DOCSLIB.ORG

The Liberal International Order As a Gramscian Hegemony: a Critical and Exploratory Thought Piece Jaya Scott Western University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Liberal International Order As a Gramscian Hegemony: a Critical and Exploratory Thought Piece Jaya Scott Western University Liberated Arts: A Journal for Undergraduate Research Volume 8, Issue 1 Article 8 2021 The Liberal International Order as a Gramscian Hegemony: A Critical and Exploratory Thought Piece Jaya Scott Western University Follow this and additional works at: https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/lajur Recommended Citation Scott, Jaya (2021) “The Liberal International Order as a Gramscian Hegemony: A Critical and Exploratory Thought Piece,” Liberated Arts: a journal for undergraduate research: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 8. Liberated Arts is an open access journal, which means that its content is freely available without charge to readers and their institutions. All content published by Liberated Arts is licensed under the Creative Commons License, Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Readers are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without seeking prior permission from Liberated Arts or the authors. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Liberal International Order as a Gramscian Hegemony: A Critical and Exploratory Thought Piece1 Jaya Scott, BA(Hons.), The University of Western Ontario Abstract: This thought piece considers how Gramsci’s theory of hegemony explains the nature and crisis of the liberal international order. Without adopting a neo-Gramscian approach, this essay uses Gramscian concepts, applied and translated into international theory by Robert Cox, to synthesize and go beyond ‘problem-solving’ (realist, liberalist, and constructivist) IR theories that do not go ‘deep’ enough in their understanding of hegemony nor its failings. This essay will first situate Gramsci’s theory within the discipline of international relations and consider how his idea of hegemony can reconcile liberal internationalist and realist understandings of the LIO as well as go beyond them. Engaging with the Gramscian concepts of an historic bloc and transformismo, it will then examine how a multidimensional understanding of hegemony sheds light on both the rise and decline of a world order. Finally, the argument applies key insights into the nature of liberal hegemony to the challenge posed by climate change to international cooperation. Understanding the LIO as both coercive and consensual, and as a hegemony of both states and social classes, goes beyond disparate frameworks and provides new insights for further exploration. Keywords: liberal international order; Gramsci; hegemony; world order; Marxism; international relations 1. Introduction: thinking on Gramsci Gramsci’s theory of hegemony provides a nuanced understanding of the hegemonic nature of the liberal international order (LIO). This essay explores the theory’s explanatory potential and contemplates what it means at a moment when international order is shifting and confronted with crisis. To define Gramsci’s hegemony, Robert Cox points to two ideas which combine to form the concept. First, Gramsci considers hegemony within social relations: that of the workers in the Soviet state, and the hegemony of the bourgeoisie elsewhere.2 Bourgeois power and control of the state broadly conceived placate the demands of subordinate classes such that capitalism is acceptable to them. Second, Gramsci incorporates Machiavelli’s idea of power as a “necessary combination of consent and coercion.”3 While consent to hegemonic power is primary, coercion underwrites consent. Cox highlights that in this formulation, power and hegemony are relevant to relations between social classes and (through the states they dominate), to the interaction between social classes writ large across the globe.4 Therefore, hegemony among states and social classes are one and the same: subordinate states and classes are appeased (and thus consent to the hegemon), while coercive power is latent. 1 The author would like to thank Professor Dan Bousfield for his help in shaping this paper. 2. Robert Cox, "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method," In Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, ed S. Gill (1993), 51. 3. Cox, "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations," 52. 4. Cox, 52. 1 By blending literature review and thought piece, this argument juxtaposes mainstream international relations evaluations and Gramscian insights to reveal the nature of the LIO. The American-led liberal world order extends its power not only through military might and international institutions, but as a multi-dimensional hegemonic historic bloc. The visible threats it faces are therefore commensurate manifestations of a multi-dimensional crisis – the LIO’s decline is in fact the order dying from within. Finally, it becomes clear that as IR attempts to reckon with climate change, it must also reckon with global capitalism embedded in the LIO. Without adopting a neo- Gramscian approach, this essay uses Gramscian concepts, applied and translated into international theory by Cox, to synthesize and go beyond ‘problem-solving’ (realist, liberalist, and constructivist) IR theories that do not go ‘deep’ enough in their understanding of hegemony nor its failings. 