CHAPTER
VI
AN
OUTLINE OF INTERNATIONAL CULTURE
YU XINTIAN
The history of cultural research can be traced far
back. However, in the past the cultural research in international relations,
even if involved, is only scattered through international political and economic
treatises. This kind of research seems to have prospered only since the 1990s.
Researchers engaged in research in this field use the concepts of
“civilization” or “culture”. The original meaning of “culture” in
the Latin language was cultivation or manipulation as applied to human
activities. The original meaning of “civilization” was civil and organized,
referring to norms, standards or ethics in social life. Classical German
philosophers differentiated culture from civilization as follows: the former
concerns religion, philosophy and the arts in the deeper ideal state and
spiritual life, while the latter belongs to the results of surface technology
and materials. Engels held that the intention of writing and the use of ironware
marked the beginning of civilization, but humankind had culture for hundreds of
thousands of years before. This shows that the scope of culture is wider than
civilization. In modern times, culture and civilization often are used as
synonyms. For example, Edward Burnett Tylor in Britain regarded them as synonyms
in his Primitive Culture. Besides,
civilization is often referred to as civilized society, that is, people with
reasonable behavior in their material and spiritual lifestyle constitute an
interrelated whole. In this sense, it may become the basis of some particular
nation-state or states.
Because the concepts of civilization and culture have
something in common and differ in the special emphases of their meaning, the
term “international culture” seems more appropriate. Research on
international relations generally has two subdivisions: one is world politics
and the other is world economy. Neither can escape its extensive cultural
background, which was only indistinct in the past but now becomes distinctly
prominent. Thus a third subdivision should be made: world culture. But, the term
of “world culture” is liable to cause misunderstanding by suggesting
erroneously that a unified world culture exists. For this reason, the term
“international culture” is more accurate as an abbreviation for cultural
research in international relations.
The difference in definition reflects a difference in
real life. International politics has not yet been fully integrated into
“world” politics, and all countries have not been under the unified
leadership of a “world government” or “world federation”. The
international economy has not yet been completely “globalized” and
contradictions and conflicts in economic interests often occur between various
countries. The UN is the landmark organization of world politics, and economic
interests have greatly strengthened the interdependence between countries
through the development of finance and information. People have accepted the
concepts of “world politics” and “world economy” as common practice.
However, in the cultural field, a “world culture” has not yet appeared and
probably will not take shape in the foreseeable future.
In the past hundreds of years with Western colonial
powers taking the lead modernization has moved across the rest of the world with
the force of a thunderbolt, throwing open the doors of backward countries with
gunboats, goods and missionaries, and spreading Western culture upon gaining
political independence. In order to realize modernization developing countries
have consciously learned from Western countries their thinking, concepts and
culture. However, developing countries do not agree that “modernization means
Westernization”; they pay increasing attention to their unique ways of
combining traditional culture with modernity. They also stand against Western
countries judging everything with Western value standards. So, “world
culture” probably will not be created in-depth, though a kind of worldwide
industrial culture and popular culture begins to emerge as modernization makes
progress in every country. The concept of “international culture” reflects
the interaction between the different cultures ranging from learning, absorption
and integration to isolation, struggle and conflict.
There are a number or reasons why research in
international culture has been growing since the 1990s. Firstly, after the Cold
War, severe ideological struggles between the two camps came to an end and many
originally covered or constrained contradictions have broken out of a
“Pandora’s box”. Most of the conflicts in the world since the 1990s have
involved ethnic conflicts, national divisions and religious wars. To understand
religious, national and ethnic contradictions and conflicts we must give greater
attention to the identity, thinking, feeling and cultural psychology of peoples.
Existing geopolitical and geo-economic explanations are far from sufficient to
deal with the new issues emerging in an endless sequence.
Secondly, the development of economic globalization
at an unprecedented speed, the scale of the worldwide flow of materials, funds
and personnel, and the rapidly deepening economic interdependence between
countries have made possible an intensification of mutual antagonisms between
various cultures in all countries. In recent years, the eruption of a new
technological revolution, especially in information, has rapidly reduced
distances over the world both in time and in space. Developed transportation has
enabled people to leave in the morning and reach any place in the world by
evening. The improvement of telecommunications and of coverage by broadcasting
and TV networks have made any event at any place the focus of concerns all over
the world. If in recent centuries it was Westerners who conquered the world or
migrated to other regions, now a tide of migrants from developing countries
pours into Western countries. If in the past there was a one-way exportation of
Western thinking, it now has turned to a two-way interchange of thinking between
East and West, as well as between the South and the North. European scholars
note the new trend as the “Europeanization of the world” changes into the
“globalization of Europe”. This cultural interaction has produced results in
international relations. For instance, on the controversial issue of human
rights, not a few developing countries have begun to pay attention to their
importance, while some insightful people in developed countries have begun to
integrate rights to subsistence and development in the scope of human rights.
