Berivan Eliş

This article builds on the insights of critical approaches to the study of power and seeks to lay bare the poverty of power analysis in mainstream International Relations (IR). Part I presents a critical account of prevalent conceptions of ‘hard power’ in mainstream studies informed by realist IR and maintains that realism’s power analysis is rather unrealistic insofar as it over-privileges material forms of power and focuses on the visible dimension of power relations to the neglect of the multiple (visible and non-visible) processes through which power is produced and expressed. Part II scrutinizes the concept of ‘soft power’. While Nye’s soft power analysis complements realist IR by highlighting non-material forms of power and looking at non-visible forms of power relations, it, too, remains shallow insofar as the production and various expressions of ‘attraction’ remain unaccounted for. Presenting more realistic accounts of the work power does in world politics requires following Lukes’ footsteps to produce three- (if not four-) dimensional power analyses.