Our social media age has given rise to the phenomenon of the “influencer.” Seemingly ubiquitous, these influencers are often designated as such by a simple feat of self-proclamation. Given this reality, it is wise to remember that there are actually those who, by virtue of their life’s accomplishments, have been influential in meaningful and significant ways. The recent passing of Joseph S. Nye at the age of 88 is one such example.
Joseph Nye’s résumé was platinum: Princeton undergrad, Harvard doctorate, Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, presidential appointments in both the Carter and Clinton administrations, among other achievements. A charter member of the American foreign policy establishment, Nye was known and respected across ideological and party lines.
Nye’s influence and legacy, however, are not primarily associated with his time in government but rather his corpus of ideas. Few – save Hans Morgenthau and a handful of others – have done more to shape the postwar IR consensus than Joseph Nye. If Hans Morgenthau provided the “intellectual scaffolding” for Cold War containment – the guiding principle of American foreign policy for decades – Nye provided much of the intellectual infrastructure for navigating post-Cold War international relations.
A key element of this infrastructure was Nye’s concept of soft power. Concepts like democracy and human rights are universally appealing, even to nations with histories hostile to the US. America, as the embodiment of these concepts, thus exercises a degree of soft power around the world, soft power which can be just as efficacious as hard power. Nye’s concept of soft power can only be fully appreciated when placed in the context of his broader understanding of global politics, which he and colleague Robert Keohane spelled out in their 1977 book, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition.
In contrast to the paradigm of classic realism, Keohane and Nye describe contemporary global politics in terms of “complex interdependence.” In developing this paradigm, Keohane and Nye focused on actors, issue areas, and the nature of power. In the classic realist paradigm, nation-states are the dominant and unitary actors. In terms of issue areas, classic realism sees a hierarchy with the “high politics” of military-security issues dominating the “low politics” of economic issues and social affairs. Finally, while classic realism does not understand influence only in terms of hard power, it acknowledges that hard power is often the most effective method.
Keohane and Nye’s complex interdependence paradigm retains nation-states as the dominant actors within the global system even while highlighting the ways nation-states today must work with and against multiple non-state global actors. In other words, inter-national politics has been supplanted by global, trans-national politics. In terms of issue areas, the complex interdependence paradigm sees no hierarchy of issues. Issues of both “high” politics and “low” politics command attention. Further, domestic and foreign policies are closely linked. And lastly, power is multi-dimensional with the instruments of power connected to different issue areas. Interdependence implies mutual dependencies. “Hard” power and “soft” power are equally efficacious depending on the issue area.
Keohane and Nye argue that the global system, once more accurately understood as international, is now more accurately understood as transnational. Along with this, while nation-state sovereignty is still a useful legal concept, in an interdependent world, nation-states are no longer independent, impermeable actors. In addition, core interests can no longer be defined strictly in terms of territoriality. In short, the agenda of world politics has been reorganized with issues of economic security, energy, resources, welfare, climate, etc. co-existing with the traditional interests of “high politics.”
This way of understanding our world is recognized within the category of neoliberalism, which is often juxtaposed against realism. It would be a mistake, however, to view neoliberalism as a rejection of realism. For Joseph Nye, as well as other neoliberals, many of the assumptions of classic realism still hold, including the dominance of the nation-state, the anarchic nature of the global system, national interest defined in terms of power, and the continued relevance of hard power. Neoliberalism is best understood as an updating of realism and, by extension, our understanding of international relations.
Joseph Nye was a premier member of the American foreign policy establishment and in his long, distinguished career he was responsible for shaping much of the current worldview of that “elite” establishment. With the return of President Trump to the White House, that establishment and its worldview – notably elements of neoliberalism – have been a primary target of the president’s “America First” agenda. For example, rather than viewing globalization and rules-based institutions as paths to peace and prosperity, they are now viewed as impediments to American greatness. In his January 15 confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was unambiguous in stating,
“[t]he postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us . . . Since the emergence of the modern nation-state over two centuries ago, countries acting based on what they perceive as their core national interest has been the norm not the exception. And for our country, placing the interest of America and Americans above all else has never been more relevant or more necessary than it is right now.”
The unfolding and outcomes of President Trump’s foreign policy remain to be seen. However, it’s a safe bet that the dynamics that have brought us a world of complex interdependence will not disappear.
