To investigate the role of cultural values in Indiaâs foreign policy we must first explore what âcultureâ and âcultural valuesâ mean in the context of IR. The complexity of the culture concept and its multiple meanings across disciplines has contributed to the difficulty in understanding cultureâs role within the discipline of IR (Walker 1990: 8). This chapter will discuss the idea of culture and its development within the social sciences, and drawing on this, adopt a definition of cultural values that: (1) is informed by and fits with much of the literature discussing culture, and (2) allows for cultural values to be examined as a variable influencing foreign policy. This Chapter then proceeds to discuss how cultural values, in any similar form to that defined here, have been understood in international relations.
Some studies undertake literature reviews through assessing the current theoretical approaches to the country/issue under investigation. This is not possible here as there has been little in-depth investigation into the role of cultural values in Indiaâs foreign policy. Some have acknowledged various values at play in Indiaâs foreign policy which they loosely relate to culture (e.g. Jones 2006; Cohen 2001; Perkovich 1999; Bajpai 2002). Others have acknowledged the importance of the role of culture itself (Cohen 2001). However, these do not delve into how values influence foreign policy or the roots of these values within Indian culture. There is even less literature examining this area through the perspective of an IR theory. As such, this study will need to start at the more rudimentary level of an investigation of culture in the social sciences.
Why discuss cultural values? Values are one of the greatest dividing lines in international politics. Some of the dominant conceptions of international societyâthose which are statist and pluralistâare attractive due to the fact that there is little global consensus on values (Hurrell 2007: 247). To understand values we need to understand cultureâwhere most values are drawn from (Williams 1994: 56). Values constitute one of the most important ways in which culture manifests itself in world affairs, leading to culture itself being seen as a great divider in world politics. Huntington (1993) defines culture as the enduring values held by civilisations.
Within the social sciences, culture has long been one of the most difficult areas to conceptualise. This study attempted to understand the concept via a literature review of disciplines and approaches that have prioritised it. The culture concept was explored in anthropology, drawing on the works of Hudson (1997), Chay (1990: 9), Walker (1990: 4), Kluckhohn (1944), Geertz (1994: 214, 1973), Wedeen (2002: 713) and Lovell (1990: 91). Smith and Young (1998: 19) and others (e.g. Lal 1998: 6) define culture as âshared knowledge, beliefs and patterns of behaviourâ, as well as their resulting material products. Ideas of âhegemonyâ from Gramsci and âdiscourseâ from poststructuralists and other reflectivist approaches were examined (Mouffe 1979), as was the universalism-pluralism debate (Eisenstadt 2000: 1â15). Also looked at were archaeologist and historiansâ approaches (Thapar 2002). Within social and political science, the research of Williams (1994: 56) was explored as was that of political culture scholars (Landes 1998; Wiarda 2007: 66â68; Almond and Verba 1965: 13â15; Zaman 2009: 69). The works of various generations of strategic culture theorists were explored, drawing on Johnston (1995), Bajpai (2002: 247), Basrur (2001: 185), Liska (1962: 12), Lapid and Kratochwil (1996), Jones (2006), Chaudhuri (2008), Williams (2007), Desch (1998: 146â147), Bozeman (1976: 78), Gray (1999), Snyder (1990: 3), and Poore (2003: 280).
Defining Cultural Values as Observable Ideals
In spite of the proliferation of diverse definitions of culture, it is still possible to identify a set of fundamental characteristics of the conceptâculture is âvague, but it is not mysteriousâ (Morgan 2003: 19). This study will adopt a definition which conforms to some of the aforementioned worksâ conceptualisations of culture, particularly those traditions closer to IR. It will, however, be narrow and specific enough to allow cultural values to be measured for their influence on foreign policy, similar to the approach taken by the âanalytical schoolâ (Zaman 2009: 76) of strategic culture theorists.1
I define cultural values as observable ideals related to the social world for which people of a society have some affective regard.2 This is similar to morals. Moral Foundations Theory stipulates that all moral systems provide âinterlocking sets of values, practices, institutions and evolved psychological mechanisms that work togetherâ to facilitate social life (Graham et al. 2009: 1030). Moral systems across the world influence their statesâ foreign policies.
When referring to cultural values, the book may describe beliefs that are not necessarily practiced by the majority of society. Smith and Young (1998: 28) differentiate between âreal and idealâ cultures. This is where the behaviour of individuals, groups, or the entire society may be different to the cultural ideal, but this does not challenge the ideal. For example, social trends related to the use of violence in particular circumstances may change, but the ideal of how violence should be considered is likely to remain over time. The cultural values identified will be those which society views as what âshould beâ, even if it is not present in practice. Analytically, the values will be akin to Weberâs concept of âideal typesâ (Weber 1949). For instance, an ideal type Hindu may not necessarily equate to the âaverageâ Hindu. Even in terms of ideals, there is great diversity within Indian society as Chapter 2, discusses.
Theoretical Approach
Except for some notable exceptions, such as strategic culture studies, culture and cultural values (as defined here or as defined in any reasonably similar way) have not been adequately addressed within mainstream international relations theory (IR), either in empirical analyses or theoretical discussion (Klotz and Lynch 2007: 58). While many IR scholars have recognised the role of culture implicitly, few have overtly positioned it as the central object of analysis. This is counter-intuitive given that, as mentioned, relations between nations and peoples at the global level are influenced by cultural values. Similar difficulties surrounding the conceptualisation of culture detailed in other disciplines are faced by IR theorists.
In recent years, however, changes in world politics saw a revival of culture in certain corners of the discipline. The end of the Cold War had theorists looking at the influence of new factors beyond strategic interests. A few works were published which acknowledged the importance of culture to understanding world politics, including Katzenstein (1996), Lapid and Kratochwil (1996), Hudson and Sampson (1999), and Chay (1990).
Various IR approaches to culture were examined in order to determine which approach has insights applicable to foreign policy analysis. It was found that a more sophisticated and in-depth analysis of culture is needed to understand world politics. The theoretical tradition most capable of achieving this was found to be constructivism and hence this is the approach adopted in this study.
Constructivismâs main focus is values, identities and norms in world politics. Culture reproduces identities of actors as well as the realities of their worlds. Constructivists privilege social factors in explaining issues like national security (Katzenstein 1996: 29). They question conventional IR assumptions of a universal, rational human nature and of natural international anarchy. Adler (1997: 322) states âmanner in which the material world shapes and is shaped by human actionâŚdepends on dynamic normative and epistemic interpretations of the material worldâ (also Zehfuss 2002: 4). Research questions are situated within spatial, historical and social contexts (Klotz and Lynch 2007: 9). States are social actors whose identity and interests are constituted by social rules (Katzenstein 1996: 23; Price and Reus-Smit 1998: 259). After the Cold War, Katzenstein (1996) advocated for an approach emphasising social factors which could shed light on issues ignored by neo-realism and neo-liberalism. Today, with the rise of the non-European powers, this need is ever clearer.
Given this study is largely a foreign policy analysis, it is informed by certain constructivist insights rather than the entire framework. In addition to the international social environment of states shaping their identities and values, constructivists acknowledge the role of the internal sociocultural environment (Jepperson et al. 1996: 49; Katzenstein 1996)âmy focus area. While some properties of states are dependent on the cultural structures at the international systemic level, others are âself organizingâ (Wendt 1996: 49). State identities and interests mutually constitute the international structureâs interlocking beliefs and identities (Wendt 1996: 49, 391).
It is acknowledged th...