The global culture wars: how governments operationalise soft power
Soft power is a term that was coined by the American political scientist Professor Joseph Nye, as “the ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than coercion or payment”.
Like other types of power - economic, military - it is not inherently virtuous.
It can be used to pursue aims one might argue are moral, for example a country might use its great artists to demonstrate the benefits that come with artistic freedom, or its independent media might hold authoritarian governments to account. But it can just as easily serve malign purposes, as seen in the propaganda of the 1936 Berlin Olympics or the impact of contemporary Russian disinformation in Poland. The absence of violence does not make it some sacred artefact, like Tolkien’s Light of Eärendil, to be wielded only by the righteous.
For good or ill, it remains a guiding force of our geopolitics. For example, US support for Ukraine is shaped not only by strategic and military interests but also by the competing soft power narratives of Ukraine and Russia within the American public square. This is nothing new. During the Second World War, the UK used its soft power in the US to influence public opinion and to encourage the country to enter the war. Similarly, shifts in cultural perception among Soviet youth helped to erode the foundations of Soviet propaganda and contributed to the eventual collapse of the USSR.
I would argue that all countries possess soft power to a greater or lesser extent. But, whilst global rankings may seek to present a singular hierarchy, the type of ‘soft power’ that is most effective is highly situational. For example, the perception of a country by a foreign elite may be critical to securing a treaty or export agreement; a country being generally well liked by another’s general population may deter - or encourage - that country’s leadership from entering a conflict; a country seen as beautiful or historically interesting may attract tourists but not business investment.
Despite its complexity, soft power is clearly a decisive geopolitical force. But can governments actually meaningfully influence how a country is perceived?
Despite the fact that there is much they cannot control, and the impact of any intervention often depends on existing perceptions (for example, would a political scandal make Italy any less appealing as a holiday destination?), the answer is yes, soft power can and - in fact - is shaped and operationalised by governments.
To get specific, here are six ways in which Governments can and do operationalise soft power - for good, for ill, and for everything in between.
Shaping cultural perceptions
Consider how the combination of presidential leadership and the Korean Creative Content Agency helped fuel the Korean Wave, bringing K-Pop and K-drama to global audiences. Or how New Labour actively promoted artists who embodied a modern, outward-looking Britain as part of ‘Cool Britannia’. In both cases, a government actively helped to shape a change in the global perception of their culture, with multifaceted benefits.
An improved global understanding of a country’s vibrant contemporary culture enhances a nation’s appeal, boosting creative exports, tourism, and reputation. But more fundamentally, it can reflect and reinforce core values. In South Korea, the popularity of K-Pop presents a sharp contrast to North Korea’s cultural repression, highlighting the freedoms artistic expression requires, particularly in China, where the genre has found a huge audience. K-Pop stars have even been part of delegations attending summits between North and South Korean leaders.
This is not a new phenomenon. During the Cold War, New York’s Museum of Modern Art effectively operated as a minor defence contractor, fulfilling 38 contracts for cultural materials for the Office of War Information, and promoting American values such as freedom of expression and speech arguably more effectively than the U.S. government itself. The CIA’s backing of this sort of cultural diplomacy underscores just how vital it was ‘in the field’ for the United States to be seen as a free, open society in contrast to the rigid control of the Soviet bloc.
When culture communicates the value of freedom, it becomes a powerful expression of what a country stands for, and a reminder of what others might lack.
Building a network
Some of the most effective uses of soft power target not the general population, but specific individuals or groups with the potential to shape future decisions. Operationalising soft power at this level involves identifying those individuals and building meaningful relationships with them over time. While this might sound nefarious without examples, in practice it can be not just legitimate, but something of a ‘no-brainer’.
For instance, Buckingham Palace’s annual Creative Industries Summer Garden Party is currently an entirely domestic affair. If just 50 of its hundreds of invitations were extended to influential global creative leaders, it could provide them with a reason to visit the UK, engage with peers, and forge relationships that serve long-term economic and diplomatic goals. In France, Macron does this by holding a star-studded dinner at the Élysée Palace to support Paris Fashion Week, with guests flying in from around the world. More broadly, policymakers, diplomats or arms-length bodies can use soft power moments to build connections with emerging political figures, laying the groundwork for future co-operation and influence.