This requires further research in international culture.
Lastly, at the turn of the century, humankind is
faced with many common problems whose resolution must be coordinated through new
international relations. This requires changes in the accustomed thinking,
principles and norms in order to reach new consensus. This calls for research in
international culture. Drugs, AIDs, environmental pollution, ecological
destruction and terrorism cannot be resolved on the basis of the national
strength of a single country. If the simplest term is to be used to summarize
modern humankind’s achievements, it is probably scientific and technological
progress which originates from Western scientific and rational thinking and its
concept of conquering nature. However, worship of science and technology may be
blind, hampering the development of humankind. A variety of absurd theories
challenge humankind, to which there can be no response while one sticks to
traditional concepts. This requires research in international culture in order
to absorb the quintessence of pluralism so as to shape the new thinking and
values guiding humankind.
The development of research in international culture
has significance that cannot be reduced to past theoretical structures for
understanding or conducting international relations. The formation of
international relations in a modern sense was occasioned by the expanding
colonialism of Western powers throughout the world. War, conquest, manoeuvre
among the great powers, the outbreak of two world wars, and the birth of nuclear
weapon all appeared in this period. The Cold War occupied people’s vision and
geopolitical theory unified and almost became the synonym for international
relations. In fact, it reflected only the political dimension of the theory of
international relations. After WWII, especially since the 1970s and 1980s, the
song of peace and development has gradually increased in volume and economic
regionalization and integration has made rapid progress. Not only do developing
countries increasingly depend on developed ones, but the flourishing of the
latter cannot be separated absolutely from the prosperity of the former,
spurring the constant innovation of world economic theories. The political
Economy of International Relations, International Trade Relations, Development
Economics and Geo-economics have emerged as the times demand, adding an economic
dimension to the theory of international relations.
In spite of this, the theory of international
relations has considerable flaws and cannot explain many international
phenomena. For example, the international community defines nuclear and chemical
weapons as “weapons of mass destruction” and bans their use which will be
morally condemned. But there are reasons to ask: Cannot conventional weapons
“cause mass destruction”? It is hard to say that the ban of one kind of
weapon will be more important than the ban of another. That definition to a
considerable extent depends on people’s concept of humanity and morality. Also
according to geopolitical theory, one country’s military interference in other
countries always results from a rational calculation of egoism. However, in
recent years, multilateral interjection has become the main form of
international involvement. Many countries participating in interference have no
direct or indirect relations of interests, which emerge from a collective
understanding of some kind of morality. The emergence of research in
international culture, as the third dimension of the theory of international
relations, is of necessity aimed at remedying the defects of research in
international relations. This will make the theory of international relations
more multidimensional, richer and deeper. Though Huntington’s The Clash of
Civilizations has greatly promoted people’s concerns with this issue,
research in international culture did not start from him and has not been a
simple response to his argument. In reality, since the 1980s, many researchers
began such exploration and a considerable number of works have paved the way.1
Furthermore, the rise of world economic theories
cannot replace world political theories, while research in international
culture, cannot, of course, substitute for research in world politics and world
economy. Each has its own theoretic emphasis to help people observe
international phenomena from different angles. However, these three dimensions
are not isolated; they are different aspects of the overall historical process
of international affairs. Only by conducting cultural research can the process
be grasped overall. Strictly speaking, humankind can learn only from its own
history. As views on the past exert influence on the development of
humankind’s collective awareness generation after generation, there is need
for a clear explanation of history (including that of international relations),
for this has much to do with the future destiny of humankind. Till now most
explanations have focused on the parts of the whole, such as economy, politics,
technology and warfare, rather than on the whole itself. This can result in
one-sided and even distorted understanding.
