معماوارگی گفتمان قدرت نرم روسیه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشیار علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران

چکیده

در دهۀ اخیر سیاست‌گذاران روس در آیین جدید سیاست خارجی روسیه به قدرت نرم، جایگاه ویژه‌ای بخشیدند تا از این رهگذر به ترمیم چهرۀ بین‌المللی روسیه، مقابله با انقلاب‌های رنگی و حفظ رژیم‌های طرفدار روسیه کمک کنند. با پذیرش این فرضیه که توجه به قدرت نرم، ابزاری برای به‌دست‌آوردن منزلت و قدرت در جهان معاصر است، نوشتار حاضر درپی پاسخ‌گویی به این پرسش است که روس‌ها برای به‌دست‌آوردن منزلت و قدرت، چگونه به مفهوم‌بندی گفتمان قدرت نرم روسیه پرداخته‌اند. در این میان، قدرت هژمونیک غرب بر درک آن‌ها ‌از این مقوله چه تأثیری داشته است. در پاسخ به این پرسش این فرضیه مورد آزمون قرار گرفته است که هویت دوگانۀ بزرگ- قدرتی روسیه که در فرایند رابطۀ پیچیدۀ عشق و نفرت نسبت به دیگریِ غربی شکل گرفته است، به بازتولید هویت دوگانه در گفتمان قدرت نرم روسیه در مسیر تلاش برای به‌‌دست‌آوردن منزلت و نفوذ در صحنۀ بین‌المللی منجر شده است. یافته‌های نوشتار نشان می‌‌دهد که گفتمان قدرت نرم روسیه دو وجه متعارضِ سازگار و ناسازگار با قدرت نرم هژمونیک غرب دارد. سازگاری و همراهی با قدرت هژمونیک غرب تا جایی پذیرفته شده است که با هویت بزرگ- قدرتی روسیه و تأمین نفوذ و جایگاه آن برخورد نداشته است. در غیر این‌صورت، روس‌ها به پردازش گفتمان خاص روسی از قدرت نرم روی آورده‌اند که در مخالفت با گفتمان هژمونیک غربی قرار داشته است. برای تحلیل این معمارواره (پرابلماتیک) رویکرد تفسیری به‌کار گرفته و مفهوم هژمونی فرهنگی را به‌عنوان چارچوب نظری نوشتار برگزیده‌ایم.  

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Problematic Nature of Russia’s Soft Power Discourse

نویسنده [English]

  • Ahmad Rashidi
Associate Professor of Political Sciences, Mazandaran University
چکیده [English]

