3. CAPÍTULO: ANÁLISIS DE RESULTADOS
3.1. PROPUESTAS DE MEJORA
The overarching framework performs as a macro-structure of how the policy- researchers’ “China-narratives” in U.S. think tanks can be understood within. In this study, I have assumed that U.S.-Sino relations as well as U.S. think tanks as a socio- political phenomenon85 are particular relevant surroundings in this regard. The
rationale relates to that policy-researchers are immediately affected by the nature of U.S.’ standings with China.86 Furthermore, the interplay between U.S. think tanks
has also imminent potential to significantly influence a think tank’s ability to contrive in the competitive markets of ideas (which includes possible constrains on the evolving “China-thinking” and production of policy-research within think tanks).
85 I am purposefully applying the combined term ‘socio-political’ in order to signal that “all events, processes, and practices” (see Colin Hay, Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), 3) within the political and social spheres are not separable. I thus disagree with Hay’s stance (analytical level), who promulgates that a political analysis is different from a cultural analysis due to the former is “concerned with the distribution, exercise and consequences of power” (Hay 2002, ibid., 3). For example, power is not uniquely dealt with by the realist tradition but rather outdone by post-structuralism (S. Guzzini, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold (London and New York: Routledge, 1998)).
86 ‘Standings’, here, denotes what is deemed relevant (contextually) by research subjects and the analysis of the China policy-research environment in Washington, DC – for example, bilateral and multilateral relations, domestic politics in the U.S. and/or China, and perceptions and dealings beyond the formalised state-to state- encounters.
41 2.1.3 Culture(s)
The concept of culture is a focal point in this investigation. Defining culture is a tricky one, which anthropologists ironically try to evade.87 Social anthropologist,
Radcliffe-Brown stated “I should like to invoke a taboo on the word culture”.88 I draw upon Bourdieu’s sociology and social anthropological advancements consistent with the former. Bourdieu’s notion of the culture concept has been ambiguous indeed. Consequently, various authors are unsolved on where to place him due to the uncertainty in what ways Bourdieu himself conceptualised ‘culture’.89
For now, three assertions can be ordained. First, I follow Lizardo’s notion of Bourdieu, as a post-
culturalist, reconceptualising the need for a conceptual understanding of ‘culture’.
Through the focus on practice, this stance allows for the following dialectic: mental structures as well as social structures as a system of action and perception that is acquired in a tacit state through tacit mechanisms. In this space, actors execute practices in accordance to the tenants of such a system.90 This epistemologically
diverts from Geertz’ stance on anti-mentalism and anti-psychologism as well as with structuralism – but rather incorporates public culture.91 This relates especially to
Geertz’ notion of ‘thick description’.92
Grenfell sensibly illuminates that one way Bourdieu sensed culture was as “language, traditions, characteristics and beliefs”.93
87 Agar 1994, “The Intercultural Frame,” op.cit. 221-237. Kroeber and Kluckhohn identified 164 ways of defining ‘culture’ in British social anthropological literature (A.L. Kroeber & C. Kluckhohn, Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions (New York: Vintage Books, 1952)).
88 R. Radcliffe-Brown, A Natural Science of Society (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957), 53. 89 Omar Lizardo, “Pierre Bourdieu as a Post-cultural Theorist,” Cultural Sociology 5(1) (2011): 2.
90 Lizardo 2011, ibid.; L. Wacquant, Body and Soul: Notes of an Apprentice Boxer (Oxford: University Press, 2004).
91 This diversification, albeit a minor point, is interesting as Geertz has become an “intellectual household name” in IR research when transdisciplinary inquiries into culture have been made by IR scholars and into other social science disciplines such as sociology and social anthropology (see L. Wedeen, “Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science,” The American Political Science Review 96(4) (2002): 713-728). Applying Bourdieu, therefore, also reflects an opportunity to expand on this tradition (aka ‘Bourdieusian sociological ‘turn’’).
92 J. C. Alexander, The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). 93 Grenfell, cited in O. Lizardo 2010, op.cit. 3.
