Disciplinary Distribution and Regional Differentiation in Mexican Cultural Diplomacy (2018–2024)

Abstract

Cultural diplomacy is often presented as an instrument of international projection aimed at disseminating values, identities, and symbolic expressions. However, this representation tends to obscure a central dimension of its practical operation: the selection of particular cultural expressions and their differentiated deployment across specific regions of the international system. Against this background, the study addresses the following research question: how was Mexico’s cultural diplomacy portfolio configured between 2018 and 2024 in terms of regional distribution, composition by cultural field, and temporal regularities? In line with this question, the article aims to analyze the configuration of Mexico’s cultural diplomacy portfolio during this period by identifying and comparing the regional distribution, composition by cultural field, and temporal persistence of the cultural activities recorded. To achieve this objective, the study adopts a descriptive-comparative research design based on documentary analysis of the annual reports issued by Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the period under examination.

From these documents, a database containing 8,773 cultural activities was constructed and classified by year, region, and discipline. The results reveal a marked regional hierarchy in Mexico’s cultural projection, with North America and Europe concentrating the largest share of the activities recorded during the period. At the same time, the analysis shows the systematic predominance of a disciplinary repertoire composed mainly of visual arts, performing arts, and cinema, although with internal variations in the prominence of these disciplines depending on the regional context. Taken together, these patterns are consistent with a form of cultural diplomacy characterized by the recurrent use of particular cultural repertoires and by regional variations in their composition. However, the available evidence does not permit determining whether these regularities stemmed from an explicit governmental strategy, previously established institutional procedures, or a combination of different factors.