.png)
 |
| Christian Bush Class of 2018 |
This semester, I have the great privilege of doing an independent study under Asian studies and political science professor Dr. Hua. My hope is to explore some of the underlying factors surrounding Sino-American diplomacy through a cultural lens. Here I would like to briefly discuss some of the assumptions, questions, and aims of such an endeavor.
My first issue is the idea of political socialization. In the simplest of terms, political socialization describes how an individual has been shaped politically by a variety of outside factors. Some, like family, play a large role in political socialization, while others, such as one’s profession, might play a smaller role. In my research so far, family, education, peer groups, the media, religion, and political parties are among the most noted factors. However, my goal is to assess the role that culture, specifically foreign culture, plays in shaping an individual’s political ideology. While I will not be so brash as to suggest that American culture can overcome the basic attitudes of family values, I will make the case that some of the other factors are not so entrenched.
Assuming that foreign culture can be inserted into the hierarchy of political socialization in some nominal capacity, then it could prove beneficial to long-term strategic interests. Herein lies the idea of soft power as developed by Harvard professor Joseph Nye. Coercion, be it through military force or monies, constitutes hard power. Soft power, on the other hand, uses attraction. The currency of soft power is foreign policies, political values, and you guessed it, culture. The bulk of my research will examine both the US and Chinese approaches to soft power diplomacy. My initial assumption is that cultural diplomacy has been somewhat unsuccessful for both countries but for different reasons. For the US, one problem is that culture can only compete with some of the factors of political socialization. I doubt that the ideas of individualism and freedom embodied in whatever Netflix or HBO show is in fashion can overcome thousands of years of Chinese political and social tradition that has deferred to collectivism and authoritarianism. On the other hand, I think American audiences take Chinese overtures, no matter how genuine, with a degree of suspicion. Professor Nye noted that, “the best propaganda is not propaganda”, and therein lies the problem. The Chinese president Xi Jinping has touched on this issue before, noting that China is suffering from a “cultural deficit”.
The last part of my research will be assessing one of the most important veins of culture: language. Almost all societal structures and human interaction is predicated on communication. English has had the luxury of being the global language in the 20th and 21st centuries thus far, and I would propose that it has also created the highway whereby western culture is disseminated to the rest of the world. Though more than a billion people speak Chinese, this is a byproduct of China’s size rather than widespread linguistic influence. English as a first and second language enjoys widespread geographic influence. In simple terms, global linguistic influence correlates to global cultural influence. And if global cultural influence is capable of reshaping political socialization, perhaps it can be translated into long-term strategic goals and meaningful political change.
Christian Bush, of Louisville, Ky., is a junior McConnell Scholar majoring in history and Asian studies.