CULP Oral Exam

Please describe the similarities and differences between hard power, soft power, and sharp power. Please give an example of each at work.

Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. There are three main ways to do that: Coercion (sticks), Payment (carrots), Attraction (honey)

Joseph Nye puts it: “Seduction is always more effective than coercion.

Hard Power: Uses coercion or payment to force outcomes, Military action, sanctions, threats, or direct economic leverage, It’s about making states act because they have to, not because they want to.

• Ex: The Cold War Soviet interventions in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968). When those countries tried to liberalize, the USSR sent in troops. Hard power is immediate and forceful, but it often creates resentment and instability

Soft power: Getting others to want what you want through appeal, culture, values, and trust. People follow you because they admire or believe in you—not because they’re forced. Soft power takes longer to build, but its effects last longer and feel voluntary

Ex: The Marshall Plan —> The U.S. gave billions to rebuild Europe. China’s scholarships, infrastructure, and vaccine donations in Southeast Asia.

Sharp Power: Uses deception, censorship, and information control to influence others. Disguised influence

1. Examples:

   1. State-controlled media , propaganda, surveillance

   2. The U.S. during the Cold War = “empire by invitation” Allies chose alignment → soft power. The Soviet Union = enforced control Used troops to maintain power → hard power

Imagine you are having a conversation with your boss in the State Department or a Ministry of Foreign Affairs of another country (identify which country you are thinking of), and you are explaining that culture can play an important role in development, in peace building, and/or in fueling socio-political change. Your boss looks at you skeptically, and says, “Really? I doubt it. I’ve never heard of culture having an impact on serious foreign policy situations.” What would you say; what examples would you give to persuade your boss?

1. Ping Pong in China 1971

2. I Love Hip Hop in Morocco. Aen was interviewing Moroccan hip-hop artists, they told him that they needed concerts to promote their music. Asen managed to get the U.S. Embassy and Coca-Cola to sponsor a music festival

3. In 2009, the South Korean government launched the $40m Korean Cuisine to the World campaign with the goal of improving South Korea's global reputation through its food.  

4. Cultural diplomacy, aptly described as “the exchange of ideas, information, art and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples to foster mutual understanding”

5. The tours of musicians to the Soviet Union as well as to the Middle East, Asia and Africa aimed to showcase the values of a democratic society in juxtaposition to a totalitarian system. 

6. Ambassador’s Fund was launched by Bonnie Cohen during her tenure as Undersecretary for Administration (1998- 2001) under Secretary Madeleine Albright. Although insufficiently funded at only $1 million a year, the Fund nonetheless has had a positive impact disproportionate to its size. Together with colleagues from their host countries, Ambassadors develop historical preservation projects that meet local needs and priorities. Monies from the Ambassador’s Fund can be used to finance these cooperative restoration projects. How better to demonstrate our respect for the traditions of other countries than to help them to preserve their heritage?

Discuss the role of history and narrative in creating conflicts and in peacebuilding. Please give examples to back up your points.

1. History and narrative can create conflict by shaping identity and blame: groups tell stories that justify their side and frame others as threats (ex: competing Israeli and Palestinian historical claims to land, rooted in events like the Balfour Declaration).

2. Narratives can escalate conflict when they focus on past harm or victimhood: leaders use history to rally support, turning memory into political motivation (ex: nationalism fueled by selective histories in the Yugoslav Wars).

3. History can also be used for peace building through soft power: countries reshape narratives to build trust and reconciliation (ex: post-WWII reconciliation between France and Germany through shared institutions and education, supported by the European Union).

4. Soft power works by reframing history toward cooperation instead of conflict: initiatives like cultural exchange, education, and public acknowledgment of past harm help rebuild trust (ex: Germany’s acknowledgment of the Holocaust strengthens its credibility and relationships today).

Discuss the differences between extremist and authoritarian governments’ approaches to/treatment of cultural initiatives/outreach, and the approaches to/utilization of democratically orientated governments towards cultural initiatives/projects.

1. Extremist and authoritarian governments treat culture as control: they censor, regulate, or weaponize art, music, and media to enforce ideology and limit dissent.

2. Their outreach is often strategic or manipulative rather than open (closer to “sharp power”)

3. Democratically oriented governments use culture as soft power: they support cultural exchange, education, and the arts to build attraction and mutual understanding rather than force (idea rooted in Joseph Nye).

4. Key difference: authoritarian systems use culture to control narratives, while democracies use it to invite engagement and build trust—which tends to create longer-lasting influence (ex: international student programs, tourism, and open media shaping global perceptions).

5. Doctor Zhivago is a perfect example of how authoritarian regimes control culture: the Soviet government banned it because it didn’t match official ideology and showed a more personal, critical view of the revolution.

