【精品文档】44中英文双语外文文献翻译成品：文化作为国际关系中的软实力

此文档是毕业设计外文翻译成品（ 含英文原文+中文翻译），无需调整复杂的格式！下载之后直接可用，方便快捷！本文价格不贵,也就几十块钱！一辈子也就一次的事！外文标题：CULTURE AS SOFT POWER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS外文作者：Nicolae HANE, Adriana ANDREI文献出处:International Conference Knowledge-based organization,vol21,No.1,2018(如觉得年份太老，可改为近2年，毕竟很多毕业生都这样做)英文2489单词， 13889字符(字符就是印刷符)，中文4178汉字。CULTURE AS SOFT POWER IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSNicolae HANE, Adriana ANDREIAbstract:A global approach has almost generalized over the last decades, suggesting that human security and, related to it society security- are among the most important themes of contemporary international relations.The management of the Yugoslavian crisis, the terrorist attacks of September the 11th, 2001, as well as the debates over US and its allies military interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq, pointed out, on the one hand, that states are not prepared to deal with the cross-border threats of the 21st century alone, and, on the other hand, the fact that military interventions (the “hard” approach to security) do not always represent the optimum solution in managing international security. However, peace-building and security building (the ”soft” approach) are usually more discreet, do not attract attention, do not draw the media interest.In recent studies, the issue of “soft” power and “hard” power has been increasingly discussed. “Soft” power refers to the power derived mainly from cultural and imagological sources, exercising its influence more through persuasion or by attracting the weak one to a particular model rather than by coercion. ”Hard” power consists especially of military and economic means contributing to enforcing the will of one actor over another actor. These two forms of power do not exclude each other, but, on the contrary, combining “soft” with “hard” means facilitates greater efficiency in achieving the main goal.Keywords: soft power, hard power, mental power, cultural power, national powerIntroductionSome authors seemed entitled to state that in the aftermath of the Cold War, a fundamental shift of emphasis occurred in the study of international relations from geopolitics and geostrategy towards geoeconomy 1 or from “hard” power towards “soft” power.The national power of a state comprises both the material power as well as the mental power that the state owns at one time, for its survival and development. Mental power can be named “soft” power, and it comprises “soft” elements such as psychology and intelligence. These “soft” elements determine the role of “hard” power in tangible forms.Culture as soft power“Soft” power is a kind of mental power and it is an important component of a states national power. All the “soft” elements of mental power are contained in the category of culture. The core of culture are the values. As to the content of culture, broadly speaking, we consider it comprises the materials and spiritual wealth created in the history of human society. In a narrower sense, we believe that culture is social ideology as well as the systems and the institutions related to this, including ideas, political thoughts, legislation, morality, art, religion and science. However, from whatever angle we look at it, culture is not a static entity but a dynamic process. As “soft” power, culture is relative to politics, economy and military.Increased competition regarding current national power involves: economic power, scientific and technological power, defense power as well as cultural power.A countrys cultural universality and its capacity to determine norms, rules and regims to govern international behaviour represent the key resources of that countrys power. Joseph Nye appreciates that the intangible power can be estimated based on the cohesion of a country, on its global cultural popularity and on its role within international institutions.Without a strong national spirit, a nation cannot cope efficiently with an international crisis. Without cultural assets and without a global influence by resorting to culture, a nation cannot have a voice in international activities 3.Culture, as “soft” power, is an essential part of national power. Many countries have chosen to strenghten international competitiveness and influence through cultural development. Within the competition for national power, a nations “hard” power cannot be improved without