The entire concept of trying to gain soft power through games and shows is wrong.
I should start off by saying your definition of hard power soft power changes on a whim. For example, when America makes movies you claim it's an extension of hard power (economy). But, when Japan makes anime you don't claim that is an extension of hard power (economy). You claim this is begging.
Regarding your claim quoted above, I disagree. It's very effective. Modern mass media is weaponized by western imperialists as a mind control/brainwashing weapon. And, it works.
Notice that the media consumed are largely for escapism. Escapism is the best way to spread/weaponize soft power.
First fact. People spend a huge amount of time consuming media.
Over the last 50 years, and most especially in the last decade, there has been a revolution in the way Americans spend their free time. How many hours per week do you think the average American child spends staring into an electronic screen? Take a guess. Currently the statistic stands at about 45 hours per week of what is now termed "screen time." All told, American children spend more time watching **TV and movies, playing video games, surfing the net, and the like than they spend in school each year.** [page 3]
&
kids are basically devoting their lives to consuming media. When they have a choice about how to spend their time, they almost always choose media. [page 3]
&
According to data from the last US Census ([www.census.gov](http://www.census.gov/)), the average US citizen spends 3,700 hours per year using mass media. If you are like the average person, you spend about two-thirds of your waking hours using media in one form or another. [page 3]
How Fantasy Becomes Reality - 2nd ed, updated revised expanded, 289 p [2016]
Second fact. We are heavily influenced by the media we consume.
Media imagery is a source of powerful social storytelling [page 121]
...
**Visual imagery plays an important role in socialization**, specifically in how we extract and apply meaning from everyday experience, and therefore **in how we construct social realities.**
..
**Ostman put it: "Visual communication contains a trove of emotionally-laden, non-logical connotations" that become part of the viewer’s social schemas. And Cowan8 said: "Given the popular culture’s devotion to visual media, the socialization process may be influenced strongly by exposure to visual materials." The old saying is "a picture is worth a thousand words" and I think this is true when it comes to learning about people from the images of mass media. It’s amazing the amount of nuanced social information that can be portrayed in an image. Not only do we remember images better than words, but we also can get away with telling a story about social groups (women, African American men) with a picture when we couldn’t get away with saying the same thing with words.** [page 121]
&
the social influence of the mass media goes beyond learning factual information, either rightly or wrongly. We are bombarded by images and attitudes, constantly learning and constantly being persuaded. Our view of race and gender roles is informed by the stories and images we see before us on screens and pages every day. [page 219]
&
We are moved by what we experience in mass media. Sometimes we are moved in positive directions and sometimes in negative ones, but media engage us deeply and have great power to change us. As Marshall McLuhan said, "All media work us over completely." [page 220]
How Fantasy Becomes Reality - 2nd ed, updated revised expanded, 289 p [2016]
However, evidence against nonfiction’s superior persuasiveness has been increasing in studies of narratives (e.g., Green & Brock, 2000; Murphy, 1998; Slater, 1990). For example, Strange and Leung (1999) showed that narratives labeled as news (nonfiction) or as fiction had equivalent influence on readers’ perceptions of a social problem. Green and Brock (2000) showed that both specific and general beliefs were affected by exposure to a narrative, regardless of whether the narrative was labeled as nonfiction or fiction. On a larger scale, the cultivation literature suggests that repeated exposure to fictional television programs can create a view of the world as dangerous (e.g., Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Shrum, Wyer, & O’Guinn, 1998). [page 164]
The Psychology of Entertainment Media - Blurring the Lines Between Entertainment and Persuasion [2003]
literature suggests that we tend to respond to media images as we do to real images
...and media images are processed such that they may affect one's perceptions of social reality. [page 15 of he Role of Emotion in Media Use and Effects in The Oxford Handbook of Media Psychology [2012]]
The Oxford Handbook of Media Psychology [2012]
You only attract perverts and losers rejected by their own society thus looking for a safe place.
I disagree. You don't only attract those types.
Videos games make money than all sports and movies combined and it's growing.
As of 2022, video game buyers in usa are split 48/52 - female/male respectively.
You already see the west weaponizing this with propaganda in video games like Call of Duty. This will only increase just like how they weaponized hollywood and tv shows for western imperialist propaganda.
The attention you want is admiration and respect for Chinese strength and that is gained only through hard power such as technology, economy, and military.
That's what you want. I think it is too narrow. I want China to be as strong as possible which means hard power and soft power. You want China to abandon an entire weapon class. I think that is foolish. In fact, I want China to possess and master every weapon.
The second concept that is wrong is soft power in its entirety. All power stems from hard power; "power" that does not stem from hard power is actually just begging.
&
hard power such as technology, economy, and military
I disagree.
You claim soft power is totally wrong; only hard power is real; anything that is not hard power (technology, economy, military) is begging. Let's test your claims.
America deceives the world saying it is making the world safe for democracy while overthrowing democracies. Is it "begging"?
America deceives the world saying it has a "responsibility to protect"/"humanitarian intervention" to mask its invasion and military occupation of a nation. Is it "begging"?
America deceives the world saying it has the American dream where everyone can get rich if they work hard so suckers get brain drained to America's benefit (while the immigrant sucker suffers anti Asian racism and a glass ceiling while their children are preyed upon). Is it "begging"?
America deceives the world saying socialism is "anti freedom, totalitarian, where everything sucks" to make people distrust the only viable alternative to capitalist exploitation. Is it "begging"?
America deceives the world saying Huawei has backdoors and is a national security threat to kill it. Is it "begging"?
America deceives the world saying the CIA coronavirus/covid 19 was released by China. Is it "begging"?
Despite using no hard power (technology, economy, and military), none of this was begging. Yet they were often very effective uses of soft power.
Why was all this possible? It's possible because their media is filled with lies (we are pro democracy, we have noble intentions, American dream, socialism is bad, China bad, etc) that get absorbed by viewers (I provided a bunch of citations at the top of the post).
Soft power is a potential weapon. Your excessive focus on hard power means ignoring an entire class of weapons while your enemies perfect it and attack you with it.
Note: For all the nitpickers. No, I'm not saying China should lie. I'm just illustrating examples of how this stuff can work.
For example, Japanese anime is simply begging the world to have a positve view of Japan like a furry pet does tricks because it wants to be treated well.
I haven't watched an anime for years so maybe things changed. From my memory, the problem was not anime itself. It's Japan's execution - cute, effeminate, inoffensive, white worshipping, etc. If Hollywood lost their mind and made only films pandering to cross dressers, would that mean movies were useless for soft power. Of course not.
The USA, on the other hand, uses hard power in order to extend its "soft power" which is why I say that "soft power" doesn't actually exist; it is only extended, non-violent hard power. Hollywood can make such movies because America's economy can afford it.
Excuses. China is already the world's largest economy. Some Chinese movies have a budget near 100 million usd over 10 years ago (Flowers of War 2011). Numerous super successful Hollywood blockbusters were made for far less. The Matrix from 1999 would cost $85 in 2011 after adjusting for inflation.
Tiny HK had movies doing well around the world at a fraction of the economic heft and population size.
China doesn't need more money. They need better quality control.
Finally, when we are talking about global impact, one must realize that Chinese media and positive imagery is fighting against the West's anti-China propaganda,
Agreed.
