Final answer:
Hard tactics are based on position power and involve coercive methods, such as military force or sanctions, while soft tactics — or soft power — are based on attraction and persuasion through diplomacy and cultural influence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The difference between hard and soft influence tactics is that hard tactics are based on position power while soft tactics, often referred to as diplomacy or soft power, are based on attraction and persuasion rather than coercion to achieve goals. According to sociologist Max Weber, positional power, which is coercive, can be likened to hard tactics and is often concerned with legal and institutional authority; whereas personal qualities like charisma and the ability to persuade are more related to soft tactics.
Hard power typically involves direct forms of coercion such as military force or economic sanctions and is rooted in the realist perspective of international relations. In contrast, soft power relies on the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction, which can involve cultural influence, political values, and foreign diplomacy, aligning with the ideals of liberal internationalism.
Reciprocity in diplomatic relationships is an example of the use of soft power, allowing for equitable treatment and mutual respect among states, creating mutually beneficial agreements without the use of force. This stands in stark contrast to hard tactics where the relationship dynamics are predicated on hierarchal power structures and often result in a one-sided benefit or compliance garnered through imposition.