The Power of “Soft Power”

          The concept of “power” is frequently used but rarely is understood in all of its intricacies. How often in academic literature, political debates and even personal conversations do we ascribe power to a person or group without really discussing what this entails? In what ways is power expressed and how do we know when a person or group has power? Within the anti-human trafficking movement it is easy to fall prey to feelings of powerlessness. In our efforts to confront this global atrocity, the power of states, the power of the global economic system and the power of traffickers themselves may all seem superior to any power we possess. I would strongly argue, however, that the power of the anti-trafficking movement is quite formidable, especially if we know where to look.

Joseph S. Nye, a Harvard professor, famously introduced the concept of soft power and hard power into the academic and political worlds during the late 1980s, and suggested that power is not simply the capacity to coerce others into behaving in a certain manner such as through military force and economic strength. Rather, power also entails the capacity to attract and persuade others into behaving a particular way. While Nye focused his astute analysis primarily on states, we can extend this way of looking at power into the anti-trafficking movement. No one would ever argue that the movement possesses sufficient hard power to bring about positive changes. Chab Dai is certainly not going to threaten a state with military strikes, nor is any other nongovernmental organization. Instead, the anti-trafficking movement excels in the use of soft power and, in this sense, our power is continuously growing. 

In a multitude of contexts, through various public and private campaigns, the movement has produced positive changes in the fight against human trafficking. Take, for example, the U.S. TIP Report; while it is certainly produced and enforced by a state, it arguably would not exist at all if not for the soft power of the anti-trafficking movement. In order to create this revolutionary tool (putting aside arguments about its effectiveness or shortcomings), it was necessary to first persuade American politicians to enact appropriate legislation. This was not a victory due to the hard power of the anti-trafficking movement; the TIP reports are the direct result of the development and effective use of soft power. Not convinced? Numerous companies are now attempting to certify that their supply chains are “slave free.” This is remarkable, considering the fact that the exploitation of workers can often be concealed by major corporations fairly easily.   

Moreover, the use of exploited labour can potentially offer significant savings in labour costs for the company. Nevertheless, the soft power of the anti-trafficking movement is producing positive changes (check out FreeTheSlaves for more details). Still dubious? Thanks to the magic of “Google trends” we can see that “human trafficking,” as a search term, has steadily increased since 2004. Why does this matter? It shows that people are becoming more interested in the issue. While this clearly does not constitute an academic study, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the soft power of the anti-trafficking movement is attracting or persuading greater numbers of people of the worthiness of our cause. After all, more and more people are choosing to educate themselves on the issue, and global support is needed to effectively fight this global problem.

So the next time you find yourself wondering if we really stand a chance against the power of those who promote or benefit from human trafficking, take a closer look around at the victories being won due to the soft power of the movement. While Joseph S. Nye may argue that soft power brought down the Berlin Wall, I would argue it can also end human trafficking.

By Tyler Girard, Strategic Planning Officer for Chab Dai

The Duality of Being Oppressed & The Oppressor

The more we understand our sector and the issues at hand with human trafficking, the more we need to question our own power in this fight for abolition. 

Pablo Freire, author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, was and still is revolutionary for the emancipation of the oppressed and states that we are very much a part of injustice and the processes that circumvent it. In one form or another, we are the oppressor and the oppressed. Therefore, we must question our own power and what values we are assigning to this power. Jo Sprague (1994), a leader in critical pedagogy, states that if we just look at a small group of knowers we fail to act as a community that embraces open dialogue and multiple viewpoints. Experience in a field does not make one more qualified than others when offering critical insight and expertise. We must constantly be questioning our knowledge, our reality and our values. More importantly, we must be self-reflective and critical of what we are voicing. What are we assigning value to? What are we not talking about? What biases and privileges are causing hindrance to our cause? This realization and self-reflection allows one to question the nature of one’s power, which only enhances the quality, integrity and value of the research and practices at hand.

By learning to problematize our own power, we remember "words belong to those who speak them as well as those who hear them" (Sprague, 1994). The power of our language can act as a tool to teach and advocate for others, but it can also manipulate and often assumes individualism. This power, more often than not, reflects our cultural identity, the structure we reside in and what we stand for.

We must seek to understand how our communication about trafficking is legitimizing as well as ignoring the problems at hand.

Over the years we have seen glimpses of this critique and evaluation occur. We are realizing the existences of imperialism in NGOs, cross-cultural hindrances in policy-making, and the now urgent need for a trauma-informed lens. Neo-imperialism exists and operates under the pretext of rescuing people and spreading democracy, justice, human rights and hegemonic thinking.We often prescribe to the oppressed what we think is most suitable for them. Freire states, "Every prescription represents the imposition of one individual's choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the person prescribed to into one that conforms with the prescriber's consciousness." The oppressed, having embodied the guidelines of the oppressor, tend to fear freedom because they have adapted to their structure of domination. He goes on to state, “leaders who do not act dialogically, but insist on imposing their decisions, do not organize the people – they manipulate them. They do not liberate, nor are they liberated: they oppress.”

Therefore, we must sit back, understand, and allow others to tell us about their world so we can understand their world. We must look at the thought-language of people in which they perceive their realities. “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” (Freire, 1993, p. 72) Thus, knowledge will emerge and be established when interaction and dialogue occurs. It becomes a socially constructed process (Sprague, 1994).

We need to be able to make connections between our own experiences, others’ experiences and the social constructions of reality. In return, sharing these conceptualizations with each other can make new meanings and new possibilities for our realities. This way "he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into a dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side.” (Freire, 1993, p. 94). 

We must re-examine ourselves constantly in order to authentically commit ourselves to the people. And ask ourselves, are we truly fighting by their side?

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing

      Group Inc.

Sprague, J. (1994). Ontology, politics and instructional communication research: Why we can’t

just agree to disagree about power. Communication Education. 43, 1-25