An Examination of State Power

                  It is within our nature to polarize concepts in order to seemingly make things easier to comprehend; things are black or white, good or bad, liberal or conservative, and in the case of power, hard or soft. For some it might make sense to create a dichotomy with the ideas of power presented by Robert Dahl, but I believe that in order to properly evaluate the division of power across the globe, one must accept the idea that there exists a necessary relationship between both hard and soft power. Critics would argue that a state possesses either hard or soft power as defined by Dahl, but I think that in order to be effective a state must have hard power behind soft power, and soft power in order to be a world player.  

            Theorists such as Mearsheimer have suggested that a state’s population and level of wealth are the primary substance of power, both of which correlate with some of Dahl’s ideas of power. Hard power, as defined by Dahl, has a lot to do with one state having power over another in order to get the opposing state to act as it usually would not. And while this conception of power may satisfy a realist’s perception of how a state acquires a greater status in the world, I think it is necessary to note the accompaniment of soft power in order for a state to succeed in the world. The art of seduction is one that is not clothed in military power or simple wealth, but the “personality” of a given state. Soft power involves the art of persuasion, and as we have seen in the modern interactions of states, appearances and reputations – both of which are the premise of soft power – are powerful actors in international relations.  

            This idea is exemplified by the fact that the states which truly hold court today are not those which simply possess incredible military or economic force. States such as Germany, Russia, and North Korea all maintain a status of military power in terms of access to weaponry and potential ability to attack. However, these are not the top powers in the world. Countries such as the United States of America, China, and Great Britain possess not only the military, also considered “hard,” power of Germany, Russia, and North Korea, but also have developed a unique cultural identity which opposing states strive to adopt. For example, the Westernized culture of the United States, including its prevalence in the field of pop culture, the modern lifestyle, academic success, and idealism of the “American Dream” could all be considered elements of soft power, which other states respect and aspire towards.  The United States, and developed countries like it, is an enigma of power in the sense that they encompass both hard and soft power.

         This combination of multiple levels of power grants a state the ability to persuade and attract rather than just coerce; it means that a state can change the ambitions of other states. With that in mind, it is entirely logical to assume that a state is only a true world player when it combines a level of physical intimidation due to military and economic assets with the persuasive mechanisms of an advanced society and culture. Realists may assume that the only power necessary for achieving status as hegemony is hard power, but a more abstract review of the world reveals that hard power is only half of the equation for a state’s success in international relations. 

Soundtrack:  Power - Kanye West