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

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.