The explanation of history from the perspective of
culture is conducive to overcoming these drawbacks. Culture has a bearing on all
the activities of humankind -- artistic, social, political, educational,
religious, spiritual, economic and technical. People throughout the world try
every means to explain the world, organize themselves, handle various kinds of
affairs, improve and beautify their life and fix their own position in the
world. In this, culture is particularly inclusive and integrative. If research
in international relations transcends the level of event description and
explanation, through cultural research it can be upgraded to the theoretic
deliberation of historical philosophy. On the other hand, only by breaking
through the national boundaries and answering all questions raised by the
integrated world, can cultural research enter a new realm.
Values provide the sole basis for fully understanding
culture, because the core of all cultures is values. In international culture,
different values have an objective reality. With the cultural issue increasingly
prominent, controversies over different values are becoming rather fierce.
Approaches to Western values, East Asian values, global values and future values
in recent years reflect concerns over the core of research in international
culture. Before conducting research in values, we should first of all straighten
out our value orientation. In general the following main value orientations are
found in China and the world at large.
Ethnic cultural centralism firmly believes in the
superiority of the native ethnic culture and holds that it is not only of utmost
value to the native ethnic group, but has universality and should be spread to
other ethnic groups. As cultures of various ethnic groups in the world have
arisen under separate historical conditions, almost all ethnic groups once had
similar views. This is understandable in the environment of the times. This view
contains positive and negative aspects. Positively either at the level of group,
society, region and country or at the international layer, all cultures have
made important contributions to international development and to the cultural
heritage of humankind. Their spread reflects initiative in retaining and
developing native ethnic cultures. Negatively, all cultures have their
drawbacks. Unbelievably savage and brutal acts, war, violence, oppression,
exploitation, infringement on human rights, racial purges and terrorism, are all
more or less manifest in various cultures. Ethnic cultural centralism turns a
blind eye to this, and even tries by every means to defend it, leading to a
blind sense of national superiority.
With the isolation of various countries having been
broken so that people can witness the reality of multicultural coexistence in
the world. Now they can correctly evaluate the strong and weak points of their
native ethnic cultures with reference of other cultures. Remaining with ethnic
cultural centralism at this moment is regarded as narrow, one-sided and
stubbornly biased -- or worse, preaching a national chauvinism and playing down
other ethnic groups for some purpose. This will not only harm other ethnic
groups but also bring great suffering to native ethnic groups. History has
repeatedly proved this truth, which deserves close attention.
“Western centralism” is the most conspicuous
manifestation in the world of ethnic cultural centralism. Though the view that
Western culture is universal has been criticized, its force is still very
strong. For instance, Forer wrote that the quintessence of Western political
values is universal and unavoidably will spread extensively. This cannot be
denied,2 and numerous such expositions are available. On the other
hand, we cannot but recognize that in developing countries, including China,
many people hold an ethnic cultural centralism. Western cultural centralism has
a “controlling nature”, while in developing countries it takes the form of
“resistance”. The two are different, but cultural centralism is still
incorrect and must be studied.
Cross-cultural relativism holds that there is no
morale or truth which can become central for the world, and that all cultures
are relative and coexist. Though various cultures differ and are subject to time
and place, they are equal. Culture is the result of ethnic historical life. In
the 20th century, very extensive investigation and research by
cultural anthropologists has promoted this view. Relative to Western centralism
and cultural superiority theory, this represents great progress. At least
theoretically, it recognizes and looks squarely at world cultural pluralism. Not
a few insightful Westerners hold this view with sincerity. But it cannot
fundamentally eliminate the influence of Western centralism. On the contrary, it
may enable Western centralism to take on a more moderate and covert appearance.
The positivist research of cultural anthropology has only provided arguments
which to some prove Western culture to be advanced while others are uncivilized
and primitive. While bare faced ethnic cultural centralism is notorious, some
regard their own values as advanced while playing down other ethnic cultures
under the cover of cross-cultural relativism. For instance, criticizing
Huntington for holding the view of Western centralism did not strike home,
because Huntington said Western culture was unique rather than universal and
cannot be imposed on others. But this does not stop him from insisting on
Western cultural superiority at heart, and expressing his worries about the
“only valuable” Western culture suffering challenges from different
cultures. His attitude is somewhat representative.
It is interesting that many Asian, African and Latin
American countries also favor cross-cultural relativism, but at the other pole.
Constrained by Western centralism for hundreds of years, they need to prove
themselves through ethnic cultural rejuvenation in order to enhance the
people’s confidence, beyond political independence and economic development.
