Cross-Cultural Communication in the Current
Modernization Processes: ‘Soft Power’ of Cultural
Modulators
A. V. Shestopal, M. V. Silantyeva
The authors address the “soft power” problem through the prism of linguistic and cultural studies, sociology, policy and
philosophy providing a holistic vision of the current complex process of the cross-cultural communication.
Keywords: “Soft power”, modernization, cultural-study moderators, linguistic-cultural studies, philosophy of culture, axiology
of culture, MGIMO School of Philosophy and Cultural Studies
“soft power” has become a priority issue in the contem- porary world. The Russian
President Vladimir V. Putin and For- eign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov drew attention to this genuinely
strategic resource in their addresses at the con- ference of the Russian ambassadors and permanent
representatives in foreign countries1. In this connec- tion the Russian language acquires special
importance as without the strong support by this media it would be difficult to consolidate Russia’s positions in such spheres as economic
cooperation, political contacts and
support of Russians living abroad
2
and within our Motherland .
Who Is the Subject of Cross- Cultural Communication?
The current processes of moderniza- tion are known to represent complex multilevel interaction among
differ- ent sub-systems of culture (“culture” is understood here as a socio-cul- tural organism) marked by
some or other emphases on the system of values. Such emphases are usually connected with historical
“types”
1
ties.// Vestnik MGIMO–University, No. 4 (25), 2012. P. 11.
2
V.V. Putin. Russia in the Changing World: Succession of Priorities and New OpportuniS.V. Lavrov. Russian Language: an Instrument of Our Influence. Interview by Russian For- eign Minister S. V. Lavrov for K. I.
Kosachev, Rossotrudnichestvo Director in his radio program The Voice of Russia // Op. cit., P. 14.
230
A. V. Shestopal, M. V. Silantyeva
of cultures or directly with specific socio-cultural organisms. Therefore the cross-cultural communication
participants may be considered at least in two ways, and the difference in nuances would be quite
substan- tial. While today the term “organism” is so far understood as a nation-state (acting at least within
a legal frame- work as an actor of international le- gal relations), the “types” appear as rather vague
geopolitical formations having similar platform of values in their inner structures but not pos- ing a solid,
one and forever built monolith.
Whatever the case, a specific so- ciocultural organism would be the ‘dominant’ and reference point at all
times, and it was not without a reason
that the “local types” of Danilevsky- Spengler were named in conformity with the respective terms of
country- and area studies.
As for cross-cultural communi- cation, it takes place in the foreign- policy space (and states as its macroactors would be the players on the field) as well as in the space of domes- tic policy (in which case the list
of ac- tors would include major and minor social groups as well as social insti- tutes and individual
organizations, all represented by specific people).
It should be noted that the ac- tivity of the sociocultural organ- isms is marked by the specifics of the
diversified globalization trends, including “glocalization”. The strive of cross-cultural communication actors for the wider openness coincides
paradoxically with the isolationist trends. Political emotions manifest themselves in the entire spectrum of
preferences — from strive for super- integration through to slip-down to the Taoist model of “letting the
bor- der of the neighbor state be marked by a crowing cock”, which brings the macro-actor to a minor
social group or even to a ‘social unit’ usually of the clan type.
It should be remembered, how- ever, that the real agents of cross- cultural communication are the real
people, who are not only the carriers of certain values (in this case it would be easy to digress from the
person- ality factor), but also free “units” of social activity capable of “opening the chain of causation
from themselves”.
Specifics of Modernization in the Current Conditions
A noteworthy point connected with the subject of the article is that the current phase of modernization has
long ago surpassed the naïve belief in the industrial and post-industri- al power as the panacea against all
troubles. At the same time, such
“self-surpassing” was based on the fact that certain countries reached the really high-level modernization
of their socioeconomic, sociopoliti- cal and sociocultural sub-systems. Exactly this circumstance enables
them to “surpass” themselves in the “post-industrial” type of organization. Hence the well-known
conclusion: indeed, these days the social space of such societies undergoes radical
231
Cultural Studies
transformations including those of socio-psychological nature.
Another well-known point is that the economies included in the globalization processes by the prin- ciple
of the “catching-up” moderniza- tion do not avoid such transforma- tions. In a sense, we can state that
modernization of their sociopolitical and sociocultural clusters takes place several times as more
efficiently than the socioeconomic modernization as such (industrialization and the related reorganization
of social life).
In the given process, a notable role is assigned to the more intensive functioning of the aggregate communication networks as such intensifi- cation is connected with accelerated technological development,
wheth- er it is transportation of cargoes or transmitting of information, reloca- tion of people or relocation
of ideas and values. Thus the communicative process is rightfully called the “cross- cultural
communication” — i. e., the intensive multi-aspect communica- tion of cultural forms representing
different and sometimes non-com- measurable types of sociocultural organisms.
