Soft power is a perennial buzzword in policy discussions, but its popularity has not translated into scholarly or policy impact. In this policy article, I argue that this is because many references to soft power are vague and undefined, referring to any use of culture or ideology in a state's foreign policy and leaving unclear soft power's relationship with hard power. Drawing on recent scholarly work on nonmaterial sources of power, I address this issue by arguing that soft power is one among several forms of cultural–symbolic instruments of power that can either complement or substitute for material resources. I also provide a typology to categorize these forms, according to whether they involve direct or diffuse relations, and whether they are intended to integrate or fragment international collective action. This approach can provide more specific language to both analyze and advocate for alternatives to military and economic tools in statecraft. I demonstrate its utility with illustrative case studies on Saudi and Russian foreign policy. This article can contribute to policy debates by allowing for more clarity in discussions on soft power and related forms of power. It can also contribute to scholarship in this area by helping to better connect it to policy discussions.

中文翻译：

---

当我们谈论软实力时我们在谈论什么

软实力是政策讨论中的一个长期流行词，但它的流行并没有转化为学术或政策影响。在这篇政策文章中，我认为这是因为许多对软实力的提及都含糊不清，指的是在一个国家的外交政策中对文化或意识形态的任何使用，并不清楚软实力与硬实力的关系。借鉴最近关于非物质权力来源的学术工作，我通过论证软实力是可以补充或替代物质资源的几种文化象征性权力工具之一来解决这个问题。我还提供了一种类型学来对这些形式进行分类，根据它们是否涉及直接或分散的关系，以及它们是否旨在整合或分割国际集体行动。这种方法可以提供更具体的语言来分析和倡导治国之道中军事和经济工具的替代品。我通过对沙特和俄罗斯外交政策的说明性案例研究证明了它的实用性。本文可以通过更清晰地讨论软实力和相关的权力形式来促进政策辩论。它还可以通过帮助更好地将其与政策讨论联系起来，为该领域的学术研究做出贡献。