Cultural Security

It is not particularly revealing to say that culture has a relatively long and rich history and is directly related to the entirety of human life on Earth, including its transformations resulting from the proliferation of adaptation strategies. The processes taking place throughout history illustrate the scale and diversity of human intervention in the surrounding nature, carried out with the use of both material and non-material products, which make up a colourful and diverse mosaic often referred to as culture (Barnard, 2000). The Anglo-Saxon saying “the last fish discovers the existence of water” makes us aware of the relationship between man and culture: in a metaphorical sense, we breathe culture, we find ourselves in the orbit of its constant influence every day, which we very often do not realise, and at the same time, we cannot go beyond the framework it creates. People are not fully aware of the dimensions of culture in an attributive sense. It seems that we pay relatively more attention to culture in a distributive perspective, i.e. the plurality and diversity of cultures, because such features are much more often available in a cognitive, descriptive or typological approach. In other words, almost all the processes in question are linked by an invisible network woven by humans, and this network is nothing but culture.

Culture is understood as a social phenomenon: (a) it covers the entirety of human life – all human activities and behaviour are regulated by culture (culture does not include all human behaviours, but only those that have become a social habit, behaviours characterised by regularity appropriate to numerous members of a given group, subgroup or social category); (b) it is non-evaluative – culture is not only what is good and noble, but everything that is human-made; (c) it is a collective, rather than an individual one. Culture is created and developed as a result of contacts between individuals transferring different information to each other and learning from each other how to react and behave in specific situations; (d) it grows and transforms over time, and it is the cumulative experience passed down from generation to generation by way of non-genetic inheritance (Szacka, 2003: 76–77).

Almost everything that surrounds us, of course excluding nature, is culture. It is an indispensable attribute of man – it is a kind of tool adapted to the surrounding reality. In this context, it is worth recalling the words of Karl Polanyi: “Production is the interaction of man with nature” (Polanyi, 2010: 155) which, in some way, point to a relationship between what has been produced culturally and what is natural. Culture is a complex set of axiological, normative or symbolic figures that define the horizon and the repertoire of human capabilities. People and societies function within it, thanks to its existence. Culture undoubtedly has an integrating potential, but despite extensive knowledge in this field a specific challenge continually arises: we still observe the lack of coexistence of various social groups and communities inhabiting our planet. Factors that, on the one hand, create the strength and potential of culture can sometimes also be challenging, as they contribute to behaviours that result in reductions and simplifications. One example of such a mechanism is the stereotype, which uses the notions of similarity and difference as a conceptual measure to evaluate and compare oneself with others, which, after all, has culture-forming characteristics. As Claude Levi-Strauss pointed out, originality is a constitutional element for the existence of culture: “For culture to exist in itself and to create something, this culture and its Community must be convinced of its originality or even a certain degree of superiority over others” (Levi-Strauss, 2020: 51–52). This is particularly interesting when we think of it in the context of contemporary times. In the age of globalisation and the constantly progressing unification that accompanies it, culture is becoming homogenised. Antonina Kłoskowska, referring to the theory of Dwight Macdonald, noticed that this phenomenon can be described as a process by which “the elements of different levels are thoroughly mixed and passed on in the form of a uniform mass, each portion of which is equally digestible and nutritious” (Kłoskowska, 2005: 320). Paradoxically, although we can draw inspiration from distant corners of the world, we are becoming more and more alike. From this perspective, the uniformisation of cultures may expose them to loss of originality and thus pose a threat to their own identity.

Culture – recalling Melville Herskovits – consists of individual elements that make up its inherent features. Culture is not a construct that is taken without reflection – we learn culture, keep it alive and then internalise its individual components. It is derived from biological, environmental, mental and historical characteristics. It is part of human existence. It is organised and multifaceted. It is dynamic and variable at the same time. Everything that surrounds us, the creations of a human being of a material and non-material nature, constitute a tangible dimension of what culture is (Herskovits, 1940: 625). It seems to us that we know everything about it: that it is axiology, norms, man-made artefacts, but is it really so?

Getting to know a culture fully seems like an impossible task – like drawing water with a strainer: despite all the work put in, the water will still leak through the holes. It is the same with culture – we do not have the tools (and we doubt that we could construct them) that would enable a complete description of it. In this context, it is worth quoting, following Maciej Czerwiński, the dialogue from Calvino Italo’s book. To the Great Khan’s question: “On the day when I finally know all the symbols, will I finally be able to possess my empire?”, Marco Polo replies: “Do not believe it, sir: on that day, you yourself will become a symbol among symbols” (Italo, 2005, in: Czerwiński, 2015: 7). Czerwiński notes that this dialogue summarises important dilemmas of semiotic thought, such as the relationship of a symbol with the external universe, the place of the subject in the world or the role of a sign in defining the world. I would add that it also tells us a lot about the complex nature of culture which, on the one hand, constitutes human societies and, on the other hand, is constantly being created by them. Regardless of the approach we take, be it descriptive, historical, normative, psychological, or asking about the genesis, we always come to the crux, which is the human being who creates, processes and recreates culture, which shows its social dimension – the supra-individual dimension.