6. The USSR treated it as a threat, not just a book. Meanwhile, the U.S. used the novel as soft power during the Cold War: copies were distributed abroad (even secretly) to highlight Soviet repression.

7. The Taliban use culture as strict control: what many call “gender apartheid” includes banning girls’ education, restricting women’s work, and limiting public presence—so cultural life (schools, media, arts) is tightly controlled to enforce ideology

8. In response, democratically oriented actors use soft power to push back: international advocacy, education programs, and cultural visibility campaigns aim to support Afghan women and pressure the regime (framing women’s rights as global norms).

You are working for either a development or a humanitarian agency. In the case of the humanitarian agency, you are working with refugees living in large refugee camp, with uncertain futures. Budget cuts are looming, and all cultural programming is on the chopping block. Please make the argument for why cultural programming (you can decide what type of programming to discuss) is important to development and/or humanitarian work, and/or why it should not be cut. Please be as specific as you can in your answer and cite examples.

1. First, the program should be a refugee camp music initiative. It would offer group music lessons, songwriting workshops, small performances, and recording sessions. The goal is to give refugees—especially young people—a way to express identity, memory, and lived experience in a setting where their voices are often limited.

2. Second, the program should not be cut because music protects human dignity. Humanitarian aid often focuses on survival, but dignity matters too. As Fadi shared in class, when his family was still in Gaza, art and music made them feel like they were treated as human, not just subjects of aid. That emotional recognition is essential to any meaningful recovery.

3. Third, music supports mental health and community stability. In camps marked by trauma and uncertainty, music creates routine, connection, and shared space. Group performances and workshops bring people together across different backgrounds, reducing isolation and tension.

4. Fourth, music becomes a tool of cultural diplomacy because it travels beyond borders. Unlike many forms of aid, music can circulate globally—through recordings, social media, collaborations, and performances. Refugee-created music can reach international audiences, humanizing their experiences and shaping how outside communities understand displacement. This builds empathy and soft power by influencing public opinion and encouraging international support.

5. Fifth, music connects refugee communities to global networks. Partnerships with NGOs, artists, and institutions in other countries can amplify these voices. Cultural exchange programs, virtual collaborations, and performances abroad allow refugees to participate in global cultural conversations, even when they cannot physically move across borders.

6. Sixth, music has real economic and cross-border impact. It creates opportunities for income through performances, teaching, and production, while also drawing attention and investment into these communities. Music industries operate across borders, meaning even small-scale programs can plug refugees into wider economic and cultural systems.

7. Final argument: cutting music programming removes one of the few tools that connects refugee communities to the outside world. Music does not just help people cope—it allows them to be seen, heard, and valued across borders. That is cultural diplomacy in action, and it is essential to both humanitarian work and long-term development.

You are working in the field on conflict resolution or counterterrorism for the State Department, or another government. Imagine you are in Gaza/Palestine, Sudan, Mali, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Syria, or another location where different groups within the population (for example, narco gangs and civilians in Mexico) or different ethnic or tribal groups are in conflict, or where terrorists are attacking the local population. You can decide if you are bringing parties in conflict together, or working with victims/refugees of the conflict. The peace building efforts have no cultural dimension at all. Present an argument of what adding some form of cultural program or intervention might add to the peace building or rehabilitation efforts. Be as specific as you can, and cite examples.

1. First, the current peacebuilding approach in Syria is too narrow. Most efforts focus on ceasefires, counterterrorism, and governance between groups like the Syrian Democratic Forces, the central government, and local militias. These address violence, but they do not rebuild trust between communities divided by ethnicity, religion, and years of conflict.

2. Second, adding a cultural program—specifically a cross-community music initiative—would create neutral space for interaction. Bringing together Kurdish, Arab, and minority youth (Druze, Alawite, etc.) in shared music workshops and performances allows interaction without political pressure. In a context where identity drives conflict, this helps shift relationships from “enemy groups” to shared participants.

3. Third, cultural programs help reframe narratives, which is central to conflict resolution. Right now, different groups in Syria carry competing historical narratives that fuel distrust. Collaborative music and storytelling projects allow individuals to express lived experiences and hear others’ perspectives, which can soften rigid group identities over time.

4. Fourth, this functions as cultural diplomacy within and beyond Syria. Internally, it builds bridges across divided communities. Externally, recordings, performances, and digital sharing allow Syrian voices to reach global audiences, shaping how the conflict is understood. This is soft power in action—using culture to build empathy, legitimacy, and international support rather than force.

