Different from using coercion (“stick”) and inducement (“carrot”) to get others to change their attitude, soft power gives a country the capacity to shape the preference of others without tangible threat or payoff (Nye, 2004). Nye (Ibid) basically categorized soft power into three components, culture which is attractive to others, political value which should be complied with at home and abroad and foreign policy which is the way to gain legitimacy and moral authority. Then the question is who/what is the best agency to project soft power (Heng, 2009)? Does the soft power projected by the people or the civil society better than that projected by government? These questions will be discussed in the next two sections. When applying soft power to other countries apart from US, Hymans (2009) pointed out that Nye too simply assumes that attractiveness produces soft power at the same time can also produce soft vulnerability which causes others to do reversely. While China has substantially rich cultural resources which can be seen as attractiveness, it may not necessarily produce the same amount of soft power to some extent due to the unbalance attractiveness between the affective soft power and normative soft power such as political institution and ideology. For India on the other hand, soft vulnerability (Ibid) is an especially common fate of key comparison with others where colonized India was no exception as its attractiveness tightened its bondage. As soft power is generated from values expressed in culture, internal practices and policies and the relation it handles with other countries (Nye, 2004), this paper will further discuss in these aspects to see how China and India in their respective political discourses can pursue what they want through their projection of soft
Different from using coercion (“stick”) and inducement (“carrot”) to get others to change their attitude, soft power gives a country the capacity to shape the preference of others without tangible threat or payoff (Nye, 2004). Nye (Ibid) basically categorized soft power into three components, culture which is attractive to others, political value which should be complied with at home and abroad and foreign policy which is the way to gain legitimacy and moral authority. Then the question is who/what is the best agency to project soft power (Heng, 2009)? Does the soft power projected by the people or the civil society better than that projected by government? These questions will be discussed in the next two sections. When applying soft power to other countries apart from US, Hymans (2009) pointed out that Nye too simply assumes that attractiveness produces soft power at the same time can also produce soft vulnerability which causes others to do reversely. While China has substantially rich cultural resources which can be seen as attractiveness, it may not necessarily produce the same amount of soft power to some extent due to the unbalance attractiveness between the affective soft power and normative soft power such as political institution and ideology. For India on the other hand, soft vulnerability (Ibid) is an especially common fate of key comparison with others where colonized India was no exception as its attractiveness tightened its bondage. As soft power is generated from values expressed in culture, internal practices and policies and the relation it handles with other countries (Nye, 2004), this paper will further discuss in these aspects to see how China and India in their respective political discourses can pursue what they want through their projection of soft