Creating moments for change
Whilst building a network is about creating long-term opportunities to effect change, soft power can also be deployed to catalyse specific moments of influence. This can happen at many levels. A British diplomat, for instance, might find that flying in a Bond car is what finally persuades a key figure to attend a repeatedly postponed meeting. At a more strategic level, soft power assets can be used not only to attract, but in direct alignment with the issue at hand. Imagine, for example, a UK Prime Minister wishing to advance global discussions on the environmental impact of fashion. Instead of a star-studded event during London Fashion Week, like those hosted by President Macron, they might hold a dinner at the Natural History Museum, hosted by someone like Sir David Attenborough, who has brought global attention to water pollution through Blue Planet. By inviting key figures from politics and the fashion industry, the event becomes a targeted intervention, using the combined cultural capital of London Fashion Week, Blue Planet and the Natural History Museum to drive meaningful change.
Supporting an arms-length (or not so arms-length) apparatus
In Britain, our arms-length bodies are some of our most prized soft power assets. The BBC World Service, for example, has long played a central role in countering disinformation, earning global trust. It is even said that Mikhail Gorbachev turned to the World Service for reliable information during the 1991 coup attempt against him. Similarly, the British Council - which exists to “support peace and prosperity by building connections, understanding and trust between people in the UK and countries worldwide”, now works in over 200 countries and territories and maintains a physical presence in more than 100.
In the UK, these organisations act independently of Government - although many around the world would doubtless find this hard to believe. Nonetheless, they rely on public funding, and government decisions can significantly affect their operations. For instance, as part of the 2010 austerity measures, the UK Government transferred funding responsibility for the World Service from direct public funding to the BBC, placing it under the licence fee – ending more than 75 years of direct state support.
Not all countries have an arm’s-length model – and few match the global scale of the World Service or British Council. In some cases, governments have much greater control over their international media or cultural institutions. For example, Russia Today (RT) has reportedly played a direct role in the Russian Government’s covert influence operations in the United States, while concerns have grown about the expanding network of Chinese Confucius Institutes and the potential for their remit to extend beyond cultural and language exchange into areas of strategic influence. Where institutions are clearly controlled by governments in this way, it is true that they may be less effective in building trust or maintaining a long-term presence in some countries. By their nature, they neither uphold nor claim to uphold the same standards of media freedom or artistic independence. However, it would be a mistake for Western observers to dismiss their substantial influence in shaping narratives both locally and globally.
Advertising
How do you decide where to go on holiday? A recommendation from a friend? A travel agent? Or perhaps an image of white sands and a snappy tag line that caught your eye during the morning commute. Governments are often behind these images, spending millions each year on advertising to attract visitors. The GREAT Britain & Northern Ireland Campaign is the UK’s international communications programme, designed to enhance the country’s global reputation and drive economic growth. It promotes the UK as a destination to visit, study, invest, live and work, working closely with commercial partners and government departments such as the Department for Business and Trade. Most often, this soft power activity aims to underpin the country’s direct economic goals, from boosting tourism and inward investment to expanding education exports.
The inevitable impact of policy and politics
Domestic policy decisions can have a profound, if unintended, effect on a country’s soft power. A cut to arts or sports funding, for example, may reduce a country’s cultural visibility abroad. More dramatically, major geopolitical decisions, like introducing trade barriers or launching military action, can reshape global perceptions with long term implications. These decisions inevitably affect how trusted, admired, or liked a country is. While governments may not make choices with soft power in mind, such choices often prove to be the most consequential in shaping it.
Of course, this list is far from exhaustive. Governments influence soft power in countless other ways: through direct propaganda, participation in global events, and more. The aim here is not to offer a definitive catalogue, but rather a starting point: a reminder that, whether intentional or not, government actions undoubtedly shape how a country is perceived. As geopolitical tensions rise, the struggle to control narratives is becoming more crowded and contested. Many governments are taking assertive steps to define their own stories, and, at times, those of others. The real question is not whether governments have the means to shape perception, but how they can do so effectively and credibly within today’s evolving global landscape.
