How Does Gramsci Develop Cox’s Account of Hegemony?

Neo-Gramscianism relates an important theory approach to the Global Politician Economy (GPE) and International Relations (IR) study that explores institutions, material capabilities, and ideas’ interfaces that shape specific state information contours. Antonio Gramsci’s writing influenced the theory. Neo-Gramscianism evaluates how various social forces are defined, and it defines the configured dominant ideational, state, and sustained global order constellations (Cox, 1981). Therefore, Neo-Gramscian design analyses the ancient statements between liberal theories and the thought’s realistic school. This analysis was done by historicizing the same two stream theoretical foundations as a section of specific world order as well as getting the joining relationship between structures and agency (Burnham, 1991, p. 56). This was influenced by Robert W. Cox. Robert W. Cox required a serious International Relations (IR) study in contrast to customary problem-solving concepts, which cannot consider a historical structure development, nature as well as the origin but agree, for instance, that anarchy and state relationship existing between them. In this paper, I will explain Neo-Gramscianism hegemony and how the article “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory” of Robert W. Cox influenced it.

The Robert W. Cox perspective’s origin can be mapped out to the article “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory” by Robert W. Cox, emeritus professor of York University, in Millennium 10 (1981) 2. In this 1981 article, Robert W. Cox required a serious International Relations (IR) study in contrast to the customary problem-solving concepts, which cannot consider the historical structure development, nature as well and origin but agree for instance that anarchy and state relationship existing between them like Kantian dinge (Burnham, 1991, p. 56).

However, Robert W. Cox disavows the title Neo-Gramscianism in spite of the reality that in the next article, he portrayed how the thoughts of Gramsci utilization can result in an analysis of the state’s power in the Global Politician Economy (GPE). Specifically, the Gramsci hegemony concept, which is widely different from the hegemony conception of realists, seems fruitful. The state theory of Gramsci, his historic bloc’s conception, dominant material capabilities configurations, institutions, and ideologies determine frames in collective and individual action. The conception also acts as the organic intellectuals that historical fog bloc and is very useful.

Cox’s colleague, Stephen Gill, a political science professor at York University, has also contributed to the development of Neo-Gramscianism. Stephen Gill aided in portraying ways in which the trilateral commission of the elite represented the organic intellectual imitating the neoliberalism ideology as well as the Washington consensus (Cox, 1981, p. 345). Later, Stephen Gill also related the trilateral commission to power globalization as well as resistance. Together with his colleagues, they also wrote books and explained the Constitution as well as the legal power innovations in the global or universal power economy. For example, Stephen Gill’s colleague, Claire Cutler, is the main scholar of international law Neo-Gramscianism theory. As a result of this work, other parts of the universe, such as the United Kingdom, have adopted the Neo-Gramscianism theory as well as critical methods.

In the major approaches to global or international political economy, the state ontological centrality is not in question. On the contrary, Neo-Gramscianism uses an approach that Henk Overbeek, VU University professor of International Relations professor, identifies as transitional or changing historical materialism (Morton, 2003, p. 234). This approach defines interstate politics as well as state formation as transitional dynamics moments of class formation as well as capital accumulation.

Neo-Gramscianism sees state sovereignty as subjected to the system of global economic identified by production analogous transitional system as well as transitional financial structure emergence (Bohle, 2006, p. 67). This system has major players, global financial institutions, and multinational corporations. For example, the IMF and the World Bank. This major player, global financial institutions, as well as multinational corporations, have advanced into an impermanent historic bloc. This historic bloc practices global hegemony. This has replaced the realist hegemony view as the main state’s power or some states that are in the same classification (Cox, 1981). This historic bloc gets its authority or power through tacit government population consent. This tacit government population consent is gained through coercive intellectual techniques as well as persuasion and total violence absence. At the same time, it connects itself to social groups that are included in the various political struggles. These connections aid in expanding its influence as well as solidifying its power. As a result, national economies’ liberalization and standardization are achieved, and a single or particular regulatory regime, such as the World Trade Organization, is formed (Cox, 1981).

The hegemony concept, as in the Neo-Gramscianism approach, is a broad consent expression manifested in ideas acceptance as well as support by institutions and material resources. The approach has increased the hegemony of conventional understanding, emphasizing the military as well as economic capabilities. The force and consent dual perspective, in the Neo-Gramscianism view, is made by the primary social force at a particular historical structure. This historic structure is a specific force configuration image. This configuration will not determine a mechanical way or direction but execute as well as the pressure. In Cox’s view, the forces involve ideas, institutions as well as capabilities. These forces have a reciprocal association without a predetermined hierarchy. The force strength changes within the various historical structures, thus making it a historical question.