Faced with the assaults of strong Western cultures, they are unable to upgrade
their own to universal cultures. They must hold the bottom-line of cultural
relativism in order to gain equality with Western culture. Cross-cultural
relativism is also highly influential in Chinese academia. Many people,
including this author, have written articles stressing that all cultures are
equal.
However, conceptual introspection reveals
cross-cultural relativism to be not unassailable. Stating cultural specificity
and its local significance is, to a considerable extent, a description of the
objective situation, rather than a judgment of values. We cannot withhold
comment on the drawbacks of various cultures or even speak highly of them on the
basis of recognizing cultural equality. Acts of killing babies, murdering
elderly people, oppressing women or mutual slaughter in cultures should not be
accepted, but must be criticized. Value judgments either within or between
cultures must have an acceptable standard.
This view holds that not only are the values within a
particular culture precious, but experience has proven that there exist global
minimum common values. Not a few cultural anthropologists have observed that the
majority of cultures have rejected deception, stealing, violence or incest; no
culture takes pain as a value, has no respect for life or fails to memorialize
death. Even areas where revenge is considered legal strictly limit the number of
deaths. To substantiate this theory, some have put forward arguments in biology,
namely, that morals originate from a moral gene. If the genes are identical,
there is no relativism; if genes are different, culture is also different.
Others have advanced arguments in sociology, that is, the universal process of
socialization has led to a universality of moral awareness. For example, all
babies require attention by others. In this process, humankind has attained some
common characteristics.
However, these arguments are inadequate. We are in no
position to explain whether the biological and sociological arguments have
nurtured egoism or altruism. Proceeding
only from experiences to prove the existence of the minimum values is also
questionable. For instance, preservation of life is the most universal and
fundamental value in the world, but often it is related to betrayal of belief,
violating the law and sheltering family or tribal members. Furthermore, this
argument is premised on global acceptance. The morale supported by the majority
seems stronger than that supported by the minority or minor cultures. But there
are reasons to ask: if all societies discriminate against women (or migrants,
the disabled or some the group), can this prejudice be proved reasonable? This
view is rare in Chinese scholars, but with the extension of cultural exchanges
between countries it has gradually influenced the Chinese academia, especially
young researchers.
The universal value theory was first put forward by Western scholars. Its
core is the recognition that everyone has the right to existence or human
rights. Its original contents were limited to the rights of citizens and
political freedom, but in recent years, due to the response of developing
countries, some scholars have added basic economic and other rights. Amitai
Etzioni holds that human rights is a demand upon all countries and societies,
rather than being directed against some only. Though the concept of human rights
historically was created in the West, it does not reflect only Western values,
but rather is a demand on everyone. He has also observed that in recent years
Asian countries have begun to pay attention to improving human rights and have
no longer regarded human rights as an instrument of foreign oppression, but as a
means of enhancing Asian specialization. He has quoted Bilahari Kausikan, a
Singaporean diplomat, as saying “Human rights have become a legitimate issue
in interstate relations. How a country treats its citizens is no longer a matter
for its own exclusive determination”. This has been creating a global culture
about human rights.
Amitai Etzioni’s criticism of the theory of Western
universal values is also thought-provoking. First, people always quote the U.N.
Charter, international law, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
various resolutions and international conferences to prove the rationality of
human rights. However, these have not been extensively recognized; for lack of
participation by representatives of all the countries in the world they lack the
foundation of a global moral dialogue. Second, it should be admitted that
Western developed countries can afford political freedom, while developing
countries can achieve political development only after economic development by
leaps and bounds. Under conditions of extreme poverty, subsistence is
humankind’s primary choice; other things are secondary. To those countries
knowing nothing about peace, stability and progress, it is nonsense to talk
about rights of citizens and political rights. Nevertheless, he still demands
moral voices and global dialogue, and opposes imposed dialogues or rebukes at
the slightest provocation.3 This view reflects a revised theory of
universal Western values.
