International Relations
What are the essential key features of a Neo- Gramscian theory of IR?
Neo Gramsican is a critical approach to the study of International Relations and the global political economy. It explores many elements that are essential for the maintenance of the international relations. It explores the interface of ideas, institutional and material capabilities as they form the specify shape of the state formation. Neo Gramsican analyzes how the grouping of social forces defines the sustainability of the world orders. Cox’s perspective on Neo- Gramscian is about the transformation of the main forms of state and their change under the pressure from the forces from world order and civil society.
Hegemony:
The view of hegemony of Neo Gramsican is distinct from the realistic view of hegemony. Realists have the opinion that hegemony is the predominant power of state or a group of states while, Gramsicans state hegemony as class relations. A class will be considered as hegemonic if it had been legitimized its dominance through concessions and institutions. The class if become dominant in this very automatically forms strong political structural of the state, which creates historic bloc. As the world is moving to globalization so the Neo Gramsicans state that neo-historical bloc exists in the world. This is the essential key feature of the Neo Gramsican that can change the circumstances. This theory in contrast with the other previous mainstream theories broadens the aspect of hegemony. Historical bloc refers the way in which a relationship is established over the contending social forces; simply saying it as the political alliance (Budd, 2013).
A truly hegemonic society will establish when the state would protect the wo...
... middle of paper ...
... forces, forms of state and the world orders. The theory provides a significant and decisive framework that facilitates the market analyst to presume that inter-state co-operation is plausible without even a single hegemony. It exposes that the cultural, political and economic struggles among social forces and state clarify the emergence of international regimes and global civil society. The essentials of thus neo- Gramscian include that the hegemony bases upon the consensus and consent rather than the coercion. A wider theory of state emerges within this neo- Gramscian theory. The concept of hegemony relative to this theory’s perspective is the comprehensive concept of control. Thus concluding it, the neo-Gramscian concept of hegemony is the appearance of largely based authority apparent in the approval of ideas and supported by institutions and material resources.
Hegemony in Merriam- Webster dictionary is defined as the social, cultural, ideological or economic influence exerted by a dominant group. In analyzing this definition, according to Collins the ideological influences exerted by a dominant group would be wealthy white men placed on the top of the tiered structure. The tiered structure can be better understood when talking about hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity, yet to be able to connect these ideas the history of hegemony needs to be explained. Hegemony comes from the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. According to Gramsci, hegemony correlates to ideological dominance. Ideological dominance does not mean physical power, but the dominance of ideas. Gramsci was troubled by how the upper class got into the minds of the lower classes, making a way through their minds to believe in their ideas. For example Collins elaborates this ideology by expressing how white Americans have socio control over Blacks beyond the plantation. Even though a black male might no longer be enslaved, his plantation mentality is still controlled. Gramsci states that we have been conditioned by our language to think and feel about thinking in particular ways that serve the purpose of those who implemented those ideologies developing into the “dominant ideology.” What this means is that since slavery, male and female black slaves have been conditioned to think that the purpose of them being is to be slaves, because the only way in controlling social order in capitalist society is with force and inferiority. Through such conditions and ideologies it is believed that it works to keep Black men and Black women centralized on blaming each other for the problems. This in turn allows for a more cohesive understanding of hegemony and will further explain Collins’s central argument of this hegemonic ideology and the functions of
In The Prison Notebooks (1971) Gramsci does not associate hegemony with the governance of a solitary individual or any structuralist energy phenomena, such as a discourse, collective conscience, deep structure or culture. Instead, hegemony from a Gramscian perspective signifies a variety of different organizations of people and agents in state formations, such as a structure, a practice, an apparatus, a unity of opposing structures or a function of leadership (Gramsci, 1971). Hegemony is always considered to be a process (Gramsci, 1971). In other contexts, hegemony may refer to a level or moment, which is equal to an evolutionary stage of leadership. Hegemony also may refer to a social grouping related to a particular social, political, cultural,
By definition neo-liberalism is “a reinterpretation of liberalism that posits that even in an anarchic international system, states will cooperate because of their continuous interactions with each other and because it is in their self-interest to do so; institutions provide the framework for cooperative interactions.” (Mingst, 2011) The theory (neo-liberalism) relies on the prisoner’s dilemma, the initiation and use of institutions, and the common interest of one’s self to gain power and/ or advance without hurting themselves.
...issue. In this case, neoliberalism not only helps states to make a more rational decision, but also gives a birth of the institution forming the norms for the states’ solving crisis in the future. To conclude, both of them are important, while they are not contradictory, but complementary.
Antonio Gramsci was founder of the Italian Communist Party in the 1920’s whose seminal publication “The Prison Notebooks” has proven to be one of the most influential leftist texts of the 20th Century. Echoing aspects of Marxist-Leninist thought, Gramsci was primarily concerned with the dominance of a small ruling elite upon society, both on a national and international scale. Arguably the foundational concept of Gramsci’s vision is that of hegemony, as this concept forms the basis from which the majority of Gramscian ideas evolve. It is essential to distinguish the Gramscian notion of hegemony from its traditional understanding within dominant International Relations theories such as neo-realism. Within such theories, the term refers to a state’s hard and soft power capacity to attain dominance over other sovereign states within the international system. For instance, the neo-realist hegemonic stability theory suggests that stability is achieved in a unilateral system whereby a single state attains sufficient dominance as to act as a hegemonic power within the international arena (Bieler and Morton, 2003). In contrast, a Gramscian vision of hegemony involves the domination of an elite minority over the majority of the population, and is achieved and maintained via the mechanisms of both coercion and consent. In this sense, the Gramscian understanding of the term is far broader than the realist conception as it involves both internal and external elements and is not restricted to the unit of the state.
