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 as well as ideas’ interface shaping specific state information contours. Antonio Gramsci’s writing influence the theory. Neo-Gramscianism evaluates how various social forces, the definition of configured dominant ideational, state as well as sustain global orders constellation (Cox, 1981). Therefore, Neo-Gramscian design analyses the ancient statements between liberal theories and the thought’s realistic school. This analysis was done through 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 as contrasting 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 map out to the article “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory” of 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 as contrasting to the customary problem-solving concepts, which cannot consider the historical structure development, nature as well as the 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 a title Neo-Gramscianism in spite of the reality that in the next article, he portrayed how the thoughts of Gramsci utilisation can result in an analysis of state’s power in the Global Politician Economy (GPE). Specifically, Gramsci hegemony concept, widely different from a hegemony conception of realists, seems fruitful. The state theory of Gramsci, his historic bloc’s conception, dominant material capabilities configurations, institutions as well as ideologies are determining frames in collective as well as individual action. The conception as well acts as the organic intellectuals that historical fog bloc and are very useful.
Cox’s colleague has also contributed to the development of the Neo-Gramscianism, Stephen Gill, a political science reach professor at York University. Stephen Gill aided in portraying ways in which trilateral commission of 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 globalisation as well as resistance. Together with his colleagues they also wrote books, the books explained the constitution as well as the legal power innovations in the global or universe 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, the 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. Contrary, Neo-Gramscianism, uses an approach that Henk Overbeek, VU university professor International Relation professor, identifies as transitional or changing historical materialism (Morton, 2003, p. 234). This approach defines interstate politics as well as the state formation as transitional dynamics moments of class formation as well as the 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 as well as multinational corporations. For example, IMF as well as 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 stated that are in the same classification (Cox, 1981). This historic bloc gets its authority or power through a tacit government population consent. This tacit government population consent is gained through coercive intellectual techniques as well as persuasion, total violence absence. At the same time, it connects itself to social groups that are included in the various political struggle. This connections aid in expanding its influence as well as solidifying its power. As a result, national economies liberalisation, as well as standardisation, is achieved and there is the formation of a single or particular regulatory regime such as the World Trade Organizations (Cox, 1981).
The hegemony concept, as in 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 hegemony conventional understanding, which emphases on the military as well as the economic capabilities. The force and consent dual perspective, in Neo-Gramscianism view, is made by the primary social force at a particular historic 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 change within the various historical structure thus making it the historical question.
The historical structures method is used in an activity’s three spheres. These spheres include the world orders, state form as well as 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 a formation of the nation that is based on power. The Neo-Gramscianism understanding of production and power is not restricted to materialistic nature alone but includes knowledge reproduction and reproduction, institutions, morals as well as social relations. In the state’s form, focuses on production 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, moral, political, intellectual as well as the economic unity. Also, the state works both in 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 is expanded after domestic sphere consolidation of the. The international organisation mechanisms support the hegemony.
In Neo-Gramscianism, the counter-hegemony concept means social forces resistance challenging the main hegemony order ideology. If these social forces are successful, the forces take the place of the other hegemonic orders, 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 the compromises are important. This compromise aids in the different hegemonic orders consolidations (Howarth, 2004, p. 257).
Robert W. Cox expounded on the neoliberal society and globalisation with state and production internationalisation he explained that a new transitional structure was required in the after the collapsing 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 the state formation as transitional dynamics moments of class formation as well as the capital accumulation (Joseph, 2002, p. 54).
However, the historical bloc still faces opposition. The opposition result 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-mercantilist depend on state subsidies and tariff protections, developing counties alliances, environmentalist movement as well as feminist in the western industrialised region. Increase in the counter-hegemony in the world will result in the replacement as well as subsume of the historical bloc. Neo-Gramscianism uses a term like war movement as well as war positions to show that this replacement and subsuming of 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, Neo-Gramscianism approach, along its important insight on a relationship existing in between power and social production gives a global analysis framework alternative. The historical structures method is used in an activity’s three spheres. These spheres include the world orders, state form as well as production social relations (Gill, 1991, p. 409). In production, social relations form the terminus for the hegemony analysis. In structure and states are perceived as creating the 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, moral, political, intellectual as well as the economic unity. Also, the state works both in 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 social forces resistance challenging the main hegemony order ideology. This was influenced by Robert W. Cox. Robert W. Cox needed an essential International Relations (IR) study as contrasting 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 orders, passive revolution.
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.