the development of “soft” power. However, many people always place more emphasis on rivalry in terms of power, neglecting, at the same time, the competition of power, viewed as cultural power.Due to the increased influence of “soft” power in international relations, the world powers emphasize the enhancement of “soft” powers. Even since the 1980s, the Japanese former prime minister Nakasone has proposed a strategic plan for “creating a culturally developed country”. The former French president Chirac suggested achieving a cultural Europe and establishing a European cultural community. The Russian president Putin has started implementing the “cultural expansion” strategy since he was interim president. In September 1992, the former American president Bush emphasized the importance of using American culture as a new type of “soft” culture within his agenda entitled “Agenda for Americas Revival”. In November 2000, another former American president, Clinton, held a seminar on the topic of American culture and of foreign relations, at the White House, aiming to achieve the 21st century American foreign cultural strategy. In the report concerning the national security strategy, Clinton settled clearly “encouraging the development of external democracy”, as being one of the three pillars of USAs security strategy and foreign policy. This report states that, “extending the great family of democratic societies and of countries with a free market promotes the strategic interests of the United States” 4.Currently, we consider the following as relevant major issues, in terms of “soft” power competition: the relations between human rights and national sovereignty; the control and influence on international institutions; the employment of market economy to impose culture; rivalry in terms of human resourses; the fight for a better position for the media; contradictions and collisions caused by ethnic and religious issues. There is a tendency for competition on national power, focusing on cultural power, to continue far into the new century. Although less developed countries are on a disadvantageous position in the competion for “soft” power, the power of the weak ones is not to be neglected. This is another source for intangible power. The competition of a powerfull country can be retained due to a weak country, but with a better ability to organize and concentrate 5. Thus, cultural advantages and disadvantages are relative. In international modern society, due to increased overlap of interests, diverse cultures present and learn reciprocally, while being in conflict with one another. However, nowadays, conflicts between diverse cultures are limited, partial and will not lead towards large-scale global conflicts.In the evolution of international relations, the intangible “soft” power represents an engine that drives the relations between states or unions of states. This “soft” power, of a state, comes from: ideology, social system, its organizational mechanism, life style, the development model, cultural traditions, national values, ethnic characteristics, religious belives, informational resourses, interdependency, mutual trust, etc. In this respect, the “soft” power can be named cultural power. In the international society of today, the competition concerning national power, based on cultural power, is an important phenomenon in developing international relations.In our opinion, theimpact of cultural power on international relations is that culture is a knowledge filter. Culture plays an important role in the decision- making process that involves political leaders, who make decisions in the light of cultural perceptions specific to their own culture. Leaders, states and people are affected by cultural differences that reflect their own values, perspectives, interests, customs, and hopes. Failing to appreciate these differences will lead to wrong misinterpretations and misjudgements. Hence, obviously, cultural systems are closely linked to international relations.Culture is a “navigation compass” in decision-making. Diferent states have diffferent strategic preferences which have their roots in the early experiences of the state formation and which are influenced up to a point, by the psychological, political, cultural and cognitive characteristics of the state and of its political leaders. Cultural concepts strongly influence the way national leaders regard