficult to evidence its impact.
-
Unilateral direction of operation: Soft power is frequently framed as exerting influence in a one-way direction, overlooking the agency of other actors who can also exert their own soft power.
-
Neo-colonial: there is a suggested imposition or indoctrination of values on others, particularly in the space of higher education.
-
Exclusive to the state: Soft power is often attributed only to states, overlooking the influence of non-state actors such as universities, NGOs, corporations, and multilaterals.
However, rather than discard the concept, a more nuanced approach to soft power can integrate these criticisms in a way that recognises complex relationships, the agency of all actors, and the significant role of non-state entities.
Soft Power Revisited
Despite its limitations, soft power remains valuable as a concept and has evolved in a way that addresses the critiques outlined above. Three key changes strengthen the concept:
-
All organisations can have soft power: Soft power is not just something held by nation states. Universities, NGOs, corporations, multilaterals, and even other levels of government also have their own soft power.
-
Consensus and collaboration: Rather than compelling others, soft power should be seen as the ability to build consensus and engage in collaboration.
-
Positive attitudes: Much like social capital, soft power grows from positive relationships and trust between actors, increasing willingness to collaborate.
Therefore, a more robust definition of soft power focuses on:
-
The volume and quality of interpersonal and institutional relationships between actors: more bilateral relationships lead to greater shared intercultural familiarity and more opportunities for partnership and collaboration.
-
The amount of intercultural familiarity that exists between actors: more intercultural familiarity means a better understanding of contexts, motivations, and social practices on both sides, facilitating consensus-building and collaboration.
-
The degree of positive attitudes between actors: mutual positive sentiments are strong enablers for cooperation.
In summary, soft power in higher education is best understood through the creation and strengthening of networks and relationships, and building intercultural understanding, both of which drive consensus and collaboration and create tangible outcomes.
Soft Power, Higher Education, and the Commonwealth
When considered through this framing, higher education plays a major role in building soft power for institutions, nations, and the Commonwealth. Universities foster international relationships and understanding through diverse staff and student bodies, and the creation of international partnerships such as collaborative research.
Internationally diverse staff and student bodies create opportunities for the building of interpersonal relationships and intercultural familiarity between citizens from a wide range of countries. International mobility opportunities for staff and students to work and study in other countries also create lasting interpersonal and professional networks and improve intercultural understanding, strengthening the soft power of all institutions and countries involved.
Institutional partnerships demonstrate how universities collaborate with both each other and other types of organisations to address shared challenges. These partnerships can take several forms, for example research collaborations with other universities, co-delivery of programmes with multilateral organisations, and the commercialisation of research and development with the private sector.
The interpersonal and institutional networks that universities create and facilitate enhance the reputation and influence of the universities themselves, their countries, and the Commonwealth as a whole, while the partnerships and collaborations they engage in represent the mobilisation of those relationships to achieve tangible outcomes that address shared issues within the Commonwealth and globally.