The conceptualization of culture has long been a challenging yet crucial endeavor for political science. Early scholarship often treated culture as a static, monolithic entity, primarily associated with national identity or historical tradition. However, a significant body of research has since moved towards more dynamic and nuanced understandings, recognizing culture as a complex, multifaceted construct that profoundly shapes political processes, institutions, and individual behavior. This essay argues that prior research has demonstrably evolved from simplistic, deterministic views of culture to sophisticated frameworks that highlight its interactive, contested, and constitutive role in politics, particularly through the work of scholars like Almond and Verba, Geertz, and subsequent refinements focusing on cultural cognition and social construction.
One of the foundational contributions to the political science study of culture came from Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba's The Civic Culture (1963). Their work sought to link cultural dispositions to the stability and success of democratic political systems. They proposed the concept of "civic culture," a blend of traditional, subject, and participant orientations, as essential for maintaining democratic norms. This framework, while influential, implicitly treated culture as a relatively fixed set of attitudes and values internalized by citizens, suggesting a direct, almost causal, relationship between a nation's cultural predispositions and its political outcomes. The emphasis was on national character as a predictor of political stability, a view that later faced criticism for its essentialism and potential for oversimplification.
The anthropological turn within political science, heavily influenced by Clifford Geertz, offered a more interpretive and symbolic approach. Geertz, in essays like "The Interpretation of Cultures" (1973), argued that culture should be understood as a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life. For political science, this meant viewing political phenomena not just as actions but as meaningful symbols and narratives. Scholars began to analyze political rituals, ideologies, and public discourse as cultural texts to be interpreted. This perspective shifted the focus from what people are (their fixed dispositions) to what they mean and how those meanings are constructed and contested within the political arena, acknowledging culture's dynamic and emergent qualities.
Building on these insights, more recent scholarship has explored the cognitive dimensions of culture. Researchers like Richard Shweder and Alan Fiske have emphasized that culture is not just an external force but is embedded in the mental processes of individuals. The concept of cultural cognition suggests that people's beliefs, values, and even their perception of reality are shaped by their cultural backgrounds, which in turn influence their political attitudes and behaviors. This line of inquiry examines how cultural schemas, heuristics, and collective memories frame political issues, influence decision-making, and contribute to political polarization. For instance, studies on framing effects in political communication demonstrate how the way an issue is culturally contextualized can dramatically alter public opinion, showing culture's active role in shaping political understanding rather than passively reflecting it.
Furthermore, the understanding of culture in political science has increasingly embraced the idea of social construction. This perspective posits that cultural elements, including political norms, identities, and even interests, are not given but are actively created and maintained through social interaction and political struggle. Scholars have examined how national identities are constructed through historical narratives and political processes, how gender roles influence political participation, and how ethnic or religious cleavages are mobilized and manipulated for political ends. This view moves away from the idea of a uniform national culture, recognizing the existence of subcultures, countercultures, and ongoing cultural conflicts that are integral to the political landscape. The focus is on the processes of negotiation, contestation, and the exercise of power in defining what counts as "culture" within a political community.
In conclusion, the prior research on conceptualizing culture within political science reveals a significant intellectual evolution. From the early deterministic views linking fixed national traits to political stability, the field has progressed to embrace culture as a dynamic, symbolic, cognitive, and socially constructed force. This progression acknowledges culture's complex interplay with political institutions, ideologies, and individual actions, offering richer explanations for political phenomena. Understanding these conceptual shifts is vital for contemporary political analysis, as it provides the theoretical tools to appreciate the deep-seated cultural influences that shape political life.