The Resurgence of Cultural Explanations in World Affairs
Cultural explanations for geopolitical behavior, long subjected to skepticism within international relations circles, are increasingly viewed as essential tools for understanding contemporary global dynamics. According to a recent analysis published by LiveMint, the rising role of culture in geopolitical analysis over the past two decades is driven by heightened uncertainty in world affairs.
Historically, cultural factors were marginalized in strategic studies. The global wave of liberal internationalism that followed the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 suppressed the study of culture in world politics, favoring institutional and economic frameworks. However, the current geopolitical landscape has seen a shift as nationalists and conservatives reinforce cultural narratives to counter perceived threats to identity posed by globalization.
Proponents of strategic culture argue that these insights help policymakers make better-informed choices regarding world affairs. This perspective contrasts with earlier dismissals of cultural analysis, which critics argued was primarily explanatory in retrospect rather than predictive or informative compared to realpolitik calculations.
Historical Precedents and Strategic Culture
The application of strategic culture provides specific frameworks for interpreting the actions of major powers, moving beyond standard power-politics explanations. A study of Russian history cited in the analysis suggests that Moscow has historically pushed its frontiers away from its center to establish defense buffers. This historical pattern helps explain Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine not merely as an act of ego or expansionism, but as a response to the risk of eliminating a post-Soviet buffer state through Ukraine’s attempt to join the European Union.
Similarly, strategic culture offers insights into Chinese foreign policy decision-making. Yan Xuetong stated in 2012 that ancient Chinese thought plays an important role in Beijing’s decision-making processes. This strategic culture views the Han emperor as the only sovereign with a mandate from heaven, ruling over tributaries rather than equals.
This historical framework has contemporary manifestations. In the 16th century, European envoys were imprisoned by China if they insisted their king was a sovereign equal to the Chinese emperor. Current observations note that Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s summit designs are described as imperial in style, reflecting these deep-seated cultural hierarchies.
Critiques and Controversies
Despite its growing utility, the study of strategic culture faces significant criticism. Critics argue that cultural determinism is a flawed approach to international relations. Some proponents of cultural explanations are accused of promoting cultural determinism, suggesting that culture alone dictates state behavior without accounting for other variables.
The debate highlights a tension in geopolitical analysis between those who view culture as a primary driver of state action and those who prioritize material capabilities and rational actor models. The current resurgence of cultural analysis suggests that traditional models may be insufficient to explain the behaviors of states like Russia and China, where historical identity and imperial legacy continue to shape diplomatic and military strategies.