2. Gramscian insights: synthesis and beyond The combined political-theoretical and historical nature of Gramsci’s theory is integral to its illustrative function. Placing “International Relations Theory in Perspective,” Donald Puchala emphasizes that abstraction is valuable in international relations as it considers and analyzes the “unobservable wholes” of global phenomena.5 For Puchala, theories allow us to see the whole – they paint “bold stroked, broad brushed pictures of social reality… telling us that the real world is like their pictures.”6 However, Gramsci engages in abstract theorization in tandem with historicism. Gramsci developed his theories reflecting on history as well as his contemporary experience in fascist Italy.7 P. Schroeder parses the difference between historical and political science work on international relations: while political scientists “attempt to explain classes of phenomena,” historians “propose to explain particular instances of these same classes of phenomena.”8 Yet, Schroeder posits that parsimony is important to the historian as well as to the political scientist – it is the explanation of events that points to meaning, the crux of the argument, the judgement and conclusion.9 Puchala and Schroeder’s points come together in Gramsci’s work. Cox notes that “a concept, in Gramsci’s thought, is loose and elastic and attains precision only when brought into contact with a particular situation which it helps to explain.”10 Gramsci’s approach both theorizes “wholes,” and historically considers an instance of a phenomena – to make a parsimonious insight. One-dimensional concepts of hegemony as only coercive or only consensual do not adequately capture how the LIO operates as both. Liberals and Realists offer opposing explanations of why the (primarily American) great-power hegemony founded at the end of WWII endures. 11 5. Donald J. Puchala, "Chapter 2 International Relations Theory in Perspective," In Theory and History in International Relations (Routledge, 2013), 23. 6. Puchala, 24. 7. Cox, "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations," 50. 8. P. Schroeder, "International History: Why Historians do it differently than Political Scientists," In Systems, Stability and Statecraft: Essays on the International History of Modern Europe, ed D. Wetzel, R. Jervis, & J.S. Levy (Houndmills, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 288. 9. Schroeder, 287. 10. Cox, "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations," 50. 11. Mark Mazower, Governing the World: the History of an Idea (New York: The Penguin Press, 2012), 211. 2 John Mearsheimer, articulating the realist point of view, describes states as locked in constant security competition as they aim to acquire greater military power than rivals and to ultimately be predominant – “the hegemon in the system.”12 Hegemony is therefore supremacy in offensive and defensive power.13 For the realist, the pre-eminence of the United States and the order it underwrites rests on coercive dominance. In contrast, the liberal view sees the LIO as consensual; the order is easy to join and cooperation with it is largely beneficial.14 For Joseph Nye, interdependence has made the LIO “open” and a “rules-based order,” now so universally supported that it can survive without the United States as its leader.15 The liberal focus is on the LIO as a benevolent hegemony, one that states consent – and want – to join. Gramsci’s concept of hegemony (defined above) allows for a reconciliation and synthesis between the two, and therefore a more nuanced explanation of the LIO. The order has both consensual and coercive power. The hegemony is both “hard to overturn and easy to join.”16 Gramsci’s theory also goes beyond synthesizing insights from liberalism and realism to provide a multidimensional understanding of hegemony. Gramsci’s idea of the historic bloc encapsulates society as a solid structure.17 Cox highlights that the historic bloc is more than the sum of its parts: “interacting elements create a larger unity...” the “political, ethical, and ideological spheres” are in “juxtaposition and reciprocal relationships.”18 These spheres are inextricably intertwined as well as irreducible. In the historical bloc, material conditions (social relations, means of production), shape politics, and superstructures (ideology, political representation and organization), shape production and class
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reaching Beyond the Ivory Tower: a “How To” Manual *
    Reaching Beyond the Ivory Tower: A “How To” Manual * Daniel Byman and Matthew Kroenig Security Studies (forthcoming, June 2016) *For helpful comments on earlier versios of this article, the authors would like to thank Michael C. Desch, Rebecca Friedman, Bruce Jentleson, Morgan Kaplan, Marc Lynch, Jeremy Shapiro, and participants in the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security Speaker Series at the University of Chicago, participants in the Nuclear Studies Research Initiative Launch Conference, Austin, Texas, October 17-19, 2013, and members of a Midwest Political Science Association panel. Particular thanks to two anonymous reviewers and the editors of Security Studies for their helpful comments. 1 Joseph Nye, one of the rare top scholars with experience as a senior policymaker, lamented “the walls surrounding the ivory tower never seemed so high” – a view shared outside the academy and by many academics working on national security.1 Moreover, this problem may only be getting worse: a 2011 survey found that 85 percent of scholars believe the divide between scholars’ and policymakers’ worlds is growing. 2 Explanations range from the busyness of policymakers’ schedules, a disciplinary shift that emphasizes theory and methodology over policy relevance, and generally impenetrable academic prose. These and other explanations have merit, but such recommendations fail to recognize another fundamental issue: even those academic works that avoid these pitfalls rarely shape policy.3 Of course, much academic research is not designed to influence policy in the first place. The primary purpose of academic research is not, nor should it be, to shape policy, but to expand the frontiers of human knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • John J. Mearsheimer: an Offensive Realist Between Geopolitics and Power