To sum up, one can adopt the following definition of culture, following Barbara Szacka: “patterns of ways of feeling, reacting and thinking, values and the norms arising from these values, as well as sanctions that induce compliance with them.” The author then specifies particular elements of the definition of culture, pointing to its constitutive elements: (a) patterns of ways of thinking, reacting and feeling may be ideal or real (an ideal pattern is a one that tells how to act or what to feel, or at least how to behave in a certain situation; a real pattern is the apparent regularities in the behaviour of members of a certain community); (b) values as any material or ideal objects towards which individuals or communities take an attitude of respect, assign them an important role in their lives and perceive a compulsion to achieve; (c) norms understood as the rules and regulations by which individual members of the community live; (d) sanctions as both penalties (negative sanctions) and rewards (positive sanctions) (Szacka 2003: 78 nn).

Among the pioneers in research on the socio-cultural aspects of security are researchers related to the Copenhagen, Welsh and Paris schools. It was there that attempts were made to extend the catalogue of security sectors to include non-military ones, analyse migration issues in the context of security, and create concepts for regional security complexes, emancipation and the theory of securitisation (Korczyński, Maślanka, Wiśniewski, 2020: 264–266). It is also recognised here that not only the state can be the subject of security but also social groups and individuals. These studies not only laid the foundations for a new view of security but also created conditions for the emergence of a new security subdiscipline – cultural security, which is closely related to the security of an individual and the security of social groups. However, it is also related to the state – the state is still the basic security entity, including for cultural security, and this security sector is strongly connected with other sectors of national security; moreover, the state’s goal is to ensure its citizens’ security, including cultural security. That said, it is worth noting that in the case of cultural security, there may be a dissonance between the cultural security of the state and its citizens, which results from its specific nature.

Researchers defining cultural security indicate that its essence is to seek to protect identity and cultural heritage and the possibility of its development, which is stimulated by, inter alia, (consciously) drawing from other cultures. Therefore, openness to other cultures and tolerance are necessary, but also being aware of the threats that may result from a lack of restrictions in accessing foreign cultural patterns (Czaja, 2008: 80–83; Han, 2014; Jach, 2018: 132–136; Nemeth, 2007: 1–2; Tehranian, 2004: 4–10; Watanabe, 2018: 3–5; Ziętek, 2013: 78).

Cultural security is therefore largely composed of “immeasurable” factors of a subjective nature, influencing the determination of which symbols and cultural content and what part of the cultural heritage are particularly important for maintaining the state’s cultural security and cultural/ethnic identity, and what the threats to it are. These are historic, cultural, political-economic and demographic factors. They will also determine the place of cultural security in the hierarchy of other security sectors. For example, this will be different in the case of countries and nations which have experienced the loss of a state in the past or the lack of it, when the cultural factor decided that they survived (e.g. Poles, Balkan nations), than in the case of states and nations that experienced colonialism, and different again in the case of those who consider themselves a separate civilisation or seek hegemony in the region. It is different in the case of ethnically homogeneous countries and those with large ethnic differences. This may also vary depending on political development, as is the case with Turkey today. The principles of Kemalism, which have been one of the most important foundations of Turkey’s cultural security for almost the entire last century, are gradually losing importance due to the policies of President Recep T. Erdoğan. Undoubtedly, the role of state and national leaders is enormous; they often update the catalogue of the most important values and define the cultural heritage that requires particular care. However, there is always an unchanging cultural core, a set of socially preserved symbols and traditions, and objects of vital importance for a given culture, with a fundamental role in maintaining cultural security.

***

In this book, an attempt is made to analyse cultural security, taking into account various research perspectives and showing its multifaceted nature. This is the subject of the first and second sections of the volume. The third, constituting a collection of case studies, focuses on the analysis of the state as the basic subject of cultural security.

In the second part of the volume, the authors focused on the analysis of the dimensions of cultural security and the factors influencing the possibility of maintaining such security. This section opens with considerations by Andrzej Szabaciuk on the challenges of cultural security, both traditional and those that have recently become visible as a result of the dynamically changing and socio-political reality. The next two chapters – by Tomasz Szyszlak and Jarosław Jarząbek, were devoted to the analysis of cultural security in a situation where its subject is the state. Two issues of fundamental importance for the functioning of state security: the national security system and security policy, have been placed precisely in the context of cultural security, answering the question of what tasks the state has to face in these areas in terms of cultural security. This is about the necessity to take into account cultural issues in the creation of security policy as well as the creation of a cultural security subsystem in the national security system of the state. However, as already indicated, social groups are also involved in cultural security. This issue is covered by another text, by Elżbieta Szyszlak. In it, the author analyses the issues of cultural security of minority groups, with particular emphasis on ethnic minorities. The chapter by Ireneusz Jaźwiński, on the other hand, focuses on the analysis of the role of human capital as a determinant of cultural security. Particular attention is paid to selected relations between cultural security, human capital and economic security, and to the impact of edu- cation on cultural security. This section ends with two chapters devoted to the role of religion in shaping and maintaining cultural security, both in a general perspective – the text by Mariusz Sułkowski, and in detail, through the analysis of the importance of faith-based diplomacy in creating this security sector – a text by Joanna Kulska.

The authors of the last part focused on case studies, based on the state as a cultural security entity. The particular texts present the conditions, institutional and legal solutions, and the challenges of cultural security of individual countries. The adoption of a uniform structure of the texts has revealed the similarities and differences between the various cases. Efforts were made to include European and non-European countries of various sizes and demographic potential, with different historical experiences. The presentation of different countries, including in cultural terms, made it possible to analyse the opportunities and threats facing the modern state while striving to maintain cultural security. This part contains chapters on Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Israel and Iran. It ends with an analysis of cultural security in the international dimension, based on the example of the European Union.