{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01811248808388942, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Normative power spotting: an ontological and methodological appraisal

This article presents a renewed critical engagement with normative power. It overcomes the conceptual vagueness and force-for-good connotation inherent in much of the scholarship on normative power by privileging the ontological question and concentrates on what is a normative power. It offers a characterization of normative power and argues that neither universal norms nor a particular set of instruments can be considered as ontological necessities. They do determine the forms of normative power: cosmopolitan; soft imperialist; and despotic. The four-step methodology, presented in this article, to ‘spot’ a normative power and the forms of normative power rely on a clear distinction between the ethical and the ontological question on normative power. It does not ignore ethical considerations; rather the comparison of different forms of normative power offers the intellectual tools to recognize deviations from the ethical ideal-type of cosmopolitan normative power.