42
The void of an explicit conceptualisation of ‘culture’ on the part of Bourdieu is at the core of Lizardo’s ‘post-culturalist’ argument, which cannot be compartmentalised into the field of cultural sociology, where;
(…) his significance as an intellectual figure is perceived to lie in having abandoned the traditional parameters of cultural explanation in anthropology. He did this by developing a radically different conceptualization what culture ‘is’ and of how
‘culture works’ (as well as how it is transmitted and acquired).94
Language is a central facet of a cultural analysis which draws upon Bourdieu’s social theory and sociology of language. Language operates a sub-system of culture and can neither be distinguished, nor be analysed detached from cultural contextuality and social conditions warranting the production and reception of the former. This also encompasses Bourdieu’s emphasis on linguistic practice rather than a mere execution performance as a critique against formal linguistics featuring an abstract domain of language such as Saussure and Chomsky.95
Language is linked to Bourdieu’s conceptual ‘thinking tools’ in multiple ways. The ‘linguistic habitus’ contains a cultural propensity to express certain things – a combination of competence in speaking ‘properly’ and employ this social capacity appropriately. The ‘linguistic market’ features sanctions and censorship relating to a doxa – herein what cannot be said.96 The use of language is consequently part of the
competitive struggles in the field of U.S. think tanks (as well as China policy- research experts more specifically).
94 O. Lizardo 2011, ibid. 4.
95 R. Jenkins 2002, op.cit. 152-153; R.M. Keesing & A.J. Strathern, Cultural anthropology: A contemporary
perspective, 3rd edn (Belmont: Thomson, 1998).
43
Second, reflecting on the first point above, I exploit a social constructionist standpoint of ‘culture’ (as opposed to a social constructivist slant). The ideational system embodied in social anthropology emphasises systems of shared ideas as part of public and social processes, which underlie and are expressed by the conduct of human lives.97 Learning processes are the basis for culture as a system of shared
meaning that transcends the realisation within one individual’s mind – not “only” being an outcome of cognitive processes within one person’s construct of social reality.98 This facilitates for talking about an “American culture” without stating it
being a “national culture”.99 Arguably, culture cannot be understood by separate values and behaviour, or biological, psychological processes and social existence – all are in fact integral components in development of Man.100
Harmonising with social constructionism, Bourdieu supported a conceptualisation of culture as a system, i.e. consisting of durable transposable dispositions or organising actions.101 Thus, ‘habitus’ becomes culture, and it follows that the former develops
into both the research praxis as well as the modus operandi. The ambiguity concerning Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of ‘culture’ makes it appropriate to also incorporate the social constructionist facet in this study. The approach of studying culture is thus aligned with ethnography embedded in a social anthropological
97 R.M. Keesing & A.J. Strathern 1998, Cultural anthropology, op.cit.
98 E. Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, A Study in Religious Sociology (London: Allen & Unwin, 1912); Keesing & Strathern 1998, ibid.
99 There is an array of epistemological, ontological, ecological, and methodological issues related to the notion of a ‘culture’ being “national”. It would be an “ecological fallacy” to assume a “national culture” as boundaries of a ‘culture’ are not equal to those boundaries of a ‘nationality’. Social categorisation makes it unviable according to Jenkins (Categorization and Power (England: Sage Publication, 1997)). Such fallacy denotes that people located in the same area share the same attitudes, and the assumption that a human being can be characterised as corresponding to the average of a group (D. Landis & J.H. Wasilevski, “Reflections on 22 years of the international journal of intercultural relations and 23 years in other areas of intercultural practice,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 23(4) (1999): 535-574).
100 C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), Ch 1. 101 P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: University Press, 1977).
44
tradition in addition to social constructionism. Furthermore, the above-mentioned anti-psychologism elucidates the importance of positioning the study at the sociological meso-level, which includes identifying relevant overarching frameworks. In effect, the study distances the academic inquiry from comprehending ‘culture’ as an independent “variable” where culture is merely a part of cognitive processes associated with epistemological constructivism – evident in social psychology.102
Third, as a consequence of the above, ‘culture’ in this study is not to be understood as ‘high culture’ or cultural artefacts.103
The latter indicates one out of two senses which Bourdieu applied the term ‘culture’.104
Furthermore, neither Bourdieu’s enterprises relating to the seditious effort to dissipate the classical boundaries between ‘Culture’ and ‘culture’ in addition to his work on boundaries of the cultural field, class, sociology of cultural consumption, the arts and aesthetic, cultural taste105
nor the French intellectual milieu in which Bourdieu’s work was heavily moulded by106 – are not a focus in this study.
102 For example, the Hofstedeian paradigm is prominent. See S.P. Bate, “Whatever Happened to Organizational Anthropology? A Review of the Field of Organizational Anthropology and Anthropological Studies,” Human Relations 50(9) (1997): 1147-1175; M. Chapman, “Social Anthropology, Business Studies, and Cultural Issues,”
International Studies of Management & Organization 26(4) (1997): 3-29; G. Hofstede, Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values (London: Sage Publications, 1980).
