Although the underpinnings of the theory can be traced way back to Durkheim or Evans-Pritchard, anthropologist Mary Douglas (1978, 1982, 1986) was the first to coherently and systematically articulate this approach. This approach was then brought to International Relations in the 1990s, in the context of the Fourth Great debate.
Like
constructivism, the theory postulates that reality is socially constructed,
granting individuals a role in building and transforming the culture that
governs them, while this same culture also plays a role shaping their ways of
thinking and acting. Unlike constructivism, cultural theory makes assumptions
about the properties and content of these cultures, contemplating a limited
range of forms of social organization, as well as a typology about such
possible forms and their operation. However, and contra rational choice, it does not assume a priori the prevalence of a cultural setting: the first task is to
unravel the culture that underpins a given social system; only then can its
operation be accounted for (Verweij
et al., 2006).
The basic
proposition of the theory is that two dimensions – grid (stratification or
ability to impose things on others) and group (group solidarity or
‘togetherness’) – can be combined in a matrix with four cells – the ‘four ways
of life’ – that exhaust the possibilities of social organization across time
and space (6,
2008). Encompassing the
diversity of cultural forms, the idea is that every culture will function more
or less according to one of these ‘ways of life’ or ‘cultural biases’;
nonetheless, they should be taken as ideal types, leaving room for some
hybridity (Coyle,
1994). “Each way of life
consists of a specific way of structuring social relations as well as a
supporting cast of particular perceptions, values, emotions and interests” (Verweij
et al., 2006, p. 819)
– they make assumptions about preferred economic and political arrangements,
views of human nature, environment, time and so on. Let’s quickly go over each
of them:
·
Hierarchy (high grid/high
group) – sees individuals as born in sin, but redeemable; society must be
guided by top-down bureaucratic apparatuses lead by wise intellectuals; system
with patterned positions and rules; decisions take into consideration the
well-being of the whole (Douglas,
2002; Verweij, 2011);
·
Fatalism or Despotism
(high grid/low group) – individuals are naturally greedy and self-regarding;
power is concentrated in the hands of some who use it and impose rules on
others for their self-benefit and at the expense of the others’; morality is
dismissed and individuals must do what is necessary for their sake, engaging in
ruthless competition (Coyle,
1994; Verweij, 2011);
·
Individualism (low
grid/low group) – individuals are egoistical and well informed
utility-maximizers; distrust of concentrations of power, namely big government,
for it would undermine individual liberty (priority); organizes social life
like a market, shrinking the public sphere and aggrandizing the private sphere,
where individuals engage in fair rule-bound competition and take responsibility
for their lives and fate (Hood,
2000; Verweij, 2011);
·
Egalitarianism (low grid/
high group) – individuals are born good and caring, but money and power easily
corrupts them; strives for equality of condition and solidarity towards the
less fortunate; posits self-governing and self-reliant communities where
decisions are taken by all via consensus (Verweij,
2011; Verweij & Greculescu, 2011);
The strength of the theory lies in this combination of positivist and post-positivist elements (Verweij, 2011). On the one hand, the theory does not assume a priori the cultural underpinnings of a given society, which the researcher must unravel. On the other hand, after this interpretive process, the theory contains a nuanced and detail set of assumptions about every possibility of social organization (or ‘way of life’), that renders it falsifiability and makes it very potent from a heuristic point of view.
Moving on, there is consensus among the scholars affiliated to this approach that each ‘way of life’ possesses inherent shortcomings and contradictions, so it will eventually undermine itself and require elements of the other ‘ways of life’ to function (Wildavsky, Ellis, & Thompson, 1992). Here lies the dynamic element of the theory: cultures are dysfunctional, hence they will change in face of failure to be able to deliver proper social outcomes; in addition, in every society there will be proponents preferring other ‘ways of life’ that will fight for the institutionalization of elements of their favourite form of social organization (ibidem).
