CHAPTER
III
CULTURAL
POWER AND CULTURAL CONFLICT
GUO JIEMIN
Cultural power, also called cultural hegemony,
cultural imperialism and cultural colonialism, is generally referred to as
imposed cultural values between states and between ethnic groups. This concept
first put forward by Gramsci in the 1930s revealed the “super-political
veil” of the traditional concept of culture. He held that cultural hegemony
was an indispensable ruling form. To rule civil society, the ruling class must
draw support from intellectuals and cultural institutions to make its ethics,
politics and cultural values a universally accepted code of conduct and make the
broad masses of the people freely agree with the social lifestyle of the basic
ruling group.1 In fact, before that, Western colonialists used
cultural power as their powerful weapon in the international arena. Wherever
they went, they recklessly destroyed local civilizations, denied or changed
local moral norms and forcibly judged the destiny of other countries and ethnic
groups by their own cultural values. History is developing, the times are
forging ahead and peace and development have become the themes of the current
age. But cultural power as a phenomenon contrary to the times has not yet
disappeared from the scene. Though it has come by the barbarous and bloody means
the colonialists had adopted, its essence remains as before.
Cultural power has not emerged and developed
accidentally, but has a certain background in the times.
An
Age of the Emergence of Culture
The end of the Cold War has entailed a softening of
fierce military threats in international relations and a relaxation of
ideological confrontation between blocs. Many countries have begun economic
reforms and contacts between countries and between ethnic groups have
increasingly been strengthened, thus enhancing awareness of civilization.
Whether a country is strong or weak is measured no longer only from the
political and military perspective, but in terms of its comprehensive national
strength. This includes not only such factors as economy and military affairs,
science and technology, and natural resources, but also the essential spiritual
factors of national culture, will, character and spirit. It includes also the
integration and balance of those essential factors.
This clearly enhances the importance of culture,
which now becomes one of the main factors determining a country’s strength,
along with politics, economy, military affairs, science and technology. Because
of changes in world political and military situations, countries with a strong
“hegemonic awareness” have turned their attention to the cultural field and
attempted to unify the world with their cultural values in order to achieve
results they cannot reach through political struggles and military force. The
modernized media have facilitated this enabling cultural power to emerge at this
historical moment and become a very prominent post-Cold War cultural phenomenon
between countries and ethnic groups.
At present, the world pattern is moving towards
multi-polarization. First, the position of the U.S. as the sole superpower is
declining. Although it has tried to move from leadership of the West to that of
the world, its internal and external contradictions are numerous and its
abilities fall short of its wishes. Second, Western Europe has formed a
community to save the central position of the West; it has moved from being a
follower to being a competitor of the U.S. Third, Japan has continued to say
“no” to the U.S.; it has competed fiercely with the U.S. economically and
displayed remarkable politically ability. Fourth, Russia has inherited most of
the assets of the former Soviet Union, especially its military force; it remains
strong, though its vitality has been sapped due to the disintegration of the
former Soviet Union. Fifth, China has developed rapidly since the beginning of
its reform and opening and is gradually manifesting its strength. In the world,
from the perspective of comprehensive national strength, the U.S. ranks first;
militarily, the U.S. and Russia predominate; in economy, the U.S., Japan and
Europe form a tripod; politically, there are five power centers, the U.S.,
Russia, Europe, Japan and China. The above pattern has appeared in embryonic
form; it is difficult to determine how many poles the world will be divided into
in the future.
Under the situation of a multi-polar world pattern,
mutual respect and tolerance between countries appear especially important. As
early as 1988, when meeting Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, Deng Xiaoping
pointed out, “Two things have to be done at the same time. One is to establish
a new international political order; the other is to establish a new
international economic order.” As for establishing a new international order,
we should take the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence as norms for
international relations.2 However,
the U.S. has not abandoned the effort to establish a “uni-polar” world
dominated by itself. It assumes the responsibility of leading the world,
promoting U.S. values and safeguarding U.S. interests all over the world. The
essence of the so-called U.S. responsibility for leadership3is to
continue to establish U.S. hegemonic position in the world. Maintaining this
position and advancing U.S. values, including cultural values, are twin aims.
