Page 75 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Politics in a Small World 61

conformity ” as solely matters of power relations (Meyer et al., 1997 : 145).
It is important, however, not to oppose “ culture ” and “ power ” in this way.
A useful way to understand how culture and power are inseparable in
the international arena is Joseph Nye ’ s categorization of “ soft power ” as
on a continuum with “ hard power. ” Soft power involves charismatic
leadership, communication, persuasion, and exemplary behavior, com-
pared to hard power, which involves military or economic coercion or
payment (Nye, 2005 ). Clearly, there is not always a strict separation
between the two types of power. As Meyer et al. themselves note in the
example they give of nation - states that apply to join the United Nations,

in order to be able to benefit from belonging to it – and there are very
real dangers in terms of “ hard ” power of not belonging – they must clearly
demonstrate that they “ fi t. ” This is far from a neutral, technical exercise
of demonstrating competence. Indeed, Nye developed the idea of “ soft ”
power precisely in order to convince US authorities that persuasion is a
much more effective way of leading the world than coercion, even during
times when the US may be threatened by the rise of other states, especially
China. It is an argument for maintaining US dominance in the multipolar
world of IGOs and NGOs through the power of ideas. Dominance through
persuasion is possible, not only because the US still has far more military
and economic strength than any other state, but also because the universal
ideals on which legitimate states must model themselves are derived from,

and fit much more easily, some societies than others, enabling them to
maintain their advantages in the international arena.
World polity theorists consider their theory rigorously neutral and

scientifi cally verified. Indeed, they have produced a massive amount of
statistical detail concerning the diffusion of norms of world culture (e.g.,
constitutional models [Boli, 1987 ], educational systems [Meyer et al.,
1992 ], and organizational forms of world society [Boli and Thomas,
1999 ]). One failing of this methodology, however, is that, although world
polity theorists are concerned with culture, they have practically no inter-
est in the interpretation of meanings . They note that there are very often
important differences between the ideals that states set themselves and
their practices; states frequently fall short of constitutional commitments,
for example, and they invariably fail to live up to policy promises in terms
of welfare, health, and education (Meyer et al., 1997 : 157). There is also
room in their account, at least theoretically, for confl ict over the univer-
salist principles that underpin these ideals. But they have little or no
interest in differences, either in the diversity of interpretations of those
principles, or in alternatives that are not adopted, which are marginalized
or ignored. This methodological failure is actually consistent with