5. Fifth, there are real-world examples of this working. Programs like the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra bring together musicians from conflict regions (Israel, Palestine, and Arab states) to create dialogue through performance. While they do not “solve” conflict, they demonstrate how cultural collaboration can sustain communication where politics fails.

6. Sixth, cultural programs support rehabilitation and long-term stability. For refugees and internally displaced Syrians, music programs provide structure, emotional processing, and skill-building. This reduces vulnerability to radicalization and gives young people alternatives to joining armed groups.

7. Final argument: without a cultural dimension, peacebuilding in Syria treats conflict as purely political or military. Adding cultural programming introduces a human layer—rebuilding trust, reshaping narratives, and connecting communities across borders. That is what makes peace sustainable, not just temporary.

   1. Examples:

      1. Musicians without borders

         1. Works in conflict zones like Kosovo and Rwanda

         2. Uses music workshops to heal trauma and connect divided communities

      2. Sounds of Peace

         1. Brings together former fighters and victims of conflict to learn music together

         2. Focus: reintegration and reconciliation after war

      3. MAKE MUSIC NOT WAR 

         1. Brings together youth from conflict zones (Israel, Palestine, Ukraine, etc.) to make music together

“Under the Trump administration, U.S. soft power is dying”, according to many news outlets and foreign policy analysts. Do you think this is true? Why? Why not? Imagine that your boss at the State Department invites you to come up with a soft power project proposal that could be implemented in 2027. This should not be the same as your midterm proposal, and can fall under the broad category of public/cultural diplomacy. In other words, it can be “cultural “ in the most general sense (including sports).  You are asked to give examples of countries that have advanced their global leadership and improved their reputations through soft power strategies . Or explain why trying to do anything with US soft power for the next four years is futile/impossible.

• Example would be South Korea and their cuisine thro Gastrodiplomacy.

• I would do a cross cultural version of feed my starving children with the US and Germany, do

1. Yes—U.S. soft power is declining because trust is eroding, and soft power depends on trust. As Joseph Nye argues, attraction works better than coercion, but attraction only works if people believe in you. Polling shows only 16% of Europeans see the U.S. as an ally, which signals a major loss of credibility.

2. The U.S. is shifting away from “attraction” toward harder forms of power. Power comes from sticks, carrots, or attraction, but recent policy trends emphasize pressure and transactions over relationships. Even Niccolò Machiavelli argued it’s best to be both feared and loved—the U.S. is losing the “loved” part.

3. Traditional indicators of soft power are weakening. Declines in international students and tourists matter because they are key channels of influence—people who study or visit the U.S. often carry positive perceptions back home. Fewer people coming in = less long-term influence.

4. Allies are actively distancing themselves, which shows weakening influence. The European Union’s “ReArm Europe” push reflects a desire for independence from the U.S., which would have been far less likely when American soft power was stronger.

5. Competitors like China are filling the gap with their own version of soft power. Through aid, infrastructure, vaccines, and scholarships, China is building relationships and influence across Southeast Asia and Africa—offering an alternative model of leadership.

History shows U.S. soft power can recover—but it’s not automatic. The U.S. rebuilt its image after Vietnam and Iraq, and the Marshall Plan is proof of how powerful long-term investment can be. But once trust is lost, rebuilding it takes time, consistency, and visible commitment—not just policy shifts.

If indeed the soft power of the United States (or any other country) is diminishing, please explain what will be lost. What difference does it make if a country has soft power or not? If the U.S. has the strongest military and a strong economy, isn’t that sufficient for global leadership and/or domination?

1. Without soft power, leadership turns into pressure instead of influence. Military and economic strength (sticks and carrots) can force short-term compliance, but they don’t make others want to follow. As Joseph Nye argues, attraction is what makes influence durable—without it, every decision requires more coercion and costs more politically and financially.

2. Alliances weaken and become transactional. When countries don’t trust or admire you, they cooperate only when it benefits them in the moment. The U.S. during the Cold War was described as an “empire by invitation”—allies chose alignment. Without soft power, that turns into reluctant or unstable partnerships.

3. Global legitimacy declines, which makes action harder. Even with the strongest military, acting without legitimacy leads to backlash, resistance, and less international support (seen after conflicts like Iraq). Soft power makes other countries more willing to support or accept leadership.

4. You lose the ability to shape narratives and public opinion globally. Soft power operates through culture, education, and values. Without it, other countries—or competitors—define the story. That weakens long-term influence, especially among younger generations.

5. Competitors gain ground more easily. If the U.S. loses attraction, countries are more open to alternatives like China, which is actively building influence through aid, infrastructure, and education programs.

6. Bottom line: military and economic power are not enough for sustainable leadership. They can control outcomes in the short term, but soft power is what makes leadership stable, accepted, and long-lasting.