political issues, and often determine the solutions they choose to solve the issues, both individually and collectively. Thus, cultures are critical for these leaders, as long as they will address these issues in international relations. Therefore, culture is a “navigation compass” within international relations.Culture represents the architect of international social trust. The competitiveness of a nation depends on a unique universal characteristic, and that is social trust. Some countries have a higher level of social trust, others have a lower level, which will influence the degree of cooperation in international relations. Culture determines the degree of social trust and influences the nature of the cooperation institutions. Culture is a model for structuring the social, economic and military institutions, exerting a strong influence on the behaviour and outlook of the world community.Culture represents an important power for international integration. There is a strong trend of unification and homogenization in the rise and fall of civilizations. This trend reached the climax in the industralization era. This is the thesis of cultural convergence. A critical aspect in terms of the convergence thesis is connected to temporal limitations. Hundreds of different social structures were possible, yet the basic features of all advanced economies are relatively uniform: all have common institutions such as central banks, ministries of finances, tehnological research centres, schools at various levels, organizational systems such as the military one and dozens of other parallel structures The homogeneity and complementarity of world cultures produce an irresistible ruling power to international relations.Culture is a gene of conflict in international relations. About two decades ago, Samuel Huntington proposed the concept of “clash of civilizations”. He wrote that in the post-Cold War world the dominant source of conflict will be cultural in nature. Many agree with Huntington on the fact that, cultural differences will lead to conflicts, since the source of the conflict is related to the cultural gene. But the clash of civilizations should not be exaggerated or overstated as an absolute sentence.We appreciate that a nation is a cultural system, and international relations are interactions between cultural systems. The role of culture, as “soft” power in international relations, can be summarized in two aspects: facilitates convergence and causes conflict. Both positive and negative effects of culture in international relations are reflected in the contradictory process of convergence and conflict.Culture, as “soft” power, is a deep cause of the contemporary international relations model development. The transition in terms of configuration and adjustment of international relations between the great powers is really an adjustment of interest relations. Sharing interests is closely related to the orientation of values, and the orientation of values represents the core of culture. In this respect, the integration of different cultures facilitates interdependency of the great powers, increases the probability of pursuing common interests and consensus.culture represents akind offormless“soft” power and it must play its role in international relations by means of some tangible media such as politics, economy and the military system. The media, economic competition between famous brands as well as psychological battle within the military system, are all part of the competition between cultural powers. With the globalization of the world economy, national interests increasingly overlap and international interdependence is expanding. In the process of globalization, cultural conflicts that may occur during interactions will certainly be limited and reduced.The increase of common interests will encourage mutual learning and integration between different cultures. Since the degree of integration of different cultures increases proportionally decreases the intensity of cultural conflicts. It is worth mentioning here that there are cultural differences even between cultures sharing the same cultural tradition. Even within the present European Union, that has made monetary unification, member countries do not diminish their various cultural characters.EU soft power is less observed, although foreign and international policy analysts appreciate it more and more. And not