103 See O. Lizardo 2011, op.cit. 3. This is not to say that materiality or objectives are deemed irrelevant in this cultural analysis. The field-data will indicate the relevance for any such inclusions. This point also signals an important juncture between the post-structuralist Bourdieu and IR’s constructivism where the latter levies a primacy of ideas/construction and where materiality is (merely) contingent upon the former (Ramon Pacheco- Pardo, “Review article - Beyond Power Transition: Sino-American Relations in the 21st Century,” Fudan Journal of Chinese Studies, 5. See also Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It,” International Organization 46(2) (1992).
104 Grenfell, cited in O. Lizardo 2010, ibid. 3. 105 See R. Jenkins 2002, 128-137.
45 2.1.4. Work-activities
This element relates to the research subjects’ in-house activities concerning China- related activities within the think tanks. It provides an additional opportunity to identify contextualised “China-narratives” in various in-house venues and settings with subsequent prospects for participant observation and triangulating data. In this study, this is inhibited to interview-contextualities as well as seminars and conferences available for the public.107
2.1.5. Identity
Identity is an inescapable facet of being.108 Furthermore, it relates to essential
questions such as “who am I” and “which groups do I belong to?” In concert with Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice and ‘culture’, ‘identity’ comprises the core of this study. ‘American-ness’ is in this regard studied as identity-formation and construction as well as representations of the Other. In addition, identity-negotiation will also be included when empirically warranted. I am drawing upon post-structural sociological and anthropological perspectives in terms of identity rather than social psychology (i.e. focusing on what individuals find making them distinctive and how this is positioned within a culture rather than solely exploring self-image).
According to Bourdieu, ‘identity’ is constituted by the production and reproduction of the internalised habitus which people unconsciously uphold.109 Furthermore,
107 See section two (research framework, this chapter), under ‘limitation’, for additional elaborations and justifications.
108 D. Campbell, Writing Security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity (Manchester: University Press, 1992).
109 P. Bourdieu, In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990a; P. Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, trans. R. Nice (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990b).
46
identities are not determined by social positions or geography.110 For example, one
think tank policy-researcher is not solely a woman or solely a member of a U.S. think tank. Rather, Lizardo’s ‘post-culturalist’ labelling of Bourdieu can also be traced in regard to ‘identity’. Bourdieu and Wacquant re-position ‘identity’ into ‘socialised subjectivity’111
as a notion of dispositional terms situated within “the pre- reflective, embodied nature of practical activity”.112
In this discursive approach for capturing ‘identity’, policy-researchers would have an embodied ‘sense’ of how to behave and a ‘feel for the game’ (i.e. practical schemes) derived from agents’ early formative years (which are reinforced from the group) as opposed to conscious calculation and constant rules.113
To continue the anti-structuralist approach to identity, identity and action are coupled and not identifiable, but partly constructed by contextual social structures and sources of power.114 This approach stands opposite to recent cultural research from a
constructivist perspective in the IR discipline, which seems trapped in a relatively structuralist line, as was the case with social and cultural anthropology – but three decades ago.115 A statement of identity guiding behaviour reflects both a separable
factor, a fixed entity, and a material persona which indeed resonates with a more positivist inclined social psychological behaviourist tradition.
110 W. Bottero, “Intersubjectivity and Bourdieusian Approaches to ‘Identity’,” Cultural Sociology 4(1) (2010): 3-22. 111 P. Bourdieu & L.J.D. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), 126. 112 W. Bottero 2010, op.cit. 4.
113 See W. Bottero 2010, ibid., 4; P. Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990),12; P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: University Press, 1977), 15; P. Bourdieu 1991, Language and symbolic power, op.cit. 235; P. Bourdieu, Practical Reason (Cambridge: Polity, 1998).
114 M. Williams, Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of International Security (London and New York: Routledge, 2007).
115 For example, A.M. Klotz & C. Lynch, Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2007).
47
Identities are accessed through “China-narratives” (which includes observed behaviour – including through research subjects’ own narratives) of the policy- researchers. Identity-construction is based on formation of social groups through social categorisation.116 The various think tanks as organisations as well as
individuals working within them possess multiple identities depending on the Other, and they might not be coinciding.117 Building further on Barth, focus should be
moved beyond comparing identities according to a set of categories, but rather investigate why and how conceptual boundaries are constructed and maintained differently (reflected by boundary-markers).118 This study focuses mostly on the
latter.