A certain part of such commu- nications represents the elemental reciprocal influence of the adjacent subsystems among cultures of dif- ferent types (or, in terms of a some- what dissimilar approach — among
different sociocultural organisms).
Another part of the cross-cultural communication is connected with the more or less circumspect “influence strategies” of the partnership and other than partnership types. In the logical terms, partnership
suggests “soft”, non-violent recipro- cal influence, while its antipode, on the contrary, implies the use of
some kind of explicit or implicit violence. In fact, however, imposing one’s own cultural forms as the
dominant ones is present in any kind of the more or less serious interaction includ- ing partnership.
Therefore, the “soft power” is a necessary component ac- tivating the mechanisms developing productive
contacts to proceed with due regard of the need to lobby either party’s interests in the course of resolution of specific problems impelling the parties to interact.
“The one, who refuses to feed his army, will feed the alien army in the end” — this old wisdom can be
pro- jected easily onto the contemporary field of the cross-cultural communi- cation: “the one who
refuses to lobby his interests, in the end will work for nothing else but realization of the counteragents’
interests”. “Cross-cul- tural communicators” are supposed to be aware of their actions — that is, to realize
whose and what kind of interests they represent in the process of communication.
The earnest statement of facts would help to specify the limits of the “softness” being discussed herein.
Such limits may not extend beyond the scope of the strategic interests of one’s own state and people (that,
by the way, do not at all always coincide in the contemporary world), whether
232
3
nik MGIMO–University, No. 4 (25), 2012. Pp. 85–92.
A. V. Shestopal, M. V. Silantyeva
the “softness” applies to political, eco- nomic or cultural communication. On the other hand, the given
limits may not openly neglect the countera- gents’ basic values as otherwise the
“soft” communication would reach the phase of violence and thus fall short of being “culturally correct”.
expensive effect (the so-called “Asian diplomacy”).
Therefore, the consideration of axiological “foundations” of cultures determining the certain strategies
and tactics of their representatives’ behavior in a specific situation is a necessary component of the effective cross-cultural interaction aimed at specific business results.
The “artillery preparation” for such interaction would be served by cross-cultural communication without any visible pragmatic purpose — that is, the communication as such, or the partnership for the
purpose of cognizance. In this respect, we may emphasize the two key vectors of communication, such
as:
“Cultural Modulators”
as a Subject of Research
So, the admissible dimensions of the mutual consideration of interests sug- gest “value interventions” in
the con- ditionally alien sociocultural space as exactly such interventions serve the way for its cultural
“exploration” and
as otherwise cultures would remain absolutely incommensurable and thus incommunicative. It’s another
— matter that definition of priorities in
the process of communication must
be subjected to strict evaluation that would help to assess the chances of one’s own position vis-à-vis the
one
of the counteragent. It is evident, that in this case the communicative transactions can be oriented directly
to a type of communication opti- mally corresponding to the selected strategic line of behavior. It is also
clear, that in some cases domination through active lobbying of one’s own position would not be the
required optimal scenario. It is common that
the wait-and-see position of letting
“all flowers blossom” would produce much more efficient and much less
first, academic and amateur exploration of “alien” cultures (from the ethnography expedi- tions through
the direct intelli- gence operations in other states); second, the so-called “people’s
diplomacy”,whichisusedtoday not only in sports, tourism and the related daily-life contacts, but as well
broadly prolifer- ates as a form of international contacts in such spheres as ed- ucation3, healthcare and
other international contacts at the professional level.
—
Descriptions of the phenomeno- logical type that fix the key features (and notables changes) of such facts
form the basis for the modern culA.V.Torkounov.Educationasa‘Soft-Power’InstrumentinRussia’sForeignPolicy.//Vest-
233
Cultural Studies
tural (and linguistic-cultural) stud- ies, and this is especially important for the research ground of
MGIMO– University. At the same time, how- ever, it should be remembered that any phenomenological
description is supposed to expressly “scan” the es- sence of the described events. As far as research of
cross-cultural commu- nication is concerned, such essence should be understood as the vivid life of
specific cultural forms, while their metamorphoses form a kernel of the inner life of the respective
cultures. This task, being unsolvable beyond the context of the cultural phenom- enology and at the same
time non- linkable with the latter, is a subject matter of another discipline, such as philosophy of culture.
Thus philosophy of culture is an attempt of the grounded recon- struction of the essential interactions
among modern cultures in terms of the cultural forms’ movement. It is based on application of relevant
methodology (phenomenology, com- parative philosophy, hermeneutic analysis, axiology, modern
anthro- pology, area-study analysis, ethno- psychology, theory of communica- tion in the neo-rhetoric
context of the 20th century, civilization-related approach, theory of governance, so- ciology, conflictresolution studies, geopolitics, etc.).