Russian policymakers in pathology of their country’s foreign policy have concluded that traditional policy was based on hard power but this policy is no longer in use in recent decades. Therefore in adjusting the new doctrine of foreign policy, the country offered a special place to soft power. In this framework, Russia tried to repair its internationally damaged status especially in countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, confronting the Color Revolutions and preserving pro-Russian regimes in its near abroad. Accordingly since 2007 the term of soft power gradually entered into the Russian foreign policy literature. With Putin’s reelection in 2012, Russia showed more interest in adopting soft power in its foreign policy.
However, many analysts including Joseph Nye, the architect of the concept of soft power, argues that there is a wide gap between speech and action in Russia and that Russia has failed to achieve soft power. He believes that in Russia soft power policy is not based on private sector and independent civil society. According to Nye, Russia needs to turn its speech into action and use the talents and capabilities of its civil society. So, studying the issue to understand the nature of Russian soft power discourse requires a scientific research which is the main purpose of this article.
 The paper which is in the framework of an interpretative and discursive approach focuses on the nature of Russian leaders understandings from the soft power perspective and seeks to theorize the process of change in perception of Russian leaders about soft power. From this point of view, this paper has an innovative purpose, so it can help to understand the dimensions and unknown angles of Russian soft power. The paper also seeks to answer these questions that how Russians have dealt with the concept of the soft power discourse in order to gain dignity and power and how the western hegemonic powers have affected their understanding of this term. The discourse is made in relation to the subject of “the other” and from this perspective; the West has an inevitable impact on the evolution of Russia’s soft power discourse. Therefore the hypothesis which has been articulated as an answer to the research main question is: dual great power identity of Russia that emerged in a complex relationship of love and hatred toward the western world led to dual identity of the Russian soft power discourse on the path of trying to gain dignity and influence in international arena. It means that the west perception of soft power is accepted by Russia as far as it is not being encountered by the Great - Power identity of Russia, its influence and prestige, but when Russia fails to accept the criteria of western soft power, it has turned to processing a discourse of soft power that has been opposed to the Western discourse. To analyze the issue, the concept of cultural hegemony has been chosen as theoretical framework of research.
The findings of the research show that Russian efforts to gain its status are based on the Great - Power dual identity of Russia which is shaped in its relations vis-a-vis the west. When Russia cannot gain dignity by recognition of western hegemonic discourse, it resorts to its pre- Great Power status in international system and consequently presents a different discourse of soft power in relation to the western hegemonic one. The wave of pessimism and criticism between Russia and the West and worsening of their relations reinforced this feeling among Russian elites that Russia’s interests deliberately disregarded by the west and the continuation of this approach would lead to insecurity and harms to Russia. Accordingly, in order to secure Russia’s national interests, they embarked to articulate a soft power discourse on geopolitical considerations and in opposition to the western discourse.
In this regard, the question is whether the latter aspect of Russia’s soft power which is founded on the basis of political pragmatism and competition with the West could be recognized in the west and leads to gain its status. It is clear that the recognition of Russia’s soft power by western countries depends on the types of Russian confrontation to the measures which hegemonic powers, namely liberal democracies have adopted. It also depends on the fact that the United States and other western countries have a tendency to moderate neo-liberal order to identify positions and interests of others. In order to adapt practical conformity with consideration of hegemonic powers and recognition of its status in this framework, Russia must make some social innovations that are acceptable to hegemonic powers.
Regarding the spike in the climate of mistrust between Russia and the West, it seems that the discourse of Russian soft power in current situation tends to be more inclined to confronting the West. In conclusion, Russian leaders are trying to bring together like-minded countries to counter the Western hegemonic order and create a foundation for its soft power in future. Therefore, when Russian leaders deal with verbal attacks to discredit hegemonic powers and blame them for the failure of Russia’s soft power, the possibility of its recognition by the hegemonic powers will become weak. Moreover, by considering the logic of vicious circle, it seems that competing aspects of Russian soft power discourse seem to persist with more predominance.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cultural Hegemony
  • discourse
  • Great Power
  • Identity
  • Russia
  • Soft Power
References
A) English
Ambrosio, T. (2010), “Constructing Framework of Authoritarian Diffusion: Concepts Dynamics and Future Research”, International Studies Perspective, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 375-392.
Diez, T. (2005), “Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering Normative Power Europe”, Millennium, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 613-636.
Kiseleva, Y. (2014), “The Curious Case of Russian Soft Power: Identity and Discourse in Russia’s Musings on the Power of Attraction”, IPSA World Congress Papers, Available at: http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_33713.pdf, (Accessed on: 1/8/2017).
Kosachev, K. (2014), “Russia’s Soft Power Shouldn’t Add up to Propaganda”, Russia Direct, May 8, Available at: http://www.russia-direct.org/qa/russias-soft-power-shouldnt-add-propaganda, (Accessed on: 1/8/2017).
Kudors, A. I. (2010), “Russian World: Russia’s Soft Power Approach to Compatriots Policy”, Russian Analytical Digest, Vol. 10, No. 81, pp. 1-4.
Larson, D. W. and A. Shevchenko (2010), “Sratus Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to US Primacy”, International Security, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 63-95.
Lavrov, S. (2012), “On the Right Side of History”, Voltaire Network, June 16, Available at: http://www.voltairenet.org/article174662.html, (Accessed on: 2/8/2017).
Nye, J. S. (2011), The Future of Power, New York: Public Affairs.
Sergunin, Alexander S. and L. Karabeshkin (2015), “Understanding Russia’s Soft Power Strategy”, Politics, Vol. 35, Nos. 3-4, pp. 347-363.
Tammen, R. L. and Others (2000), Power Transition; Strategies for the 21st Century, Pennsylvania: Penn State University.
Zahran, G. and L. Ramos (2010), “From Hegemony to Soft Power: Implications of a Conceptual Change” in: I. Parmar and M. Cox (eds.), Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspective, London: Routledge, pp. 12-31.
 
B) Persian
Ataee, F. and F. Hedayati Shahidani (2013), “The Developing Process of Soft Power in Russia’s Foregin Affairs”, Journal of Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, Vol. 19, No. 84, pp. 101-125.
Ghorbani Sheikhneshin, A., M. Khezrian and M. Yazdanpanah (2016), Soft Power, Higher Education and Science Production, Tehran: University of Imam Sadegh.
Izadi, F. and M. Matin Javid (2013), “Public Diplomasy of USA against Americaphobia” Journal of Soft Power Studies, Vol. 10, No. 81, pp. 45-61.
Karami, J. (2005), The Development of Russia’s Foreign Policy: State Identity and West Issue”, Tehran: Institute for Political and International Studies.
Koolaee, E. (2014), Politics and Government in Central Eurasia, Tehran: SAMT.
Koolaee, E. and A. Rashidi (2009), “Slavophism; a Thought for Social Change”, Journal of Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 119-134.
Nye, J. S. (2010), Soft Power; Means of Success in World Politics, Translated by M. Zolfaghari and Others, Tehran: University of Imam Sadegh.
Nye, J. S. (2013), “Chana and Russia Doing Wrong”, Iranian Diplomacy, Available at: http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/fa/page/1915917/, (Accessed on: 10/11/2017).
Putin, V. (2016), “The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation”, IRAS, Available at: http:// iras.ir/ images/ docs/ files/ 000002/ nf00002479-1. pdf, (Accessed on: 10/11/2017).
Rashidi, A. (2016), “Confelictig Approaches in Russia’s Foreign Policy”, Journal of Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 267-249.
Rasi Tehrani, H. (2009), “Antonio Geramsci’s Theory of Hegemony”, Monthly Book of Social Science, No. 16, pp. 99-108.
Sanaee, M. (2016), Russia: Society, Politics and Government, Tehran: SAMT.
Shiraev, E. (2013), Russian Government and Politics, Translated by Mahdi Amiri, Tehran: Mizan Legal Fundation.