In the Chinese academia, wide differences exist on the theory of
universal Western values. Some hold that now that modernization is the goal
being sought and that Western society has taken the lead in carrying forward
modernization, our cultural orientation naturally should draw closer to that of
developed societies. Some consider that the West has made use of its powerful
cultural force to pursue colonialism and hegemony, so Chinese people should
increase their own cultural cohesion to deal with “a clash of
civilizations”. This author opposes simple approval or simple opposition. It
should be recognized that Western culture does provide some values of universal
significance. Though taking the human as the foundation and respecting human
existence is manifested in various cultures, enhancing it to the level of human
rights in a modern sense is indeed the result of processes of extraction and
distillation in Western civilization. It is because of their universality, that
they have been increasingly accepted by developing countries including China.
Except for the drawbacks Etzioni has criticized, this author wants to supplement
what is perhaps a more important drawback, namely, that universal values are not
limited to the human rights provided by the West; all cultures have the
possibility of providing universal values. If human rights values did not absorb
such basic rights as that to subsistence and economic rights raised by
developing countries, they might not be so complete, and in that sense
universal. So, universal values are not those which only the West can provide,
but should integrate various kinds of excellent values found in the world; they
are not a finished and established moral system, but are still in the process of
formation.
This orientation is based on the theory of universal
values. Furthermore, it holds that only by cultural interaction across national
boundaries can we redefine the world order and determine the future face of the
world. Akira Iriye pointed out that a sharp increase of transnational trade and
the recognition of international law by all the countries have laid the initial
foundation for forming theoretically a common international system. In the 20th
century, cultural internationalism made rapid progress, such as exchange of
information, coordination of weights and measures; cooperation across national
boundaries of scientists, artists, educators and many others to promote mutual
cross-cultural understanding; and various international organizations which form
a network covering the whole world. The telephone, radio, cinema, TV and
Internet have provided brand-new technology and means for cross-cultural
communication. Even after suffering the destruction of two world wars and the
Cold War, cultural internationalism has still kept its flames alive. Since the
independence of developing countries cultural internationalism has become more
comprehensive: non-European countries have been increasingly active, more common
issues facing mankind such as environmental protection and human rights have
been put on the agenda, and there has been an unprecedented enhancement in the
self-awareness of world diversity. If this kind of position can be agreed to by
more countries, there may eventually emerge a new international order in which
culture will be returned to its central place.4 Chinese scholars have
also expressed similar views. For instance, Chen Lemin wrote that, from the
perspective of a general world history which stresses political struggles,
conflicts are everywhere in the human society. However, from the angle of the
history of human civilizations, the general trend is toward integration, even in
the midst of fierce conflicts.5 But no one has clearly put forward
the concept of “cultural internationalism,” perhaps, on the one hand,
because of the difficulty of differentiating cultural conflict from cultural
integration, and, on the other hand, because of a certain taboo on
“internationalism”. If a breakthrough can be made on the basic issues of
universal values, the turn toward cultural internationalism may be confirmed.
In short, the value orientation of Chinese scholars
is bound to be varied and difficult to unify. However, no matter what attitude
is taken, we should first make clear the starting point, the strong and weak
points of this position in fulfilling the objectives, and how to remedy the
defects so as to achieve a more rational explanation. Otherwise one can easily
fall into the trap of blindness. Research in international culture based on
objective scientific theories is beneficial in bringing about a new value
orientation. This process must transform beneficial values, Eastern or Western,
from the many cultures in the world, extract and distill excellent values from
the native ethnic cultures, and integrate them into new values capable of
guiding humankind in its way forward. As Cheng Zhongying discussed, the
universality of ideologies and concepts is related to the depth of their taking
root in subjectivity and is closely connected with the horizontal network of
meaning.6
Chinese culture goes back to ancient times, has
extensive and profound knowledge and can provide rich cultural factors. The
challenge is to modernize and upgrade these ideological factors and then
transmit them to the rest of the world. This requires arduous efforts at
cultural building, rather than a simple overall presentation, for otherwise they
cannot be accepted and integrated. In the practical situation, the facts that
Western countries possess strong technical means and that they began earlier the
process of value modernization and globalization are very favorable to their
dissemination of values. Relatively speaking, developing countries have just
begun. But we cannot wait to see and bungle the chance. If we cannot attend to
our research in earnest, we will lose the right to speak in the cultural upsurge
of the new century.
The aim of research in international culture is to
recognize and understand more deeply contemporary international relations, and
to explain how cultural factors play a role in the formation of international
relations and how cultural research can enlighten international relations.
Cultural research must involve the fields of ideology, concept and consciousness
in order to be sure to reflect the realistic base of international relations.