Maintaining the former is beneficial to promoting the latter, while promoting
the latter maintains the former. At the moment when a new world pattern is in
the shaping, the U.S. is stepping up pursuit of cultural power as part of its
plan for acting as a “world leader”.
In research on world civilizations, many Western
philosophers and historians have elaborated the following view: In the world,
there is only one real civilization, that is, Western civilization. Other
civilizations either lack vitality or have converged into Western civilization,
which is a “universal civilization suiting everyone” just as Western values
are global values. For instance, the great philosopher, Hegel once stood on the
“holy” world philosophic rostrum in Europe and solemnly foretold with
European pride that the development of the heart of the history of humankind
like the route of the sun, rises in the East and falls in the West. But after
falling in the West, it will no longer rise in the East, for the West occupies
the center of the world.4 British writer Rudyard Kipling nakedly
declared that the burden of the whites lies in subjecting the East to the high
British civilization either by belief or by violence.5
The dissemination of modern Western civilization
accompanied the imperialist aggression and expansion. Western centralists deny
that the development of any cultural type is the result of choice according to
its own distinct cultural background, conditions and needs. They hold stubbornly
that only their approach to the world, value standard and pattern of behavior is
correct and civil. They have never seriously listened to the voice from the East
and have always sized up the East at a distance and from a height. Even in the
face of the fact that in recent years East Asian countries have risen one after
another and accomplished economic miracles, some Western thinkers still hold a
suspicious and negative attitude to East Asia’s important role on the world.
They even think that this is the result of importing Western culture.
The formation of Western centralism is based first on
the sense of superiority resulting from the development of Western industrial
revolution. Then it reflects the fact that Western Christians consider
themselves to be the chosen of God who must shoulder the mission of
disseminating civilization to the whole world. Hence, they are always
overweening, like to play the role of “Savior,” and cannot tolerate any
phenomenon contrary to Western cultural values. As early as 90 years ago, Sun
Yat-sen acutely pointed out that Europeans regarded themselves as disseminators
of orthodox cultures and posed as cultural masters. Any cultural development or
independent thinking outside the European was regarded as a revolt. This was an
“overbearing culture”.
In the Cold War period hegemonic countries confronted
each other as enemies. Since then geopolitical enemies no longer existed, but by
habit and out of their political and economic needs, countries accustomed to the
Cold War shifted their struggles to the more extensive field of civilization and
culture, and extended their target to the whole Third World. They vowed to
conduct “a war without gun smoke” with all non-Western civilizations and
attempted to use their value standards to unify the world; they have raised
civilizational and cultural issues as a new excuse for interfering in other
countries’ internal affairs.
The U.S. regards the drastic changes in East Europe
and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union as a victory of the tactics of
peaceful evolution or of U.S. cultural values. In his agenda, Bush wrote that
political and economic ties have been favored by the attraction of U.S. culture
for the whole world; this is a new “soft power”. Some important U.S.
Government officials have also put forward in their speeches about foreign
policy an “expansion strategy” of spreading the market-oriented family of
democratic countries to the rest of the world. Under this thinking, the U.S. has
actively intervened into Latin America to build a so-called “democratized
hemisphere”; it has also set up “Radio Free Asia” based on the earlier
“Radio Free Europe” with ulterior motives. The U.S. has made it clear that
Radio Free Asia will also play a proper role in the ideological field.6
Its motive in pushing cultural power and making Cold War noises is all too
clear: the Cold War has passed away as an era, but its habits remain.
Cultural connotations are very rich. Its central
content is a deep value system, a characteristic national psychology evolved
over a long history, and a kind of lifestyle. Different economic, political,
historical and geographic environments, climate conditions and “genetic
codes” have caused many differences between various ethnic groups in custom,
habit, ideology and concept. In this view a cultural historical typology takes
the expression of the diversity of the human lifestyles as its mission and holds
that culture is plural. Development of any cultural type is the result of choice
and is created according to its own cultural law, cultural background,
historical conditions and realistic needs; this develops various cultural modes
in reality. However, some Western centralist scholars often mechanically look on
and analyze the complicated reality of other cultural types according to the
Western model of cultural development, and deny the diversity of various
cultures and their ability to choose their own development road. This is quite
absurd and not in conformity with objective facts.
