This paper presents arguments to evaluate soft power as perceived by the European Union (EU) and by China. Since the presentation of Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power, it has become apparent that notions of audience and message reception are important. We will further argue for the relevance of the psychological idea of dissonance. We will compare and contrast soft power discourses for their alignment with reality, and assess them for discrepancy. Ultimately, we will conclude that such contradictions exist and create a “dissonance” or disjunction, which we will explore in relation to the concept of credibility. In the second section, an analysis of China’s soft power serves to highlight the effects of the implementation by a “hard” state, in a centralized and controlled manner, of a soft power policy. We will examine tables in an effort to extend our comparison beyond the discourses perpetuated and promoted by both China and the EU. We will challenge these discourses using indices, including the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders, the Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International, as well as The Good Country Index, The Soft Power 30, and the World Justice Index, each representing a component of soft power as proposed by Nye, i.e., culture, political values and foreign policy. Additionally, we will closely examine social questions to better develop our understanding of soft power policy. Results indicate that while credibility appears more important to China than to the EU, it is, nonetheless, a central tenet for both parties. The third section takes a comparative approach to its discussion of the normative power of European and Chinese soft power. It reveals contradictions within the policies of both political bodies, and simultaneously draws two conclusions. First, that a “cultural fool” does not exist, i.e., individuals are able to decipher and understand messages. Secondly, that individuals attribute credibility or unreliability to policy messages framed by a state, an organization, or the media. 

Balme, Stéphanie. 2004. Entre soi, l’élite du pouvoir dans la chine contemporaine. Paris: Fayard.

Barr, Michael. 2012. “Nation Branding as Nation Building: China’s Image Campaign”, East Asia 29 (1), pp. 81–94.

Bates, G. and Yanzhong, H. 2006. “Sources and limits of Chinese Soft power”, Survival 48 (2), pp. 17–36.

Billeter, Jean-François. 2006. Chine trois fois muette. Paris, Edition Allia.

Callahan, W.A. 2015, “Identity and Security in China: The Negative Soft Power of the China Dream”, Politics 35, pp. 216–229.

Courmont, Barthelemy. 2012. « Le soft power chinois : entre stratégie d’influence et affirma-tion de puissance ». Revue d’études comparatives, 43 (1-2), pp. 287-309.

D’Hooge, Ingrid. 2010. The limits of China’s Soft power in Europe. www.clingendael.nl/asia/publications (Accessed 5/2/2017).

D’Hooge, Ingrid. 2014. The Chinese dream and successful communication with the world. www.clingendael.nl/publication/chinese-dream-and-successful-communication-world (Ac-cessed 5/2/2016).

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.

Goffman, Edward. 1967. Interaction Rituel: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.

Hocking, Brian and Melissen, Jan. Diplomacy and digital disruption, Paper presented at NATO PD Forum 2016, Brussels, 2016.

Huchet, Jean-François. “En marche vers la société d’harmonie“, Perspectives chinoises n° 2007/3, Hong Kong.

Jirik, John. 2016. « Shift or Stasis CCTV News and Soft Power ». International Journal of Communication 10 (0): 18.

Jullien, François. 1996. Traité de l’efficacité. Paris: Poche.

Laïdi, Zaki. 2008. EU Foreign Policy in a Globalized World: Normative Power and Social Preferences. London, Routledge

Laïdi, Zaki. 2008. Norms over Force. The Enigma of European Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lee, Shee and Melissen, Jan. 2011. Public diplomacy and soft power in East Asia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Li (Leah), Xi and Chitty, Narren. 2009. “Reframing national image: A methodological frame-work”, Conflict & communication online 8 (2). www.cco.regener-online.de (Accessed 12/3/2016).

Manners, Ian. 2002. « Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? » JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 235 58.

Martel, Frédéric. 2010. Mainstream. Paris: Flammarion.

Martin-Necker, Alice. 2006. La politique étrangère de la chine populaire à l'ONU. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Neveu, Eric. 2009. Sociologie du journalisme. Paris: La Découverte.

Nye, Jr. Joseph. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.

Nye, Jr. Jospeh. 2011. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.

Ogien, Albert et Laugier, Sandra. 2014. Le principe démocratie, Enquête sur les nouvelles formes du politique, La Découverte, Paris

Rupnik, Jacques. 2014. Géopolitique de la démocratisation. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

Thefacts101. 2016. textbook Key facts, Content publisher.

Wang, Yiwei. 2013a. “Relational dimensions of a Chinese model of public diplomacy”, in Wang, Yiwei. 2013b. China Dream. Conference at the European Parliament, April 18, 2013.

Winkin, Yves. 2001. Anthropologie de la communication. Paris: Seuil.

Wolton, Dominique. 2009. Informer n’est pas communiquer. Paris: CNRS Éditions.

Yu, X. 2007. “The role of soft power in China’s external strategy”, Global review (trial issue) pp. 113–127.

Zaharna, R.S. Amelia, A. and Ali, F. Relational, networked, and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy. New York: Routledge, pp. 86–99.