Denial of this point will lead to a break with historical materialism. However,
ideology, concept and consciousness are not entirely passive reflections of
objective reality, but at the same time play a counteractive role in the real
situation of international relations. Not to see this point will lead to being
entrapped in a mechanical materialism. In this sense we can say that changes in
concepts cause changes in the world. Now when people see the world, what often
appears in their minds are geopolitical concepts such as military power,
security strategy and balanced diplomacy. Using these concepts to understand
phenomena and explain results in turn strengthens geopolitical relations. For
example, dealing with potential enemies by means of war or alliance often makes
them real enemies. This is called “Cold War thinking”. Any phenomena which
are hard to explain by geopolitics often are regarded as “confusions”.
In fact, cultural forces have existed and been
developing, and have constituted the contemporary world. Only because
geopolitical theory has occupied the central position in international
relations, has people’s sight been obstructed. The development of
transnational cultural forces linking different countries, societies and peoples
cannot be fully understood within the geopolitical and geo-economic framework.
Only by making use of the concepts and methods of cultural research can the
interrelations between various domestic and international forces and the
cultural interaction between individuals and groups transcending national
boundaries be explained. Besides, some “confusions” are not real confusions;
if cultural views are accepted then a clear explanation can be achieved.
Therefore, we must build a framework for research in international culture.
The first layer of research in international culture
looks into the conditions of time and place in which new concepts, ideas and
principles are put forward, and how they change people’s recognition and
understanding of international relations. China’s definition of the current
era has changed from “war and revolution” to “ peace and development”;
this is a great transformation. To a considerable extent, “war and
revolution” did reflect the world political situation in the greater part of
the 20th century. There were two World Wars, the Cold War and a
series of conventional wars; developing countries, except in Latin America,
gained independence; most adopted the means of revolutionary wars, others went
through peaceful transitions. However, this definition ignored the adjustment of
modern capitalism on the basis of the new technological revolution and the
change in the tasks of newly emerging countries after independence.
In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, when foreign
scholars first advanced a new definition of “peace and development”, China
regarded it as the main melody of the current era and proposed it. Deng Xiaoping
noted that “peace and development” do not refer to two fulfilled tasks, but
rather to the orientation of our efforts. On the basis of this view, the
differences between social systems will no longer become an obstruction to
exchange between countries. To fulfill the task of development, we should fall
in line with the world economy, properly deal with contradictions with other
countries, and strive for a peaceful and safe environment. In the same era, the
U.S. definition diverged widely from China’s. It stressed “market and
democracy” and “security and order”. The aim of the U.S. definition is to
maintain the current order, prevent any country from threatening its status, and
strongly promote U.S.-style marketization and democratization. The difference
between China and the U.S. in the definition of the current era endowed their
foreign policies with both cohesive and conflicting contents. Definition and
concept are the overall reflection of the realistic situation, and the guideline
for behavior that changes the status quo.
The second layer of research in international culture
is the analysis of the collective recognition of various concepts and ideas. The
higher the degree of collective recognition, the greater the influence on
international relations. Definition, concept, idea and principle not only guide
the behavior of various actors in the world, but also impact common behaviors by
collective recognition if the actors generally accept some idea and principle.
Recently, Tanaka Akihiko, professor of Tokyo University in Japan, advanced the
idea of “word politics”, that is, that the main point of current politics
lies in “stating one’s views”, “daring to create marvelous words,” the
“force of speech”.7 Why does speech have such force? This is
because it must achieve recognition by other countries. Otherwise, it is only
soliloquy and can only guide a country’s foreign policy with limited force.
The 1998 Strategic Review by the U.S.
Department of Defense pointed out that in analyzing the Asia-Pacific situation
almost all the countries in the region had accepted the economic values of such
core countries as the U.S., which were conducive to promoting economic relations
between the core countries and this region. However, some countries continued to
resist and reject the values of democratic politics, thereby generating
suspicions and worries in interrelations with them.
The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence initiated
by China have become the common ground for many developing countries. Therefore,
it is easy for them to achieve equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect in
their relations. Because the degree in which Western developed countries’
recognize these principles is lower, anti-power sentiments often crop up in
developing countries’ dealings with them. This shows that initiating creative
ideas and principles for world affairs, which are subsequently accepted by other
countries, will be an important mark of a country’s ability.
