23 May 2022, chaired by Dr Emma Clarence

Professor Jamie Gaskarth’s presentation, based on a book chapter to be published later in 2022, explored the impact that the transition of power internationally is having on the way diplomacy operates and the role of culture in that. He noted that recent academic thinking about world politics has been concerned with the relative shift in power towards Asia and away from the West. He went on to argue that while a good deal of this discussion focuses on the shift in the material bases of political power, there is a need to also trace some of the interrelated cultural and diplomatic changes too.

Underpinning the above-mentioned shifts in power have been considerable increases in GDP and purchasing power, such as in China, where economic growth has outstripped other leading western countries in recent years. It could be that the rising Asian economies will maintain the models of western liberal economies, since they have benefited from them albeit with slight changes to serve their interests – the so-called ‘Princeton school’ approach – because states are economically interdependent. Nevertheless, these sorts of economic and political shifts in international relations can be risky for world politics and may result in war as new powers, such as China, challenge the current hegemon, the USA, when it comes to security competition.

So, there is, it was suggested, a materialist approach being taken in this analysis, that is, that economic power buys military power and influence. However, alongside these considerations should be cultural and social ones, which also affect the ways in which the international order operates and changes, including the way in which dominant states help to shape culturally how other states interact with each other.

It can be difficult to define culture, especially in the ways in which states, and groups of states, interact but scholars, such as E. B. Tyler, argue that taken wholistically culture can be seen as ‘the complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law and custom…’. This highlights the complexity of the idea and suggests that there are markers of cultural difference that can be identified, including: individualist as opposed to collectivist approaches; and long-term, as opposed to short-term, orientation. Such markers can affect the ways in which diplomacy might be conducted.

Jamie focused on four domains of diplomacy which are, ‘our sense of self’, the ‘styles of interaction’ (in particular the use of language and how it is interpreted), ‘values’ and ‘goals’ – all of which can influence the ways in which individuals (including political leaders), regions and nations interact with each other. Each of these domains are important to analyse and add a richness to our understanding of the ways in which diplomacy can be influenced. Additionally, it is not immediately self-evident what some seemingly familiar terms of reference, such as ‘the self’ imply, since the latter may be interpreted in different international cultural contexts as being independent, or interdependent.

Some practical examples of ‘styles of interaction’ were explored, as in the case of Asian countries having a collectivist, context interpretation of international issues, as opposed to an individualist one which focuses mainly ‘fixing international problems’ without being too concerned with the historical and cultural context associated with the USA.

How these sorts of interactions, or ‘domains of diplomacy’, operate in a world with increasingly separatist and authoritarian states, and one in which certain states wish to dominate others, was the final question posed by Jamie and this, along with additional related questions, were addressed by him in the end of presentation question and answer section.

His concluding message was that it is important to take culture seriously when analysing the ways in which current and future international diplomacy takes place, albeit avoiding being culturally deterministic when we try to make sense of any particular interaction.