The historical structures method is used in an activity’s three spheres. These spheres include world orders, state forms, and production social relations. In Neo-Gramscianism, production social relations form the terminus for the hegemony analysis. This shows an association between production and power (Bieler and Morton, 2004, p. 41). Power in production patterns results in some social force empowerment. As a result, the social forces result in the formation of a nation that is based on power. Neo-Gramscianism’s understanding of production and power is not restricted to materialistic nature alone but includes knowledge reproduction and reproduction, institutions, morals, and social relations. The state’s form focuses on the production of social relations (Burnham, 1991, p. 231). In Neo-Gramscianism, structure and states are perceived as creating the solid structure, a blocco storico. The solid structure includes the social forces and state alliance, as well as moral, political, intellectual, and economic unity. Also, the state works both in the private and public civil society sphere. Lastly, in world orders, this is the outer hegemony expansion. The expansion is of a particular historical bloc. It was expanded after the consolidation of the domestic sphere. The international organization mechanisms support the hegemony.

In Neo-Gramscianism, the counter-hegemony concept means that social forces resist challenging the main hegemony order ideology. If these social forces are successful, the forces take the place of the other hegemonic order, passive revolution. However, actual transformation takes place when the new social force compromises with all opposing groups after the formation of their various homogeny. Therefore, compromises are important. This compromise aids in the consolidation of different hegemonic order (Howarth, 2004, p. 257).

Robert W. Cox expounded on the neoliberal society and globalization with state and production internationalization. He explained that a new transitional structure was required after the collapse of the Woods system in the 1970s. On the other hand, neo-Gramscianism needed the inclusion of the hegemony. Neo-Gramscianism identifies as transitional or changing historical materialism. This approach defines interstate politics as well as state formation as transitional dynamics moments of class formation as well as capital accumulation (Joseph, 2002, p. 54).

However, the historical bloc still faces opposition. The opposition resulted from the counter-hegemony. It is challenged as a section of an open-ended class tussle (Howarth, 2004, p. 578). Neo-mercantilist is included in this opposition people. The Neo-mercantilists depend on state subsidies and tariff protections, developing counties alliances, the environmentalist movement, as well as feminists in the Western industrialized region. An increase in the counter-hegemony in the world will result in the replacement as well as subsumption of the historical bloc. Neo-Gramscianism uses terms like war movement and war positions to show that this replacement and subsuming is possible. In position war, counter-hegemony may result from propaganda or persuasion. In a movement war, the counter-hegemony grows slowly and overthrows the historical bloc (Howarth, 2004, p. 56).

In conclusion, the Neo-Gramscianism approach, along with its important insight into the relationship between power and social production, gives an alternative to the global analysis framework. The historical structures method is used in an activity’s three spheres. These spheres include the world orders, state form, and production social relations (Gill, 1991, p. 409). In production, social relations form the terminus for the hegemony analysis. In structure, states are perceived as creating a solid structure (Chase-Dunn et al., 1994, p. 45). This shows an association between production and power. The solid structure includes the social forces and state alliance, as well as moral, political, intellectual, and economic unity. Also, the state works both in the private and public civil society sphere. In world orders, this is the outer hegemony expansion (Bieler and Morton, 2004, p. 239). The expansion is of a particular historical bloc. The counter-hegemony concept means that social forces resist challenging the main hegemony order ideology. This was influenced by Robert W. Cox. Robert W. Cox needed an essential International Relations (IR) study in contrast to the customary problem-solving ideas, which cannot consider a historical structure development, nature as well as the origin, but agree on for instance that anarchy and state relationship existing between them (Germain and Kenny, 1998, p. 67). If these social forces are successful, the forces take the place of the other hegemonic order, passive revolution.

References

Bieler, A., Morton, A.D., 2004. A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations. Cap. Cl. 28, 85–113.

Bohle, D., 2006. Neoliberal hegemony, transnational capital and the terms of the EU’s eastward expansion. Cap. Cl. 30, 57–86.

Burnham, P., 1991. Neo-Gramscian hegemony and the international order. Cap. Cl. 15, 73–92.

Chase-Dunn, C., Taylor, P., Arrighi, G., Cox, R., Overbeek, H., Gills, B., Frank, A.G., Modelski, G., Wilkinson, D., 1994. Hegemony and social change. Mershon Int. Stud. Rev. 38, 361–376.

Cox, R.W., 1981. Social forces, states, and world orders: beyond international relations theory. Millennium 10, 126–155.

Germain, R.D., Kenny, M., 1998. Engaging Gramsci: international relations theory and the new Gramscians. Rev. Int. Stud. 24, 3–21.

Gill, S., 1991. American hegemony and the Trilateral Commission. CUP Archive.

Howarth, D., 2004. Hegemony, political subjectivity, and radical democracy. Laclau Crit. Read. 256–276.

Joseph, J., 2002. Hegemony. Wiley Online Library.

Morton, A.D., 2003. Social forces in the struggle over hegemony: Neo-Gramscian perspectives in the international political economy. Rethink. Marx. 15, 153–179.