Asking AI (whether international cultural relations is a normative proposition)

The first question I was ever asked by an academic about cultural relations was: “is international cultural relations a normative proposition?” At the time I was asked (2012) I didn’t know what the question meant or why it mattered. Fortunately, a colleague came to my rescue – “no” he said. The slight tension which had built in the room – I was at a workshop to introduce the idea of cultural relations to 20 or so new academic colleagues - relaxed, and the meeting went on to be constructive and productive.

However, the question has nagged at me ever since. Why did they ask that? What did the question even mean?

In the last few days, I have been playing around with GPT4 and BingAI, and as the question was still on my mind after all these years, I decided to ask them to explain, partly to see what they would come up with, and partly, to start to assess what the impact of these new AIs would be for a research consultancy such as ICR Research.

So, starting from the position of ignorance I was in in 2012, I asked “what is a normative proposition?” GPT 4 came up with a full and useful answer:

“A normative proposition is a statement that expresses a value judgment or a prescription about what ought to be done or what is right or wrong. It is a statement that asserts how things ought to be rather than how they are. Normative propositions often involve moral, ethical, or political principles and are used to guide behaviour or decision-making.

For example, "People should always tell the truth" is a normative proposition because it expresses a value judgment about what people ought to do. Similarly, "We should prioritize renewable energy sources to combat climate change" is a normative proposition that expresses a prescription for what ought to be done to address a problem.

Normative propositions are often contrasted with descriptive propositions, which describe how things are or how they operate without making any value judgments.”

OK. I’ll go with that. So, what does the question mean? Again, GPT4 was helpful:

“The question "is international cultural relations a normative proposition?" is asking whether the concept of international cultural relations carries an inherent moral or ethical value, and whether it implies a particular set of norms or values that should guide interactions between cultures at the international level.”

 OK again – that chimes with my experience of working with practitioners from many countries who nearly all claim to believe that cultural relations do have an inherent value. They tend to think that traditional approaches of managing international relations – especially diplomacy - are necessary, but also part of the problem, whereas cultural relations is at least part of the “answer”. In other words, practitioners do tend to believe that cultural relations are normative, but they all struggle to explain exactly what it is that makes them more valuable than national-interest-driven approaches.

Normativity therefore is a good way to understand what motivates practitioners of cultural relations. As this belief is not necessarily shared by others (diplomats, Finance Ministries, politicians) who “don’t get it”, cultural relations can seem to be defensive.

The surfacing of the question of whether cultural relations are normative was therefore useful. The academics were perhaps concerned that claims of “moral or ethical value” were being made in respect of what – to them – was simply a description of a set of practices within the international relations toolkit. They were happy with the term so long as it didn’t take them into the difficult and contested territory of “ethical foreign policy”, where cultural relations, according to GPT4, plays a part:

“An ethical foreign policy aims to promote peace and stability in the international community by fostering cooperation, understanding, and respect among nations. It emphasizes diplomacy, negotiation, and dialogue as means of resolving conflicts and achieving mutual goals.

Some key components of an ethical foreign policy may include:

1.     Promoting human rights and democracy: An ethical foreign policy would prioritize the protection of human rights and the promotion of democracy in other countries.

2.     Supporting international law and institutions: An ethical foreign policy would uphold international law and support international institutions, such as the United Nations, in resolving conflicts and promoting peace.

3.     Advancing global development: An ethical foreign policy would work to alleviate poverty, promote sustainable development, and address global challenges such as climate change and inequality.

4.     Fostering cultural exchange: An ethical foreign policy would seek to promote cultural understanding and exchange between nations.

Overall, an ethical foreign policy would prioritize the common good of all people and aim to build a more just, peaceful, and sustainable world.”

That description would be a pretty good description of what a foreign policy based on the “cultural relations approach” would look like. So why is that a problem? Why is the idea of an ethical foreign policy contested? Again, GPT4 has an answer:

“Overall, ethical foreign policy can be contested because it requires balancing competing values and interests, making difficult choices, and navigating complex political realities.”

Seen from this point of view, it is probably fair to see cultural relations in a descriptive way, as a part of the foreign policy toolkit, to be deployed – or not – as befits the circumstances. There is also another problem as BingAI points out:

“Nor, of course, is there a universally accepted definition of what constitutes “cultural relations.”