As all know, four countries with ancient
civilizations of different cultural types have made great contributions to world
culture. Other countries’ national cultures have also more or less enriched
the cultural treasure house. Since modern times, because of the industrial
revolution in the West, “Western centered theory” and “Western cultural
superiority theory” have prevailed for a time. Western cultural values long
occupied a dominant position in the world. Modernization became almost a synonym
for Westernization. Western culture naturally has its own strong points, but is
not universally applicable and cannot be imposed on countries and peoples with
different national conditions.
“East Asian economic miracles” have presented a
development road different from the West. Though much influenced by Western
culture, some countries are quite different on a series of issues such as
ideology, concept and interrelations between individuals, family, the collective
and the state. Even Japan actively absorbing Western culture has always combined
the Japanese spirit with Western learning and tenaciously defended its national
spirit.7 Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, guided
by Marxism, China has had as its objective the realization of socialism with
Chinese characteristics. Especially since the beginning of its reform and
opening China has insisted on the road of building socialism with Chinese
characteristics. It has made giant strides in socialist modernization and
formulated socialist culture and values with Chinese characteristics, attracting
world attention. These facts strongly prove that in contrast to the opinion of
Western scholars, it is not only Western culture that can help bring about a
sole successful mode of modernization in the history of humankind.
Economic success has strengthened the cultural
self-confidence of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, which no longer
consider that the “Western moon seems more full” and have clearly recognized
that Western values are not adapted to Asia. But they do not rule out an
absorption of the strong points of Western cultures. Some insightful Western
personages have begun to realize the limitations and drawbacks of Western
culture. Some have pointed out that the problem of Western culture is that it
can successfully reduce mortality from diseases, but it can not reduce the
suicide rate from the collapse of values. They advocate learning from ancient
Oriental culture, resulting in an “Oriental fad” in some regions.
Each culture has its inherent value. There is only
difference between cultures, but no distinction between the good and the bad.
Taking Western cultural values as the sole choice of the whole of humankind is
unrealistic, unscientific and unreasonable. The world is developing towards a
multi-polarization that promotes cultural pluralism. With the world economic
center moving eastward, it is fully possible for East Asia to become the third
largest cultural center in the world, following North America and West Europe.
Each culture has its own national characteristics.
With the construction and hookup of information superhighways and the close
interrelation between the economies of the world, different countries and ethnic
groups have forged unprecedented interrelations. This greatly increases the
chance of exchange and collision between different countries.
Generally speaking, in contacts with different
cultures, one ethnic group always measures the others by its own value
standards, either deepening understanding and blending or broadening the
divergence and causing friction and conflict. Neither blend nor conflict is
absolute; there is conflict in the process of blending, while there is slow
mutual infiltration tending towards blending even in the process of conflict.
This is an unavoidable phenomenon in contacts between different cultures. One
major advance in the modern cultural theory is that people universally realize
that cultures are mixed, different, interrelated and interdependent. Edward Said
held that the development and maintenance of each culture needs another
different and competitive culture, that is, the existence of an alter ego.8
Undifferentiated culture is unrealistic and can be said to be lopsided.
Divergence does not mean conflict, while blend does
not mean the elimination of national individuality. Correct realization of blend
and conflict in cultural development lies in exploring how to make different
cultures blend and avoid conflict; this is the requirement of peaceful
development in human society. Historically, there have existed many
civilizations such as Islam, Confucianism and Buddhism on the Asian continent.
