CULTURAL SOFT POWER AND THE CIVILIZATIONAL STATE: THE USE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE IN CHINA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Sh. Chen, Assiya Kuzembayeva, Y. Wu, Nurbanu Adil'bekovna Abueva

2026

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.48371/ismo.2026.63.1.013
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This article examines how China employs cultural heritage in its foreign policy as a resource of “cultural soft power” within the framework of the “civilizational state” concept. The aim of the study is to reconstruct the mechanism through which heritage is converted from symbolic capital into a sustainable foreign policy effect and to identify the constraints of this mechanism in transnational arenas.The study adopts a qualitative research design, combining content and discourse analysis of official public texts of the People’s Republic of China (2013–2024) with an analysis of institutional materials related to the UNESCO World Heritage regime. The empirical focus is placed on the serial transnational property Silk Roads: the Routes Network of Chang’an–Tianshan Corridor (ID 1442), conceptualized as a nodal platform where civilizational rhetoric, connectivity projects, and international recognition procedures intersect.The findings indicate that soft power–relevant outcomes are enabled primarily through the institutionalization of meanings: the translation of civilizational argumentation and the “Silk Road” narrative into the language of international legitimation (Outstanding Universal Value), expert procedures, management plans, and monitoring mechanisms, which stabilize interpretations and create an infrastructure for sustained cultural presence. It is argued that without procedural fixation, cultural attractiveness alone does not ensure a durable outcome.The study identifies several constraints on heritage conversion, including competing interpretations of “shared history,” the risk of dominance by a single interpretive center, the politicization of formally “technical” decisions, and asymmetries in resources and “voice” among participants. These factors may undermine trust and provoke symbolic contestation.The scholarly contribution of the article lies in integrating discursive, institutional, and regional levels of analysis and in proposing an explanatory logic of “discourse → institution → effect/constraints.” Its practical relevance is associated with policy recommendations for Central Asian countries (including Kazakhstan) aimed at ensuring procedural equality, transparency of joint governance, and multi-perspective interpretation of heritage within transnational nominations.