论文部分内容阅读
Technically speaking， civilization or culture cannot give rise to conflict and war， but they generate massive power and cooperation which inevitably lead to confrontation when sovereign countries representing different civilizations and cultures interact frequently.
From the perspective of cultural geopolitics， many kinds of conflicts between nations or international conflicts have taken place culturally， and conflict happens even amongst and within countries sharing the same culture. In the 1990s， Samuel P. Huntington from Harvard University presented the theory of “clash of civilizations，” provoking fierce debate and exerting tremendous impact on practical policy despite the fact that it was not well accepted academically.
We can get a closer look at what’s happening if we take culture into account when analyzing international relations. Look at it from two aspects：
First， culture， as a way of thinking， affects international relations directly. Culture encompasses many things. However， the core of any culture is usually manifested as a unique way of thinking， which doesn’t lead to any conflict. But it easily does when two ways of thinking converse with each other.
In the international political arena， one must think about oneself in relation to others （other countries） as well as the relationship between oneself and others. Therefore， no one is ever identical culturally.
Second， culture， as a resource or tool， can be mobilized and used by a sovereign country to flavor its relationship with other countries. Once properly utilized as a resource， it can exert an infinite impact on international politics. It’s a good topic for discussion.
The “Game of Go” Logic
What is the difference between Chinese culture and American culture， the most overwhelming of Western cultures， in terms of international relations？ How does culture affect the bilateral relationship？
The first difference is found in way of thinking. China has a history of over 5，000 years， which often makes people think from a macroscopic， long-range perspective. The Chinese and American peoples differ quite greatly in terms of rational concepts. The former’s is usually connected with macro-history， while the latter’s lies in how to maximize term-based interests.
Rational expression from Chinese people can be seen in many regards. First is their way of problem handling. The Chinese government always takes its time to address international issues – considered a “delay strategy” by the U.S. In fact， the wait is only because China wants to make sure of the best solution. In the Chinese way of thinking， many problems are considered part of a development and afford time to pinpoint solutions as long as forward progress continues. Secondly， the two cultures vary in the understanding of strategy. China has always stressed the strategy of “keeping a low profile at a time of adversity，” which is a temporary measure of waiting for a better opportunity in the eyes of the United States and even the entire Western world. However， this is a perpetual strategy from the perspective of Chinese culture. It is a modern embodiment of China’s “reactive diplomacy” and “defensive diplomacy”culture that has existed for millennia.
Defensive diplomacy can easily be found in “Great Wall” culture. To prevent ourselves from embroilment with the outside world， a lengthy Great Wall was built in an attempt to keep enemies away， which， though， did not historically prove successful. Reactive diplo- macy is more widespread in handling routine foreign affairs.
Not until the modern times did the Chinese government build the conception of diplomacy， which was hardly found dominant on the country’s political agenda. Even today， more efforts should be made in China’s “initiative” diplomatic strategy， because the whole diplomatic system works reactively like “fighting fire” when addressing daily international affairs.
Diplomacy has yet to be bestowed its due significance—similar to the rules of Weiqi， or the game of Go. In his On China， Dr. Henry Kissinger compares the difference in strategic cultures of China and the United States through the game of Go and Chinese chess. The United States， and even the West， plays games following the rules of Chinese chess – a life-or-death struggle – while China follows those of Go： Diplomacy doesn’t necessarily mean life or death； rather， it is a business， which can bring gains or not. That explains why the Chinese believe that diplomacy is not a race.
In fact， looking deeper， we can see the essential difference between the culture of Go and Chinese chess as related to Chinese and American cultures.
American culture features a sense of mission： exclusivity. One of its most noticeable traits is to change “others” into “American.”The “others” will be considered enemies if it doesn’t happen.
Chinese culture， however， works in the opposite way： inclusivity. Not only has it never urged the reform of “others，” but has insisted on openness and the embrace of others and their culture in an active way.
Pressure
In terms of international relation， the most important thing for China and the West， including the United States， to know is their different perceptions of the concept of sovereign country.
The idea of sovereignty developed in the West and was later introduced to the rest of the world， including China. It has been transformed fundamentally in China.
For example， in the United States， sovereignty means homogeneity and assimilation， which might explain why Washington D.C. has always strived to market its own form of government – to seek assimilation. For many years， Western countries， including the United States， have insisted on human rights overriding sovereignty， iconic of Western culture.
Sovereignty， however， in China， has always been interpreted as part of the philosophy of “harmony in diversity，” meaning that a country should not bully another， nor should it impose others to follow its own systems. Coexistence with diversity is an ideal of China’s international relation， which can be seen in its principles of “harmony in diversity” or simply “harmony.”
In recent years， the United States shifted its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region and interaction between the two sovereign countries representing two drastically different cultures has continuously increased， posing great diplomatic challenges and an arduous task for future generations.
It is clear that such challenges transcend the realm of diplo- macy， which can only contribute to the minimization of misunderstandings due to cultural differences and bettering understanding between the two cultures.
