From geopolitics to the geocultural era

The inability of many Western decision-makers to understand Iran reveals the limits of geopolitical thinking. Iran was often seen as a state that could be weakened through military pressure, sanctions or isolation. However, these analyzes underestimated the strength of Iranian cultural identity – a civilizational consciousness anchored in a shared history, language, literature and collective memory. What appeared from the outside as a geopolitical problem was also a reality geocultural.

This raises a larger question: are we trying to understand the 21st century with tools better suited to the 20th?

The 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s were marked by major geopolitical issues. Significant conflicts focused on states, ideologies, military alliances and economic systems. Diplomacy, strategic agreements and political leadership often seemed capable of redefining the course of history, from Nixon’s opening to China to the easing of Cold War tensions to the Oslo Accords.

Today, however, many conflicts resist these methods. Diplomacy remains necessary, but it often struggles to reach the deep forces that drive events. Ceasefires are broken, agreements are called into question, and political solutions leave underlying tensions unresolved.

Indeed, the crisis of our time is perhaps less geopolitical than geocultural.

States, military power and economic interests remain important. But cultural identity has become an increasingly determining force that shapes political behavior, economic choices and international relations. The key issues of the 21st century increasingly revolve around identity, belonging, historical memory, culture and competing visions of the future.

The world’s cultural tectonic plates are shifting. Nations and regions are increasingly defined not only by their interests, but also by their narratives, values, historical experiences and aspirations.

One of the consequences is that democracy, as it is currently practiced in many countries, often struggles to offer a shared cultural horizon. Political systems can organize power, but they do not automatically create meaning, a sense of belonging, or collective purpose.

This raises urgent questions: how do cultures evolve? How can different cultures coexist while sharing power and resources? How can we remedy historical injustices in a way that promotes reconciliation rather than deepening divisions?

If culture becomes central, then some of the most important work to come may well be cultural in nature.

Mexico offers an interesting example. Under Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Claudia Sheinbaum, there was an effort to strengthen national identity by granting greater visibility to indigenous peoples, recognizing the role of women in public life, and emphasizing social solidarity. Whether or not one approves of all aspects of these policies, they demonstrate an attempt to redefine Mexican identity by integrating historically marginalized sectors into a broader national narrative.

Rather than viewing culture as a relic of the past, the Mexican experience suggests that it can be reinterpreted and renewed by connecting historical roots to current realities and future aspirations. In many ways, Mexico is trying to evolve its culture by expanding the definition of belonging to the national community. Indigenous cultures are not presented as vestiges of the past, but as living actors contributing to the future of the nation. The participation of women is not seen as an external requirement, but as a component of the continuing evolution of Mexican society. Social programs are often presented not as simple economic measures, but as expressions of national solidarity and collective responsibility.

While Mexico seeks to expand its cultural community by integrating new voices into a common project, many other countries, by contrast, seek security by looking toward an idealized past. This tension between renewal and restoration could well be one of the major geocultural issues of our time.

But this project cannot be understood in isolation. Mexico finds itself faced with a situation that few countries in the world know: it must build and defend a coherent national identity, adjacent to one of the most influential cultural powers in history. The United States exports its language, its entertainment, its consumer culture and its political views with a force that no diplomatic agreement can contain. For more than a century, Mexico has had to absorb this influence while asserting its own civilizational specificity – and has largely succeeded.

If the 20th century was largely marked by geopolitical struggles between states and ideologies, the 21st century could be defined by geocultural struggles around identity, belonging, memory and meaning. The success of societies will perhaps depend less on their military or economic power alone than on their ability to create inclusive cultural narratives that generate cohesion, purpose and a sense of belonging to a common destiny.

Culture is not secondary. It is one of the main driving forces of social cohesion, collective direction and long-term transformation. To understand the emerging world, we need to move beyond geopolitics and adopt a geocultural perspective.