Over thousands of years they have been marked by exchange and coexistence. Only
after meeting with Western civilization, have relations between rule and
subjection appeared. Since the beginning of its reform and opening, China has
felt that it can absorb advanced technology and managerial experience favorable
to its modernization drive in contact with other (including Western)
civilizations. Facts have proved the coexistence of different civilizations to
be possible. Here the key lies in the attitude of mutual respect, the position
of equality, and in the full realization that this is a two-way choice. Marx
showed how history transfers into world history by bringing to light from the
angle of productive forces the importance of the extension of universal human
contacts to cultural accumulation and evolution. We must realize that the
interaction between Eastern and Western civilizations is the fundamental
condition for the progress of humankind. The 21st century is an era
pf the globalization of the coexistence of plural cultures and requires a
corresponding “global awareness”. The whole world cannot have but one kind
of cultural values and one voice. Exchanges, learning from each other’s strong
points and blending between different cultures will promote friendship between
peoples of various countries and ethnic groups. But taking an overweening
attitude to push cultural power goes against the trend of the times; it is bound
to trigger or intensify contradictions and conflicts between different cultures
and to create a tense international situation.
After the Cold War, some Western scholars have
actively cooperated with U.S.-led Western countries in pushing cultural power on
developing countries and put forward in succession such theories as “the end
of history”, “the clash of civilizations” and “post-colonialism”. They
have attempted to create theoretical foundations for their cultural infiltration
and expansion under the cloak of rationality and legality. Among these views,
the “clash of civilizations” theory has had the most extensive influence. It
holds that in the next century, conflict between civilizations will supplant
ideological and other forms of conflict as the dominant form of global conflict.
We must analyze this theory in order to detect its crux.
Behind
Heavyheartedness
First of all, it must be noted that here the concept
of civilization is basically equal to the concept of culture. The two can be
interchanged. For example, “Confucian civilization” can also be called
“Confucian culture”. Civilization is an existential form of culture. Then to
what does the “clash of civilizations” theory specifically refer? Professor
Samuel Huntington of Harvard University wrote in the article “The Clash of
Civilizations?” that non-Western civilizations no longer remain objects, but
have become actors. The centerpiece of international politics will become the
interaction between the West and non-Western civilizations. In the near future,
the focus of conflict will concentrate on relations between the West and some
Islamic-Confucian countries. He means that non-Western civilizations have gone
up on the international stage and stood up to the West as equals, leading to
cultural conflict.
In essence, this is entirely a cultural power theory
that regards Western civilization as the orthodox one which embodies the
“absolute spirit”, to which other civilizations should be subjected. Once
non-Western civilizations have an independent spirit and move from being
“objects” to “actors”, there will be a deluge of rebellion which should
be “contained” and struck down. This thinking represents the aspirations of
some Western centralists. For instance, an article in the German newspaper Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung said that the clash of civilizations between Islam and
the West is obvious and that political Islam seeks to replace Western
civilization so that Islamic civilization occupies the world’s leading
position.9 An article in German Die
Welt also held that Oriental culture is weakening the infiltration of
Western ideology. It pointed out that with the end of the Cold War various
civilized societies outside the West seem to emit a new radiant force, which is
crippling the imported principles of Western life and strengthening local
cultural awareness.
As described above, world culture is moving towards
diversification. There is not only conflict, but also a blending of different
cultures in their exchanges and interchanges. The key lies in mutual respect and
inclusiveness, which is beneficial to cultural blending and coexistence. The
“clash of civilizations” theory has absolutized local ethnic and religious
cultural conflicts in history and reality. It has turned a blind eye to the
megatrend of peaceful coexistence, exchange and development between ethnic
groups and cultures. In cultural development history, while Western culture has
made great contributions to human civilization, Oriental culture is also a gem
of human ideology. They should exchange with each other and learn from each
other’s strong points in order to benefit humankind, rather than be used to
repel each other and contend for hegemony.
If
Not Power, What?
The “clash of civilizations” theory has naturally
been criticized in many quarters. For this reason, S. Huntington wrote another
article entitled “If Not Civilization, What?: Paradigms of the Post-Cold War
World”, reiterating that civilization is the source of post-Cold War
conflicts.
Cultural power is bound to accompany political power.