 So in conclusion, is international cultural relations a normative proposition? It was at this point that something interesting happened in my encounters with the Ais. On Saturday the 11th of March, Bing AI said:

 “International cultural relations is not a normative proposition. It is a term used to describe the relationships between different cultures and countries. It is a way of promoting cultural exchange and understanding between different nations.

For example, the European Union (EU) is committed to promoting Europe's diverse culture in its international relations. The EU is party to the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, the main legislation in this area. Since 2007, promoting culture as a vital element in EU international relations has been one of the three main objectives of the European Agenda for Culture.”

GPT4 agreed, also on 11 March:

“No, international cultural relations is not a normative proposition. Rather, it is a descriptive term that refers to the interactions and exchanges between different cultures and countries. While there may be normative propositions or prescriptions about how countries should conduct their cultural relations with one another, the term "international cultural relations" itself is not inherently normative. It simply describes the phenomenon of cultural exchange and interaction between different nations or cultures.”

However, I asked the same question again, on 17 March and the Ais had changed their minds. BingAI now thought that:

“… international cultural relations can be either a normative or an empirical proposition depending on how they are framed and approached by different actors and perspectives.

“… international cultural relations can be seen as a normative proposition if they imply or advocate for certain values, principles or goals that are desirable or preferable in the context of global affairs. For example, the EU strategy for international cultural relations … reflects the EU's commitment to promoting its fundamental values such as human rights, democracy, freedom of expression and cultural diversity…

However, international cultural relations can also be seen as a descriptive or empirical proposition if they focus on describing or explaining how different cultures interact and influence each other in reality, without making any value judgments or moral prescriptions. For example, a study that examines how cultural diplomacy affects public opinion or soft power in different regions would be an empirical proposition.”

And GPT4 now agreed:

“International cultural relations, as a concept, can be both descriptive and normative, depending on the context in which it is discussed or the goals it aims to achieve. In its descriptive sense, international cultural relations simply refer to the interactions and exchanges between different cultures that occur in various forms, such as educational programs, artistic collaborations, or research partnerships.

 However, the term "international cultural relations" often carries normative implications, meaning that it is based on certain values, ideals, or principles that it seeks to promote. For example, proponents of international cultural relations may argue that these exchanges and interactions foster mutual understanding, respect, and appreciation among different cultures, which can contribute to global harmony, tolerance, and peace.

 In this normative sense, international cultural relations can be seen as a proposition that encourages countries and societies to engage in cultural exchanges and dialogues, with the goal of achieving positive outcomes, such as increased understanding and cooperation, reduced tensions, and a more inclusive and diverse global community.”

 So, what does all this tell us about cultural relations, and AI as a research tool?

 The AI view is that:

1.     Cultural relations describes a set of activities or practices (non-normative).

2.     To the extent that these are based on values, ideals, or principles, they can be described as normative.

3.     In international relations, normative propositions are often concerned with issues of morality, ethics, justice, and human rights, and they are used to guide or evaluate policies and actions in the international arena.

4.     This motivates practitioners, but can be contested by those guided by “realist” foreign policy which is driven by a focus on power, security, and self-interest, rather than on ethical or idealistic considerations.

 That tension is inherent in foreign policy structures where there is a need both to prioritise a nation’s self-interest, and to promote values and rules. Is this a problem? Not necessarily, according to GPT4:

 “Yes, self-interest can be secured through ethical actions. In fact, many ethical principles, such as honesty, fairness, and respect for others, can promote long-term self-interest and success in personal and professional endeavours.

 In the realm of foreign policy, promoting human rights and democracy in other countries can foster stability and cooperation, reducing the risk of conflict and creating a more favourable environment for trade and diplomacy.

 In short, ethical behaviour can contribute to a more stable, prosperous, and harmonious world, which can in turn benefit individual self-interests. While ethical behaviour may sometimes involve short-term sacrifices or trade-offs, in the long run, it can be more effective in securing self-interest than short-sighted or unethical actions.”

 This exercise has been fascinating. It has shown that AIs can not only produce good quality answers to queries, but that they evolve their responses, adding nuance and complexity, making machine learning visible. While their answers are good as far as they go, they do not replace (yet) the need for human researchers who know what questions to ask, and can see the limitations of the answers. The new AIs are a fantastic aid to research but they are not quite ready to replace the humans.