Referring to the concrete prag- matic results of such studies, we should emphasize that they “‘ap- proach”
resolution of most impor- tant practical tasks including those of
business and even economic nature. It has been known since long ago that knowing your partner would
contrib- ute to better understanding and fa- cilitate attainment of possible agree- ments. The success in
this sphere of the ethno-psychology suggests a profound study of the “axiological foundations” and
spiritual axiomatic of cultures as well as trends of their eventual transformation. Having the “updated”
data of such kind is a neces- sary precondition for successful com- munication in any sphere. However,
the knowledge of the foundations is undergoing a very slow transforma- tion and being the “bearing
construc- tions” of “our” and “alien” cultures is a no less important component needed for proper
orientation in business relations with representa- tives of other cultures. “Mutations” of values caused by
contemporary migration processes are a separate subject. At the same time, reflection on “strengths” and
“weaknesses” of ones’ own culture is also a powerful factor making it possible to modulate activity of
any, from business to po- litical profile by means of “soft power”.
MGIMO School of Philosophy and Cultural Studies: Theory, Practice and Pragmatics
The said approaches suggest that the MGIMO research ground has vast prospects predetermined by available broad range of specialists of the respective profiles and by the specif- ics of the “production process”
at our university — marked, on the one part,
234
A. V. Shestopal, M. V. Silantyeva
by the representatives of different cul- tures (especially in the student audi- ence), and on the other part —
the faculty’s knowledge of subtleties of the cross-cultural communication in the spaces of education and
business transactions as well as the interac- tion in the international legal space, international research
projects, etc.
Another reason for which de- velopment of this vector seems to have good prospects is seen in the even
more severe competition, dis- cussed by the leading experts in the given field, in the contemporary
(including international) space of education. The higher competitive- ness of our University is a tangible
result of the stronger buildup of the research potential in the given sphere undertaken thanks to the
MGIMO Academic Council’s Decision, real- ized in 2012, to open Postgraduate Courses on Cultural
Studies (spe- cialty 24.00.01: History and Theory of Culture) and Philosophy (specialty 09.00.13:
Philosophical Anthropol- ogy and Philosophy of Culture).
What is important, our univer- sity is staffed with highly qualified researchers and faculty members who
can conduct research activities that support the efforts taken by the faculty to engage students to discuss
and study problems that would be
relevant in their future professional career. The experience accumulated in the given sphere enables us to
staff the process of learning in new specialties with specialists in differ- ent areas (world culture and
litera- ture, philosophy, journalism, history, linguistics, sociology, economics, psychology, law, etc.) as
well as to develop cross-disciplinary research through joint efforts of the faculty and students.
One of the tasks set today by leaders of the country is to attract investments into Russia, and it must be
resolved on the basis of the “soft power”4. This objective cannot be at- tained without the precise
knowledge of the cultural specifics inherent in the cross-cultural communication, and without proper
consideration of the essential models for develop- ment of modern local cultures. The personality factor,
which, inter alia, determines the extent of a personal- ity’s absorption by the given agenda (and the
preparedness to consider it in decision-making) is an important component of the “human capital”5,
without which there can be no talk of any (let alone successful) com- munication.
Materials of reports and presen- tations delivered at the Cross-Cultur- al Communications Panel Session
of
4
Agency / E-resource: http://news.mail.ru/politics/10109360/ (date of address: 03.09.2012).
5
Russian Authorities Work on Mistakes in Image-Making. Moscow, September 2, RIA News
A. I. Podberezkin. National Human Capital. 5 V. Vol. 1:Role of Ideology in Modernization of Russia / A. I. Podberezkin.
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of MFA of Russia. Moscow, MGIMO–University, 2012. Pp. 3–6,
11–14.
235
—
—
first, the singled-out bloc of linguistic-cultural and country- study subjects (E. V. Voevoda,
A. V. Kagalnikova, N. N. Izotova, L. B. Karelova, M. A. M. Khalil); second, the presented analy- sis of
the modernization pro- cesses in the post-Soviet Russia (V. L. Kurabtsev, O. L. Tserpits- kaya);
Cultural Studies
the 7th RAMI Convent were selected — using the following logic:
third, the highlighted methodol- ogy issues of the socio-cultural transformations in the system of the
contemporary international life (M. L. Polischuk, D. N. Be- lova, A. G. Klimov, M. V. Silan- tyeva, A.
M. Petrovitch, M. Use- latz, V. S. Glagolev).
The panel moderators would ap- preciate the readers’ comments and criticisms on the presented views.
*
ences, Head of the Department of Philosophy at MGIMO University
Margarita Veniaminovna Silantyeva — Professor and Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, School of Philosophy at
MGIMO–University. E-mail: silvari@mail.ru