This kind of ability depends on whether its material
carriers are strong, that is, that it is taken for granted that more and better
goods and cultural products are delivered to the world through these carriers.
In this respect, developed countries, especially the U.S., are strong. What
Coca-Cola and McDonald market is not only beverage and food, but also the
meaning of the culture and lifestyle attached to them. Hollywood’s swift and
fierce attacks move triumphantly with hundreds of millions of people enjoying US
movies. From the angle of culture, the ability of producing collective
recognition takes root first in domestic cultural recognition and innovative
awareness.
If the people even of one country have divergent and
confused awareness, how can they convince peoples of other ethnic groups? To
reach domestic consensus in culture, a country is bound properly to deal with
relations between foreign and native cultures and to better resolve
contradictions between traditional culture and modernity. Only on the basis of a
collective national recognition can innovative ability sharply increase.
Secondly, it depends on a country’s awareness of
the world. If a country takes care only of its own domestic affairs and speak
only when having something to do with its own direct interests, its ability to
promote collective recognition will certainly be extremely low. Only by paying
close attention to international affairs, upholding the force of morality and
holding humankind’s future destiny in mind, can such a culture contribute more
ideological elements to international relations.
The third layer of research in international culture
is the ability to explore systems of culture. Where a number of countries
recognize some kind of concepts, ideas and principles, this provides only a
common ground in thought and speech. Turning this into behavior in international
relations requires the support of a system. Some cultures have a strong ability
at systematization and some, though contributing new thinking, lack initiative
in systematization, and thus fall short of success for lack of an integral
effort. After the victory of WWII, Roosevelt and Churchill did their utmost to
design the U.N. to put the spirit of the “Atlantic Charter” into practice.
To prevent the economic crisis in the 1930s from reemerging, all the countries
set up a series of economic organizations at the Bretton Woods Conference. All
these reflect the U.S.-led ability of Western culture for systematization.
Western countries occupy great superiority in cultural systematization, because
they have advanced most of the basic principles of international law and the
world system, and hence dominate the current world order. The system of
innovation comes down in one continuous line from the original culture and is
well reasoned.
Developing countries must take into account current
international law and the world system in pursuing their own cultural systems in
international relations so that there will be no great conflict and their
cultures will be widely accepted. Their cultures and Western culture do not
belong to the same system, so their combination and integration requires a lot
of work. But this does not mean that developing countries cannot make
innovations in cultural systems. On the contrary, their non-Western pluralistic
traditions can inject new strains of thought into the world. China has advanced
the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence” and achieved ideas such as
“pursuit of joint development while preserving differences”. These are all
full of creativity; their drawback is that their systematization has not been
explored. Fortunately, in recent years, some progress has been made. The border
security guarantee of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is a
successful example of systematization of the “Five Principles of Peaceful
Coexistence” on the issue of the border between China and Central Asia.
Putting forward new thinking demands a creative and
forward-looking culture. Promoting systematization requires flexibility,
coordination, inclusiveness and pragmatism of culture. New thinking often
reflects the ideal appeal of international relations, while systematization
takes into greater consideration feasibility and serviceability. The perfect
combination of the two is a severe test for any culture. Both the development
and dissemination of concepts and the initiation of systems need the support of
the comprehensive national strength.
However, simply to equate cultural ability with
economic or military strength is mechanical and one-sided. The solution of
difficult problems depends on wisdom. The role of culture can also be manifested
in the ingenuity of “moving 1000 jin with
4 liang force”. It is especially so
under the conditions of the post-Cold War new technological revolution and in
the environment of the development of both globalization and diversification.
For instance, Canada initiated the Anti-Mine Treaty, gaining a reputation all
over the world. Australia-advanced APEC has become one of the most important
organizations in the Asia-Pacific region. ASEAN has raised its international
position by actively launching dialogues and cooperation between East Asian
countries, between Europe and Asia, as well as across the Pacific.