only them. Otherwise one cannot understand EU attactiveness, especially to its neighbour countries, apparently stronger than that exercised over the Unions own citizens. The fundamentals of global power are changing more and more, as globalization is becoming increasingly felt. EU global power manifests itself more as global influence, an influence that is growing as the Union expands its strategic vision. This influence does not necessarily regard military missions, which are actually quite shy and limited, but can include anything from the influence of the European currency (Euro) to the humanitarian missions within various theaters of operations or economic aid given to underdeveloped countries.ConclusionsWe can conclude by stating that “soft” power is an important part of national power. There is still no agreement on its definition. To summarize, “soft” power can also be called mental power. “Soft” power is a concept opposed to that of “hard” power, whereas mental power is a concept opposed to that of physical power, and culture opposes to politics, economy and the military system. It is also formless power, derived from factors such as the spirit (including psychology) and intelligence, both belonging to the category of culture.“Soft” power that revolves around cultural power plays and will continue to play a major enduring role in the transition of international relations and in the global configuration.In conclusion , our world is rich and colorful. The diversity of civilizations is the main feature and simultaneously the driving force behind the progress of human civilization. In the competition for national power, respect should be given to history, culture, social system and to the way each country develops. Diversity of the world is a reality that must be recognized. Different civilizations and social systems should enjoy long-term coexistence. They should turn to and benefit from each other throughout the competition and achieve common development while seeking to discover common issues and bridge differences.References1 Dean A. Minix, Sandra M. Hawley, Global Politics, Wadsworth, Belmont, Albany, Bonn et All, 19982 Joseph S. Nye Jr., Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power, 19903 Hua Jian et All, The Competition for Soft Power: Trends of Cultural Competition in the Context of Globalization, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press and China Higher Education Press, 2001, p.54 Collection of American National Security Strategy Reports, Current Affairs Press, 2001,p. 276 i 2795 Joseph S. Nye Jr., Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power, 1990, p. 196文化作为国际关系中的软实力Nicolae HANE, Adriana ANDREI摘要在过去的几十年里，以一种全球性的视角去概括当代的国际关系，那就是我们人类的安全，更确切相关的是-社会安全 - 成为了其中最重要的议题之一。一方面，对南斯拉夫危机的管理、2001年9月11日发生的恐怖袭击以及美国及其盟国在科索沃、阿富汗或伊拉克的军事干预的辩论上可以看出各国尚未准备好以其单一的角色去处理好二十一世纪的跨国威胁，另一方面，军事干预（安全方面的“硬”手段）并不是管理国际安全的最佳解决方案。然而，建立和平而又安全的国际关系（“软”手段）通常需要以更谨慎的态度去处理，在这一方面没有引起大众的关注也没有引起媒体的兴趣。在近期的研究中，国际关系中的“软”实力和“硬”实力的问题已经被越来越多地讨论。 “软” 实力指的是主要来源于文化和形象学方面的实力，它更多的是通过说服或将弱势的一方引入到一个特定的框架里而不是通过强制手段来发挥其影响力。 “硬”实力具体是指军事和经济手段，也就是将行动的一方的意愿强加给另一方。这两种实力形式并不是互相排斥的关系，相反，将“软”与“硬”实力结合起来在达成主要目标方面则更有效。关键词：软实力，硬实力，精神软实力，文化影响力，国家实力引言在后冷战时代，一些学者似乎有权说在国际关系的研究中，它已经发生了根本性的转变，也就是从地缘政治学和地缘战略学转向地缘经济学，或者是从“硬”实力转向了“软”实力。一个国家的国家实力既包括物质方面的实力，也包括国家在一定时期内赖以生存和发展的精神软实力。 精神实力可以被称为“软”实力，它包含心理和智力等方面的“软性”元素。 这些“软性”元素决定了国际有形的“硬”实力。文化作为软实力“软”实力是一种心理实力，是国家实力的重要组成部分。 精神实力中所有“软性”因素都包含在文化的范畴之内。 文化的核心是价值观。 从文化内容来说，广义上讲我们认为它包含了人类社会历史上创造的物质和精神财富。 从狭义上讲，我们认为文化是社会意识形态以及与此相关的体系和制度，包括理念、政治思想、立法、道德、艺术、宗教和科学。 然而，无论从哪个角度来看，文化都不是一个静态的实体，而是一个动态的过程。 作为“软”实力，文化与政治、经济和军事有关。当前国家实力的竞争包括：经济实力、科技实力、国防实力和文化实力。一个国家的文化普遍性和它支配国际行为的规范、规则和条例的能力代表了该国实力的关键资源。约瑟夫奈认识到国家中无形的实力可以根据一个国家的凝聚力、全球文化的普及程度以及它在国际机构中扮演的角色来进行评估。没有强大的民族精神，国家就无法有效应对国际危机。没有文化资产，就没有文化的全球影响力，国家在国际活动中就没有发言权3。文化作为“软实力”，是国家实力的重要组成部分。许多国家选择通过文化发展来加强国际竞争力和影响力。在争夺国家权力的竞争中，没有“软实力”的发展，国家的“硬实力”就无法改进。但是，许多人总是比较强调权力的竞争，同时却忽视国家实力的竞争，这可以看作是文化实力。在国际关系中，由于“软”实力的影响力越来越大，世界各个强国都强调要提升“软”实力。自1980年代以来，日本前首相中曾根提出了“创建文化上的发达国家”的战略计划。前法国总统希拉克建议要实现文化欧洲的愿景并建立欧洲文化社区。自从俄罗斯总统普京担任临时总统以来，他就开始实施“文化扩张”战略。 1992年9月，前美国总统布什强调了在他题为“美国复兴议程”的工作议程中将美国文化作为一种新型“软”文化的重要性。 2000年11月，另一位美国前总统克林顿在白宫举办了美国文化和对外关系专题研讨会，旨在实现21世纪的美国对外文化战略。在关于国家安全战略的报告中，克林顿明确表示“鼓励发展外部民主”，并将它作为美国安全战略和对外政策的三大支柱之一。该报告指出，“扩大民主社会的大家庭和扩大自由市场的国家都推动了美国的国家战略利益”4。在当前情况下，就“软性”实力竞争方面，我们认为以下是相关的重大议题：人权与国家主权的关系;对国际机构的控制和影响;用市场经济来强加文化;人力资源方面的竞争;为舆论争取更好的位置;民族和宗教问题造成的矛盾和冲突。国家实力的竞争倾向于以文化实力为重点来步入到新世纪。虽然欠发达国家在竞争“软实力”方面处于不利地位，但处于