Abstract
The dominant, positivist, approach to the study of culture and national security specifies `culture' as an independent variable. It assumes that culture, and the study of culture, are uncontaminated by the politics of national security. This formulation contrasts with the dominant understanding of `culture' in the humanities, where culture and power are viewed as constituting a `nexus', and where politics is claimed to shape cultural knowledge, including knowledge about culture, as much as the other way around. I demonstrate the utility of the `nexus' approach by exploring the origins of Gabriel Almond's `political culture' research. I show that Almond built on ideas that originated in national security work, that he enjoyed an intimate relationship with national security agencies, that his scholarship tracked US foreign policy concerns, and that it was part of a broader Cold War cultural formation. `Political culture', thus, was not pure of the politics of national security. I conclude by raising some questions about the `purity' of the present literature on culture and national security.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call