    John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power Peter Toft Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Østerfarimagsgade 5, DK 1019 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected] With a number of controversial publications behind him and not least his book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John J. Mearsheimer has firmly established himself as one of the leading contributors to the realist tradition in the study of international relations since Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics. Mearsheimer’s main innovation is his theory of ‘offensive realism’ that seeks to re-formulate Kenneth Waltz’s structural realist theory to explain from a struc- tural point of departure the sheer amount of international aggression, which may be hard to reconcile with Waltz’s more defensive realism. In this article, I focus on whether Mearsheimer succeeds in this endeavour. I argue that, despite certain weaknesses, Mearsheimer’s theoretical and empirical work represents an important addition to Waltz’s theory. Mearsheimer’s workis remarkablyclear and consistent and provides compelling answers to why, tragically, aggressive state strategies are a rational answer to life in the international system. Furthermore, Mearsheimer makes important additions to structural alliance theory and offers new important insights into the role of power and geography in world politics. Journal of International Relations and Development (2005) 8, 381–408. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065 Keywords: great power politics; international security; John J. Mearsheimer; offensive realism; realism; security studies Introduction Dangerous security competition will inevitably re-emerge in post-Cold War Europe and Asia.1 International institutions cannot produce peace.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions
    Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Martin, Lisa L., and Beth A. Simmons. 1998. Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International Organization 52(4): 729-757. Published Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002081898550734 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3382862 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Theoriesand EmpiricalStudies of International Institutions Lisa L.Martin and Beth A.Simmons Therole of internationalinstitutions has beencentral to thestudy of worldpolitics at leastsince the conclusion of WorldW ar II. Muchof thisresearch was, andcontinues tobe, pioneered in the pages of InternationalOrganization .Inthis article we take stockof pastwork on internationalinstitutions, trace the evolution of majorthemes inscholarship over time, and highlight areas for productivenew research. Our cen- tralargument is that research should increasingly turn to thequestion of howinstitu- tionsmatter in shaping the behavior of importantactors in world politics. New re- searchefforts shouldemphasize observable implications of alternative theories of institutions.W eadvocateapproaching international institutions as boththe object of strategicchoice and a constrainton actors’ behavior, an ideathat is familiarto schol- ars ofdomestic institutions but has been neglected in much of the debate between realistand institutionalist scholars of internationalrelations. Thearticle is organized into three major sections. The rst sectionprovides an analyticalreview of the development of studies of international institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • International Relations in a Changing World: a New Diplomacy? Edward Finn
    INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN A CHANGING WORLD: A NEW DIPLOMACY? EDWARD FINN Edward Finn is studying Comparative Literature in Latin and French at Princeton University. INTRODUCTION The revolutionary power of technology to change reality forces us to re-examine our understanding of the international political system. On a fundamental level, we must begin with the classic international relations debate between realism and liberalism, well summarised by Stephen Walt.1 The third paradigm of constructivism provides the key for combining aspects of both liberalism and realism into a cohesive prediction for the political future. The erosion of sovereignty goes hand in hand with the burgeoning Information Age’s seemingly unstoppable mechanism for breaking down physical boundaries and the conceptual systems grounded upon them. Classical realism fails because of its fundamental assumption of the traditional sovereignty of the actors in its system. Liberalism cannot adequately quantify the nebulous connection between prosperity and freedom, which it assumes as an inherent truth, in a world with lucrative autocracies like Singapore and China. Instead, we have to accept the transformative power of ideas or, more directly, the technological, social, economic and political changes they bring about. From an American perspective, it is crucial to examine these changes, not only to understand their relevance as they transform the US, but also their effects in our evolving global relationships.Every development in international relations can be linked to some event that happened in the past, but never before has so much changed so quickly at such an expansive global level. In the first section of this article, I will examine the nature of recent technological changes in diplomacy and the larger derivative effects in society, which relate to the future of international politics.