The fourth layer of research in international culture
is the above-mentioned role of culture in world politics and the world economy
in dynamically changing and delineating international relations. First, let us
look at the impact of culture on the world economy. As Francis Fukuyama pointed
out, the key field where culture plays the most direct role in domestic welfare
and international order is the economy.8 People have a
misunderstanding: Economy seems to be a field separated from other sectors of
the social life and ruled by an independent law. In the economy or market
natural forces dominate everything and man is seen as only a cold-blooded animal
haggling over everything. In fact, the economy has to operate against a
non-economic background, where culture is the main factor. Today everyone
marvels at the width, depth and speed of economic globalization, whose powerful
motive force is scientific and technological progress. But both science and
technology belong to culture in a broad sense. At the turn of the millennia
there has appeared an inkling of a knowledge economy depending mainly on
intellectual resources. Human resources have become central to economic
development and input from science, technology and culture has become the main
motive force of social development. Without a rapid development of information
technology, there will possibly be no putting out the Southeast Asian financial
storm and no reexamination of the world economic system and mechanism.
The economy is also the most fundamental and active
field in the socialization of humankind, and modern economic activity needs the
cooperation of people. Through economic activity, individuals and state are
linked and are recognized by other and by the world. In the past, people won
recognition through cold blooded wars and conquest; now they do so through
economic activity and the social benefit derived from creating rather than
destroying wealth. This is historic progress. The increase of interdependence in
the world economy has made cultural exchanges between ethnic groups more
central. The world market is, of course, an indispensable system, but if what
flows in the market is only economic capital and there is no social capital to
bind it, the market will not create maximum value. If the ethnic groups think
only of their own interests and shift their own troubles onto others, they will
finally damage their own development. So, what a culture proposes in social
capital for the world operation will be a new issue for research.
Let us observe the impact of culture on world
politics. Obviously, the basic contradiction of world politics is that between
effective rule in various countries and anarchism of the whole world. The
current world pattern is one superpower, as several great powers and
multi-polarization and diversification develops. Although the U.N. and various
international organizations advance equality between countries in the hope of
creating a democratic system in the world family, in practice, “one vote for
each country” is incapable of resolving questions. Most countries are
unsatisfied with the current political world system and have put forward a
variety of reform options, but with very little effect. A change of cultural
concepts is of vital importance for the better integration and resolution of
imminent common questions. Hegemony and power politics have met with opposition
from more and more countries.
But what kind of world order is fair, reasonable and
efficient? How to make use of the achievements in world politics in order to
overcome its malpractice? Without applying the cumulative cultural heritages of
humankind, people cannot look forward to the future. World politics was
originally referred to as the sum total of behavior between sovereign states.
Proceeding from that reality, sovereignty remains the key concept in world
politics. Safeguarding sovereignty is an important aspect of increasing the
political resources of developing countries in particular, which have gained
their independence more recently. But the concept of sovereignty also took shape
in the modernization process of Western countries. This has been spread to the
rest of the world with the occupation by these countries of the dominant
position in the world system. The EU countries are no longer scattered entities
with distinct identities, but have created a common political identity from
within, transcending the definition of traditional theories. Though other
countries and regions have not reached such a high degree of integration, there
have appeared frequent contacts between the government and economic and civil
organizations, non-governmental organizations and individuals, as well as
between individuals, enriching and supplementing the relations between sovereign
states. A change in concepts is often the precursor of political reform; this is
the task of cultural research.
The framework of research in international culture
can be shown with the following diagram:
Ideas,
Concepts and Principles
↓
Systemic
Identity of Ideas and Concepts
↓
Cultural
System
↙↘
——World
Economy World Politics——
╲
╱
╲_
International Relations ______╱
As
for the new field of research in international culture, it is better to say that
this paper has put forward questions, rather than given answers. The hope is to
stimulate criticism and discussion, and to ask for advice from all.
NOTES
1. See this author’s article, “A Summary
of America Cultural Research,” Pacific Journal, No. 1, 1999, p. 38.
2. Graham Forer, “The Next Ideology”, Foreign
Policy, Spring 1995.
3. Amitai Etzioni, “Conclusion”, The
New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society (New York
Basic Books, 1997).
4. Akira Iriye, Cultural Internationalism and World Order (The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1997).
5. Chen Lemin, “Widening the Fields of
International Politics Research”, Pacific
Journal, No. 2, 1997.
6. Cheng Zhongying, “The 21st
Century: Blend of Chinese and Western Cultures and Globalization of Chinese
Culture”, Pacific Journal, No. 1,
1995.
7. Tanaka Akihiko, “Japanese Diplomacy in
the Era of ‘Word Politics’”, Chuokoron,
Sept. 1998.
8. Francis Fukuyama, Trust: The Social Virtue and the Creation of Prosperity (Free Publishing House, 1995), p. 6.