For example, U.S. foreign policy has always included a plan of disseminating
U.S. cultural values to the rest of the world, of which exporting the mode of
U.S. political development is one of the major elements. In the international
political arena, the U.S. has always brandished a menacing club, now sanctioning
this country, now punishing that country. The world has on occasion been divided
into four types of countries -- “law-abiding,” “newly-emerging,”
“barbarous” and “gloomy”. To guarantee U.S. interests, it has been
considered imperative to have an operable international system in conformity
with U.S. standards. The U.S. has been regarding China as its potential rival
and after the “clash of civilizations” theory very many pages about the
so-called “China threat” theory have appeared in some overseas newspapers
and periodicals. China has always adhered to the Five Principles of Peaceful
Coexistence and advocated settling international disputes through peaceful
means. In its modern process of seeking national and ethnic interests, it has
never expanded to other regions and fields outside its homeland. Where did the
“China threat” come from?
The so-called human rights issue is a political
slogan of which the U.S. is most fond and a main means by which the U.S. pursues
its cultural power. It accuses Singapore of being an Oriental authoritarian
state on the grounds of infringing on human rights. For this reason, Lee Kuan
Yew has made a series of statements. On the one hand, he expounds the divergence
between concepts of family, society and state in Oriental civilization and those
in Western civilization. On the other hand, he criticizes Western values based
upon individualism and various problems occurring in U.S. society.
However, the U.S. has managed with difficulty to
subject other countries to its cultural values. Time and again it has issued
human rights reports with vicious slanders and charges against human rights
situations in Eastern countries, especially China, interfering in other
countries’ internal affairs. This has aroused dissatisfaction and resistance
from many countries. In reply to the question: “if not civilization, what?”
aimed at establishing the dominant position of Western civilization, we would
counter with a question “if not power, what?”.
Marxist cultural theory, based on the fundamentals of
historical materialism, fully affirms the diversity of various ethnic and social
cultures and firmly opposes an absolutization of any culture. It opposes
cultural expansionism and rejects cultural relativism. As early as the Communist
Manifesto, Marx and Engels predicted the trend of world integration:
In place of the old local and national seclusion and
self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal
interdependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual
production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common
property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more
impossible and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a
world literature.
Today, when the world has become a “global
village”, all ethnic cultures should join hands in creating a more rational
and healthy world culture based on maintaining and developing individuality.
Deng Xiaoping’s theory of building socialist
culture with Chinese characteristics is the result of combining the universal
truth of Marxism with concrete Chinese cultural practice. Under the guidance of
this thinking, the CCCPC “Resolution on Several Important Issues in
Strengthening Socialist Spiritual Civilization” put forward the concrete
objectives of the struggle to build a socialist spiritual civilization. We will
not only actively absorb excellent foreign civilizational achievements and carry
forward our country’s traditional culture, but also prevent cultural refuse
from dissemination, clear it away, and withstand the attempts of hostile forces
to “Westernize” and “split” China. In international cultural exchanges,
we will insist on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and in order to
contribute to the progress of human civilization oppose any exercise of cultural
power.
NOTES
1. Quoted from Dai Wenrong, “From
‘Orientalism’ to ‘Cultural Imperialism’”, Foreign
Social Sciences, No. 6, 1996.
2. Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol. 3, p. 275.
3. Washington Post, October 7, 1995.
4. See Jiang Danlin, Eastern Path of Rejuvenation (Guangdong Education Publishing House,
1996), p. 2.
5. Quoted from Abstract of Foreign Modern Philosophy and Social Sciences, No. 12,
1991.
6. Gu Ping, “Asia Is Disgusted with Cold War
Noise”, October 11, 1996.
7. Quoted from Fang Li, “Post-Cold War
Cultural ‘Invasion’ and ‘Anti-invasion’ in International Relations”, Strategy
and Management, March 1, 1996.
8. Edward Said, “Orient Is Not Orient---Orientalist
Era on the Verge of Dying Out”, Foreign Social Sciences, No. 6, 1996.
9. Quoted from Fang Li, “Post-Cold War
Cultural ‘Invasion’ and ‘Anti-invasion’ in International Relations”, Strategy
and Management, March 1, 1996.