From Blockbusters to Broadcasts—What Are We Really Exporting?
We don’t usually think of movies, music, or CNN as foreign policy tools. But they are. And have been, for decades.
The U.S. has long relied on something more subtle than military might to shape the world—its culture. Call it “soft power.” That term, coined by Joseph Nye in the late ’80s, describes how nations influence not through threats or force, but through attraction. Values. Stories. Lifestyle. It’s less about boots on the ground and more about ideas in people’s heads.
So here’s the question: is this kind of influence harmless? Helpful? Or is it something more complicated—maybe even a little manipulative?
Where It All Started (Or At Least, Picked Up Speed)
American soft power didn’t start with Instagram or Netflix. Think earlier. Think post–World War II. The Marshall Plan didn’t just rebuild Europe—it sold a version of America, too: democratic, prosperous, generous. Around the same time, Voice of America started broadcasting U.S. perspectives to millions abroad.
Hollywood jumped in early as well. During the 1940s and ’50s, films like Casablanca and The Great Dictator didn’t just entertain—they slipped in democratic ideals almost casually, like background music. By the mid-20th century, American pop culture had gone global. And once it went global, it started doing more than just reflecting the U.S. It started shaping how the rest of the world saw it.
Hollywood: Entertainment or Ideological Engine?
Let’s be honest—Hollywood is a soft power machine. Probably the most effective one.
In 2023 alone, U.S. films pulled in nearly $26 billion at the global box office. Seventy percent of that came from international markets. That’s a massive footprint, and it’s not just about popcorn and superheroes.
Movies like Top Gun: Maverick or Avengers: Endgame promote more than action. They carry ideas about courage, sacrifice, technology, loyalty—American-style. They celebrate the kind of heroes we want the world to cheer for. And often, those heroes look a lot like the U.S. itself.
But there’s a twist. In the same breath that America is saving the world (Independence Day), it’s also under siege—from terrorists (Zero Dark Thirty), aliens (War of the Worlds), or even itself (The Hunger Games). There’s admiration, sure. But also fear. Distrust. Sometimes even disgust.
This duality—hero and villain at once—is part of what makes American soft power so strange. So potent. So…unsettling.
News as Narrative Control
Soft power doesn’t stop at the cinema.
American media—CNN, Fox News, The New York Times—does more than inform. It frames reality. And because these outlets reach far beyond U.S. borders (CNN International alone reaches 400 million homes), that framing has global impact.
They push ideas like freedom of the press, human rights, democracy. But they also tend to center the U.S. in every story. Conflicts in the Middle East? The U.S. is often cast as peacekeeper, not agitator. The nuance gets trimmed. Sometimes, the facts do too.
Is that deliberate? Not always. But the effect is the same: a world that sees things through an American lens, whether it wants to or not.
Why Is America Always the Target—On Screen and Off?
This part is harder to pin down, but it keeps coming up: the U.S. is often the center of conflict. Not just in global politics, but in the cultural imagination. The villain. The victim. The reason things go wrong.
There are reasons for that:
- Superpower spotlight. Being the biggest kid on the block makes you a target. Admired, but also resented.
- Cultural friction. American ideals—freedom, individualism, capitalism—don’t always mesh with local values.
- Military legacy. Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. The scars are still visible, and they don’t fade just because the next generation grew up watching Friends.
Noam Chomsky called the U.S. “the world’s leading terrorist state.” Controversial, sure. But whether or not you agree, it reflects a deep tension: the U.S. as both beacon and bully.
The New Power Struggle Isn’t Just Military—It’s Cultural
Today, the U.S. isn’t the only player in the soft power game. China’s expanding its reach through Confucius Institutes and slick state media. India’s exporting Bollywood and yoga and a booming tech culture. And yet… the U.S. still holds a kind of unshakable sway.
Why?
Partly because of its diversity—there’s something in American culture for almost everyone. Partly because of tech dominance—Apple, Google, Meta aren’t just companies; they’re pipelines to American ways of thinking. And partly because of education—Harvard and MIT remain magnets for the world’s top students.
But dominance isn’t the same as permanence. Soft power has to evolve. It needs to be more than attractive. It needs to be credible. Sometimes even humble.
Nye put it this way: “Soft power is not just about being loved; it’s about being respected and understood.” That part—being understood—might be the hardest.
So… Is This Good or Bad for the World?
That’s the big question, isn’t it?
Some argue American soft power spreads good things—freedom, opportunity, creativity. Others say it bulldozes local traditions, turning every city into a slightly off-brand version of New York.
France, for instance, limits American content on its airwaves to protect local culture. China’s building its own media empires to challenge U.S. influence. Around the world, you can feel the pushback growing.
And yet… American shows still dominate Netflix. American universities are still the dream. American memes, music, brands—they’re still everywhere.
So maybe the truth is this: it’s both. Inspiring and invasive. Progressive and overbearing. People want what America offers—but they also want to preserve what they have.
Where Does That Leave Us?
American soft power isn’t going away. But its role is shifting. It’s no longer just about selling a dream. It’s about figuring out whether that dream still fits the world it’s trying to influence.
And really, the answer doesn’t belong to the U.S. It belongs to everyone else—those who watch the films, stream the news, buy the apps. What they think… that’s what matters.
So, what do you think?
Sources:
- Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs, 2004.
- “Global Box Office Report 2023.” Statista.
- “CNN International Audience Statistics.” CNN Press Room.
- Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. Metropolitan Books, 2003.
- “The New York Times Subscriber Data.” The New York Times Company Reports.
Want a version with more visual support, like charts or illustrations to show trends in media influence or comparisons with other nations’ soft power efforts? I can create that next.
