 |
| Alan
Knight |
Questioning
the Importance of "Culture"
by Pete
Smith, Program in Latin American Studies
On October 2nd,
2001, Oxford University Professor Alan Knight delivered the
lecture, "U.S. Relations with Latin America: Does Culture
Really Matter?" Drawing on his scholarship of
the history and politics of Latin America, Knight questioned
the importance of the concept of "culture" in the
study of both the historical and contemporary relationship
between the United States and Latin America.
Knight began his lecture
by noting the scientific definition of "culture": "all
the beliefs, practices, and ‘representations’ which
are transmitted non-genetically, chiefly, though by no means
solely, through the medium of language." Knight
suggested that it is rare for the term "culture" to
be used in this way. If it were, he argued, then it
would no longer qualify anything and would cease to have
meaning in the realm of international diplomacy. As
he stated, "The IMF [would be] as much a cultural organization
as the Roman Catholic Church." Therefore, he argued,
what is generally meant by "cultural" analysis
is that which does not fall under the two other main strands
of international diplomacy: "political" analysis
and "economic" analysis.
Politics, economics,
and culture are, in Knight's view, interwoven to the extent
that they form a complex "knot." He argued
that it is difficult to understand any one of them in terms
of its own ends and means. It is not surprising, then,
he suggested, that all three have been used by the United
States in extending influence in Latin America. As
Knight explained, "[The United States] has not usually
been a formal empire characterized by direct rule," but
the U.S. has conducted its relations with Latin America "by
means of covert threats, political manipulation, or economic
and cultural influence, all non-coercive."
As
a result of this "knot," Knight suggested, the
question of "culture" becomes whether culture possesses
a "relative autonomy" of political and economic
factors. He argued that on a spectrum, "culture" is
at least definable and quantifiable, in particular concerning
economic factors. However, it is still impossible to
identify the "national interest" of the United
States. As he explained it, questions and answers become
murky as actors and schools of thought only approximate what
scholars of politics have denoted the "official mind." What,
then, asked Knight, is the role of "culture"?
According to Knight,
the relationship between the United States and Latin America
is not a one-way process. Rather, Latin Americans have
long attempted--often successfully--to alter U.S. policy
(for example Cuban-Americans since 1959). However,
Knight asserted that the flow of influence between the United
States and Latin America is significantly asymmetrical. As
he stated, "[Latin Americans] do not presume to undertake
social engineering in the U.S.; they take the U.S. as they
find it, and work within the system, notably the congressional
lobbying system. The U.S., in contrast, espouses far
more ambitious goals: it is not so concerned with the minutiae
of Latin American tariffs, as with the overall make-up of
Latin American society and politics." Despite these
immodest goals, the United States has relied largely on a
system of "informal imperialism," Knight continued. That
is, U.S. policy makers sought a “measure of direct
control in the interests of stability, profit, cost-cutting,
a quiet life, and an easy conscience.”
Knight explained that
American influence has been analyzed under five broad headings:
Intervention and Collaboration; Hegemony and Collaboration;
the Economic Architecture; Corporate Culture: Production;
and Corporate Culture: Consumerism. Knight noted that
every one of these affects Latin Americans but of them only "Corporate
Culture: Production" and "Corporate Culture: Consumerism" fall
under the purview of "culture."
But the role of culture
is complicated even in the domain of "Corporate Culture," Knight
contended. First, corporate culture is not a United
States monopoly, but rather is multidirectional: for example
the successes of Ricky Martin, salsa dancing, Antonio Banderas,
Taco Bell, and soccer. Second, things considered "American" might
not be American in any pure sense. For example, he
stated, "Evangelical Protestantism, though benefiting
from U.S. institutional support, has assumed varied and autonomous
forms, from Chiapas to Chubut." Third, the export
of U.S. consumerism may not actually affect the efficacy
of U.S. influence. For example, it is up for debate
whether the distribution of Disney films created cultural
capital supportive to the U.S. upon its entrance into WWII.
In conclusion, Knight
asserted that though "culture" is important to
the study of many things, it is inadequate in understanding
the hegemonic influence of the United States in Latin America. He
stated that unlike the Pope, the United States does not rely
on cultural influence: "If it came to a battle for Latin
American hearts and minds between the Catholic Church and
the CIA, I know which side my money would be on." Rather,
he suggested, U.S. influence is strongest in the political,
military, and economic spheres--even though some "cultural" influence
might certainly be involved. As Knight stated, "Purposive
social engineering of this kind was beyond Uncle Sam; but
like any experienced hegemon, he was quite good at dishing
out 'gray area' rewards and punishments. And for this,
culture was a lot less important than sticks and carrots,
divisions and dollars, guns and butter."