In the same fashion, every policy proposal based on a single ‘way of life’ tends to fail for it will be inherently limited and contradictory. Thus, the cultural theorists’ utmost policy advice is to devise ‘clumsy solutions’, i.e., policies that creatively and flexibly combine elements of the four ‘ways of life’. The argument is twofold: (i) such proposals will appease different sectors of society, henceforth enjoying greater legitimacy and practical feasibility; (ii) as every ‘way of life’ tells a partial and selective story, any policy response based on one or two of these stories will be ineffective and counterproductive (Verweij et al., 2006).
I would argue that the idea of ‘clumsiness’ has driven a lot of fertile empirical work and is perhaps the greatest contribution of this theory for International Relations. Cultural theory has provided valuable insights for the betterment of global governance. Let’s look at some examples.
Following the idea
that partial solutions are ineffective, some scholars have persuasively
explained failures of international governance. Intriligator et al (2006)
argued that the Russian transition to a market economy under Yeltsin failed
because it was too individualistic. In its eagerness to privatize state assets
and companies, it gave birth to huge private oligopolies that, in turn,
originated a distorted and defective market economy. In a similar fashion,
Verweij and Greculescu (2011)
posited that the failure of the ‘Health for All’ (HfA) program to fight malaria
was due to its excessive egalitarian character. The rejection of knowledge
coming from western agencies and pharmaceutical companies, as well as the
allocation of the responsibility to decide and implement the program to local
unprepared teams are some egalitarian elements that condemned HfA.
On the other hand,
such scholars have been equally successful to devise compelling solutions to
international problems based on ‘clumsiness’, i.e., the combination of virtuous
elements of the four ‘ways of life’. Verweij et al’s (2006)
proposal to tackle climate change is a good example. This broad coalition of
cultural theorists put forward a multifaceted plan entailing complementary
solutions for this global problem arising from the main three stories of
cultural theory. It contemplates, for instance, the necessity of inter-state treaties
that set common goals for curbing greenhouse gas emissions (hierarchy), market
incentives to make environment-friendly investments (e.g. renewable energy)
more economically rational (individualism) and development aid to poorer
countries in the form of technology transfers (egalitarianism) (Verweij
et al., 2006).
From this discussion, it is not abusive to conclude that this frequently overlooked approach has made important contributions to the discipline. Thus, cultural theory is indeed a promising new theory with much to offer to the discipline, deserving more attention from the IR academia.
Diogo Machado
MA Student of International Relations: Global Governance and Social Theory
University of Bremen & Jacobs University
Leituras recomendadas
6, P. (2008). Introduction. In P. 6 & G. Mars (Eds.), The Institutional Dynamics of Culture, Volume I: The New Durkheimians (pp. xv–xlii). London: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Coyle, D. J. (1994). The Theory That Would Be King. In D. J. Coyle & R. J. Ellis (Eds.), Politics, Policy, and Culture (pp. 219–239). Bpulder, CO: Westview Press.
Douglas, M. (1978). Cultural Bias. London: Royal Anthropological Institute.
Douglas, M. (1982). Essays in the Sociology of Perception. London; Boston: Routledge Kegan & Paul.
Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions Think. London: Routledge.
Douglas, M. (2002). A Feeling for Hierarchy. Presented at the Marianist Award Lectures. Marianist Award Lectures. Retrieved from https://ecommons.udayton.edu/uscc_marianist_award/6
Hood, C. (2000). The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297653.003.0005
Intriligator, M. D., Wedel, J. R., & Lee, C. H. (2006). What Russia Can Learn from China in its Transition to a Market Economy. In M. Verweij & M. Thompson (Eds.), Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World: Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions (pp. 105–131). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230624887_5
Verweij, M. (2011). Clumsy Solutions for a Wicked World. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S., … Thompson, M. (2006). Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World: The Case of Climate Change. Public Administration, 84(4), 817–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.09566.x-i1
Verweij, M., & Greculescu, C. (2011). Health for Very Few: The Resurgence of Malaria. In M. Verweij, Clumsy Solutions for a Wicked World (pp. 70–103). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wildavsky, A., Ellis, R., & Thompson, M. (1992). Cultural Theory. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.