    [Show full text]
  • The 'Great Debates' in International Relations Theory
    The ‘Great Debates’ in international relations theory Written by IJ Benneyworth This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. The ‘Great Debates’ in international relations theory https://www.e-ir.info/2011/05/20/the-%e2%80%98great-debates%e2%80%99-in-international-relations-theory/ IJ BENNEYWORTH, MAY 20 2011 International relations in the most basic sense have existed since neighbouring tribes started throwing rocks at, or trading with, each other. From the Peloponnesian War, through European poleis to ultimately nation states, Realist trends can be observed before the term existed. Likewise the evolution of Liberalist thinking, from the Enlightenment onwards, expressed itself in calls for a better, more cooperative world before finding practical application – if little success – after The Great War. It was following this conflict that the discipline of International Relations (IR) emerged in 1919. Like any science, theory was IR’s foundation in how it defined itself and viewed the world it attempted to explain, and when contradictory theories emerged clashes inevitably followed. These disputes throughout IR’s short history have come to be known as ‘The Great Debates’, and though disputed it is generally felt there have been four, namely ‘Realism/Liberalism’, ‘Traditionalism/Behaviouralism’, ‘Neorealism/Neoliberalism’ and the most recent ‘Rationalism/Reflectivism’. All have had an effect on IR theory, some greater than others, but each merit analysis of their respective impacts. First we shall briefly explore the historical development of IR theory then critically assess each Debate before concluding.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate on American Hegemony
    The USS Vandegrift. (Credit: Expert Comment meunierd/Bigstockphoto.com) The debate on American hegemony Copyright © 2019 by Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The right of Brian C. Schmidt to be identified as the author of this publication is hereby asserted. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and opinions of the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, its co-founders, or its staff members. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, please write to the publisher: Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute gGmbH Französische Straße 23 10117 Berlin Germany +49 30 209677900 [email protected] 1 Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The debate on American hegemony Brian C. Schmidt Ian Clark is correct when he writes that “the present state of the ‘hegemony debate’ is, to say the least, confusing” (Clark, 2009, p.24). The aim of this paper is to provide some conceptual and theoretical clarity on the diverse means by which the field of International Relations (IR) understands the concept of hegemony. A secondary aim is to consider what these different theoretical accounts of hegemony have to say about the debate on American hegemony. After reviewing several different definitions of hegemony, I find that the concept embodies two main ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Political Science Semester-IV (General Course)
    Department of Political Science By: Dr. Prafulla Kumar Das Semester-IV (General Course) DSC-1D (CC-4): Introduction to International Relations Credit 06 DSC1DT: Introduction to International Relations Course Content: 1. Approaches to International Relations b) Neo-Liberalism: Complex Interdependence (Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye) ( : Liberalism)) ও উপ উপ উ ও ও প , , প , , , উ উপ উ Liberalism উ liberalis উ । উ উ - ।উ ও প । উ ও উ । উ প , ও ও প । প ১৭৭৬ " "। ও , ও প , প । প , ও । উ ও উৎ ও প ও প উ উ প , প প ও প প ও উ ও , , ও ও ও , উ , ও , , ও । উ প , ও উ - ৎ , উ প , ও ও । Complex interdependence Complex interdependence in international relations is the idea put forth by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. The term "complex interdependence" was claimed by Raymond Leslie Buell in 1925 to describe the new ordering among economies, cultures and races. The very concept was popularized through the work of Richard N. Cooper (1968). With the analytical construct of complex interdependence in their critique of political realism, "Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye go a step further and analyze how international politics is transformed by interdependence" . The theorists recognized that the various and complex transnational connections and interdependencies between states and societies were increasing, while the use of military force and power balancing are decreasing but remain important. In making use of the concept of interdependence, Keohane and Nye also importantly differentiated between interdependence and dependence in analyzing the role of power in politics and the relations between international actors.