Abstract: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world’s only unquestioned superpower. How the United States evaluates its position as global hegemon has important consequences for American foreign policy, particularly with regards to the potential for future policy constraints. Thus, this paper seeks to consider the question: How durable is American hegemony? The paper first defines the state of American hegemony and then considers the primary challengers: Europe, Russia, China, Japan and imperial overstretch. It will conclude that in the long-term, East Asian geopolitical instability poses the greatest threat to American hegemony, but that in the short-term, the hegemony will prove to be quite durable as long as the United States can counteract the phenomenon of imperial overstretch. In order to diffuse both internal and international threats to hegemony, American leaders should work to pursue national interests within a framework of consensus and legitimacy as much as possible.
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
Hegemony was derived from the Greek word "egemonia," meaning leader or ruler, often in the sense of a state other than his own (Williams 144). Although the base of this definition remains true, the word has evolved to much more. Hegemony is defined by Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought as "Political and economical control exercised by a dominant class, and its success in projecting its own way of seeing the world, human and social relationships as 'common sense' and part of the natural order by those who are, in fact, subordinated to it." Hegemony is defined as a predominant influence or leadership of a dominant class or institution over a subordinate class; the question is are the "subordinates" forced to follow the beliefs, or do they agree with them?
Economic hegemony implies the ability to center the economy around the power whereas political hegemony means being able to dominate militarily; essentially, a hegemon is a state that is able to force its will upon other states due to its power or means, economically, socially, politically, militarily, or a combination of these factors. According to David Wilkinson, a state must meet the following criteria in order to achieve hegemonic status: investiture, installation, appointment and deposition, adjunction, maintenance of order, convocation, command, veto, subsidy, tribute, and conversion. According to realist theory, states such as Napoleonic France pursue power and the strategy of offensive realism for main reasons: states seek security in an anarchic system, some states inherently possess offensive capabilities, states can never be sure of other states’ intentions, survival is the primary goal of international actors, and states are rational actors that act to survive and take advantage of opportunities to gain a better position. Under this criteria and according to these motivations, France under Napoleon was able to achieve significant control over Europe by “[launching] numerous military campaigns, [occupying] numerous countries, and incessantly [restructuring] the map of Europe,” but the state failed to achieve lasting and stable
From the realist point of view, the international political system is considered as anarchic. There is a lack of external authority among states that ensures peace, stability and balance of power. In the analyzed document, the author's main thesis states that changes of the system would alter the international political system. However, changes within the system will maintain its anarchism. In order to support his thesis, the author replies to liberal critics, who consider the neorealism as obsolete taking into account three important arguments against the neorealism.
Joseph Samuel Nye Jr, an American political scientist is one of the most influential political thinkers in the last twenty years (according to a 2011 trip survey). In his 1977 book Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, which he co-authored with Robert Keohane, Nye says that we live in an era of interdependence. Through the book, Nye and Keohane attempt to develop the concept of complex interdependence and explain the concept. They also co-found the international relations theory of neo-liberalism in the book as a response to Kenneth Waltz’s theory of neo-realism. They seek to explain how over the years the transnational relations and international politics are changing in such a way that the military force is decreasing and instead there is an increase in the other forms of interdependence such as economic interdependence between nations, which increases cooperation between nations as international cooperation is something that every nation wants. Power and interdependence makes it clear that world politics is changing, and they try to understand how the changes are happening alongside rapid technological change. The book tries to explain the role of power and of economic interdependence in current international politics
Historically, Hegemony appear that after world war 2, the world is very many change that each country decided politic type and difference people life type. Sometimes, domination gives that good thing and bad thing. If born of new culture, people enjoy that is new thing so people follow the it. It is resonable, because people are interest of new thing. Hegemony is some of dangerous that people don’t know what is destroy the culture and there are no interest. If new thing is coming to people, old thing is gone to slowly. It means that If new culture is born, traditional culture will be gone, but always new thing is not good. Also, one of the country dominate after all of the world will be little dangerous. For example, few years ago, USA had experience that economy problem so many country had take a hit, because, USA has 20 percent of finance. It means that each country should share of culture. If not this, other culture is going to history. Always one thing have 2 different type. Advantage or
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?
The balance of power is closer with first great debate. The realists also diverge on some issues. So-called offensive Realists maintain that, in order to ensure survival, States will seek to maximize their power relative to others (Mearsheimer 2001). If rival countries possess enough power to threaten a State, it can never be safe. The hegemony is thus the best strategy for a country to pursue, if it can. Defensive Realists, in contrast, believe that domination is an unwise strategy for State survival. They note that seeking hegemony may bring a State into dangerous conflicts with its peers. Instead, defensive Realists emphasize the stabi...
In this paper, I will argue that the current system is hegemonial. My explanation to hegemony will then be centered on the sources of the United States as a hegemonial power. Furthermore, I will state the different primary implications associated with the rise of China and what the Roman Empire offers for understanding the United Sta...