Handling and alleviating the pressure from such cultural geopolitics requires real rise of the Chinese culture， a new one that embodies its own values while accommodating Western values.
From the perspective of cultural geopolitics， many kinds of conflicts between nations or international conflicts have taken place culturally， and conflict happens even amongst and within countries sharing the same culture. In the 1990s， Samuel P. Huntington from Harvard University presented the theory of “clash of civilizations，” provoking fierce debate and exerting tremendous impact on practical policy despite the fact that it was not well accepted academically.
We can get a closer look at what’s happening if we take culture into account when analyzing international relations. Look at it from two aspects：
First， culture， as a way of thinking， affects international relations directly. Culture encompasses many things. However， the core of any culture is usually manifested as a unique way of thinking， which doesn’t lead to any conflict. But it easily does when two ways of thinking converse with each other.
In the international political arena， one must think about oneself in relation to others （other countries） as well as the relationship between oneself and others. Therefore， no one is ever identical culturally.
Second， culture， as a resource or tool， can be mobilized and used by a sovereign country to flavor its relationship with other countries. Once properly utilized as a resource， it can exert an infinite impact on international politics. It’s a good topic for discussion.
The “Game of Go” Logic
What is the difference between Chinese culture and American culture， the most overwhelming of Western cultures， in terms of international relations？ How does culture affect the bilateral relationship？
The first difference is found in way of thinking. China has a history of over 5，000 years， which often makes people think from a macroscopic， long-range perspective. The Chinese and American peoples differ quite greatly in terms of rational concepts. The former’s is usually connected with macro-history， while the latter’s lies in how to maximize term-based interests.
Rational expression from Chinese people can be seen in many regards. First is their way of problem handling. The Chinese government always takes its time to address international issues – considered a “delay strategy” by the U.S. In fact， the wait is only because China wants to make sure of the best solution. In the Chinese way of thinking， many problems are considered part of a development and afford time to pinpoint solutions as long as forward progress continues. Secondly， the two cultures vary in the understanding of strategy. China has always stressed the strategy of “keeping a low profile at a time of adversity，” which is a temporary measure of waiting for a better opportunity in the eyes of the United States and even the entire Western world. However， this is a perpetual strategy from the perspective of Chinese culture. It is a modern embodiment of China’s “reactive diplomacy” and “defensive diplomacy”culture that has existed for millennia.
Defensive diplomacy can easily be found in “Great Wall” culture. To prevent ourselves from embroilment with the outside world， a lengthy Great Wall was built in an attempt to keep enemies away， which， though， did not historically prove successful. Reactive diplo- macy is more widespread in handling routine foreign affairs.
Not until the modern times did the Chinese government build the conception of diplomacy， which was hardly found dominant on the country’s political agenda. Even today， more efforts should be made in China’s “initiative” diplomatic strategy， because the whole diplomatic system works reactively like “fighting fire” when addressing daily international affairs.
Diplomacy has yet to be bestowed its due significance—similar to the rules of Weiqi， or the game of Go. In his On China， Dr. Henry Kissinger compares the difference in strategic cultures of China and the United States through the game of Go and Chinese chess. The United States， and even the West， plays games following the rules of Chinese chess – a life-or-death struggle – while China follows those of Go： Diplomacy doesn’t necessarily mean life or death； rather， it is a business， which can bring gains or not. That explains why the Chinese believe that diplomacy is not a race.
In fact， looking deeper， we can see the essential difference between the culture of Go and Chinese chess as related to Chinese and American cultures.
American culture features a sense of mission： exclusivity. One of its most noticeable traits is to change “others” into “American.”The “others” will be considered enemies if it doesn’t happen.
Chinese culture， however， works in the opposite way： inclusivity. Not only has it never urged the reform of “others，” but has insisted on openness and the embrace of others and their culture in an active way.
Pressure
In terms of international relation， the most important thing for China and the West， including the United States， to know is their different perceptions of the concept of sovereign country.
The idea of sovereignty developed in the West and was later introduced to the rest of the world， including China. It has been transformed fundamentally in China.
For example， in the United States， sovereignty means homogeneity and assimilation， which might explain why Washington D.C. has always strived to market its own form of government – to seek assimilation. For many years， Western countries， including the United States， have insisted on human rights overriding sovereignty， iconic of Western culture.
Sovereignty， however， in China， has always been interpreted as part of the philosophy of “harmony in diversity，” meaning that a country should not bully another， nor should it impose others to follow its own systems. Coexistence with diversity is an ideal of China’s international relation， which can be seen in its principles of “harmony in diversity” or simply “harmony.”
In recent years， the United States shifted its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region and interaction between the two sovereign countries representing two drastically different cultures has continuously increased， posing great diplomatic challenges and an arduous task for future generations.
It is clear that such challenges transcend the realm of diplo- macy， which can only contribute to the minimization of misunderstandings due to cultural differences and bettering understanding between the two cultures.
Handling and alleviating the pressure from such cultural geopolitics requires real rise of the Chinese culture， a new one that embodies its own values while accommodating Western values.