Cultural Approach to China Foreign Policy Essay Example

Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages, 900 Mintsu 1st Road, Kaohsiung 80793 Taiwan, Republic of China e-mail: M. W. Lat Despite the burgeoning interest, Chinese foreign policy is still troubled by methodological issues that existed prior to the Open and Reform policy of the 1970s.

The article will begin with an overview of relevant studies, separated into cultural and non-cultural approaches, before discussing policy making. The main argument posits that any research approach, if not carefully executed, can result in methodological errors. As external observers gain more insight into Chinese politics, a cultural approach that focuses on Chinese traditions is most effective in obtaining a comprehensive understanding of foreign policy making. Therefore, cultural factors are indispensable in comprehending foreign policy making, and researchers should incorporate them into their methodology.

This article suggests that a cultural approach can help address the issue of insufficient information, particularly in relation to China. To illustrate this advantage, the second part of the article will provide a case study on Chinese foreign policy from 2010-2011. In anthropology, culture has traditionally been defined as a broad concept. Geertz's definition emphasizes culture as a pattern of meaning transmitted over time through symbols, which enables people to communicate, perpetuate and develop knowledge and attitudes towards life. This definition suggests that culture is a complex formation of shared symbolic world among people.

Culture, as defined by Spiro, is the force that drives societal structures, behavior and institutions [6]. Kroeber and Kluckholm defined it broadly as "a way of life" [7]. However, these classic anthropological definitions can sometimes lack precision due to their inclusivity. When examining politics through the lens of culture, a more specific and precise definition

is required.

To Johnston, political culture is defined as a set of political codes, rules, recipes, standard operating procedures, and routines that bring structure to perceptions of the political environment. Laitin believes that culture, as it relates to politics, is both a system of meaning and a resource for instrumental action. Ross has explored the idea of political culture by examining the cultures of organization, community, authority, and conflict. He suggests that political culture serves as the interface between individuals and their communities, and can be a dynamic concept that undergoes changes and variations.

According to Keesing, political culture can be defined as the cognitive systems that describe the evolutionary and symbiotic relationship between peoples and communities with their environment or ecology.

As the environment changes, culture also changes, and this impacts the concept of "soft power" which emphasizes cultural factors. In the study of Chinese foreign policy, there has been a growing focus on applying "soft power" in recent years, as noted by Kurlantzick [3] and Nye [4]. The evolution of the environment has influenced Chinese foreign policy making from 2010 to 2011 [11]. From these observations, it can be proposed that culture serves as a link between people and politics, which is a key factor to consider.

Culture is not static but rather dynamic and subject to change. It can serve both as a means and an end towards attaining a more inclusive political attitude towards diverse political subjects. Almond and Verba's work, "The Civic Culture," identified key factors that determine government performance such as citizen attitudes towards the political system, trust in political authorities, beliefs regarding individual and collective political actions, and levels of political

engagement. These terms, including attitude, trust, belief, and involvement, are difficult to quantify and measure due to their ambiguous nature within the cultural approach. Inglehart and Putnam furthered the cross-national cultural survey tradition by broadening the scope and depth of the research method. However, critics point out that the cultural approach still lacks clarity in terms of fundamental concepts and subject matter.

The cultural approach faces challenges when it comes to explaining change, predicting the future, and offering concrete political recommendations due to its lack of precision [15]. However, to avoid these issues, this article defines the cultural approach as an explanation that centers around cultural factors. These factors differ from non-cultural ones as they are closely linked to the relationship between people and politics. Perception is a complex concept to fully comprehend, thus to gain a more accurate understanding of reality, research on actual individuals and their relationships, as well as their perceptions, is necessary. The cultural approach does not disregard quantifiable factors (i.

Some critics have highlighted the lack of clarity around the "non-ambiguity factors". It is necessary to translate quantifiable factors into cultural phenomena to truly understand their impact on politics. Merely relying on GDP figures is insufficient for evaluating people's quality of life as it does not account for individual perception of wealth. While GDP may accurately reflect reality in some cases, in others it falls short.

The cultural approach is doubtful of factors that don't align with people's perception of politics, while the non-cultural approach in political science suggests that measurable factors can be considered a "social science". Measurable indicators like the unemployment rate, price index, and budget balances are deemed better indicators

of a country's state than concepts like civil society, freedom of the press, and gross national happiness. The non-cultural approach emphasizes institutions and political structures like governmental agencies, international organizations, schools, corporations, and national figures, such as government officials, corporate leaders, congressmen, influential figures or scholars.

According to the cultural approach, the institutions and influential members of society are crucial to observe and take note of. However, what is of greatest interest and concern is their connection to the public's overall perception. It is essential to mention that this article does not support oversimplified dichotomies like precision versus imprecision, rational versus irrational, and causality versus storytelling. (See Euro-Barometer Public Opinion Analysis at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm and [13, 14].)

The division between cultural and non-cultural approaches represents the allocation of tasks in comprehending political entities. The subsequent section will elaborate on this division of labor. Specifically, when examining Chinese foreign policy, scholars encounter three central issues in foreign policy research. They struggle with analyzing foreign policy at the level of either the second or third image, as labeled by Waltz. [16]