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Realism and State Power
    Prof. Andreas Bieler The Anarchy Problematique and Sovereignty: Neo-Realism and State Power ‘Any military commander, who is honest with himself, or with those he speaks to, will admit that he has made mistakes in the application of military power. He has killed people, unnecessarily, his own troops or other troops, through mistakes, through errors of judgement, a 100, or 1000, or tens of 1000, may be even 100000, but he has not destroyed nations’ (Robert S. McNamara in The Fog of War). This lecture deals with one of the dominant approaches in International Relations theory: (neo-) realism. The lecture is divided into three parts. Part I will focus on the historical emergence and key concepts of (neo-) realism. Part II will look at the empirical application of neo-realism by John Mearsheimer to European security after the Cold War, before Part III presents a range of theoretical criticisms of (neo-) realism. Most importantly, the latter will make the point that neo-realism is unable to explain structural change in world order. 1. (Neo-) Realism: Historically, realism emerged in response to liberal approaches. When the latter’s hope for a peaceful international order based on co-operation between democratic states organized through the League of Nations fell apart as a result of the rise of aggressive fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, the international situation characterized by war and the 1 struggle for survival was ripe for a new theoretical approach. The two key interventions were The Twenty Years’ Crisis by E.H. Carr in 1939 and Politics among Nations by Hans Morgenthau in 1948.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Power
    Transcript The Future of Power Joseph Nye University Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University Chair: Sir Jeremy Greenstock Former British Ambassador to the United Nations (1998-2003) 10 May 2011 The views expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of Chatham House, its staff, associates or Council. Chatham House is independent and owes no allegiance to any government or to any political body. It does not take institutional positions on policy issues. This document is issued on the understanding that if any extract is used, the speaker(s) and Chatham House should be credited, preferably with the details of the event. Where this document refers to or reports statements made by speakers at an event every effort has been made to provide a fair representation of their views and opinions, but the ultimate responsibility for accuracy lies with this document’s author(s). The published text of speeches and presentations may differ from delivery. Transcript: The Future of Power Joseph Nye: I’d like to be not a typical professor in the sense of not speaking in fifty-minute bytes at a time, but restrain myself and follow Jeremy’s good instruction. Having been a visitor to Ditchley a few times I know he runs a very tight ship. The argument that I make in this new book about the future of powers, that there are two large power shifts going on in this century. One, I call power transition, which is a shift of power among states, which is largely from West to East.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations As an American Scholarly Tradition
    Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations as an American Scholarly Tradition G. John Ikenberry The study of international relations (IR) is a worldwide pursuit with each country having its own theoretical orientations, preoccupations and debates. Beginning in the early twentieth century, the US created its own scholarly traditions of IR. Eventually, IR became an American social science with the US becoming the epicentre for a worldwide IR community engaged in a set of research programmes and theoretical debates. The discipline of IR emerged in the US at a time when it was the world’s most powerful state and a liberal great power caught in a struggle with illiberal rivals. This context ensured that the American theoretical debates would be built around both power and liberal ideals. Over the decades, the two grand projects of realism and liberalism struggled to define the agenda of IR in the US. These traditions have evolved as they attempted to make sense of contemporary developments, speak to strategic position of the US and its foreign policy, as well as deal with the changing fashions and stand- ards of social science. The rationalist formulations of realism and liberalism sparked reactions and constructivism has arisen to offer counterpoints to the rational choice theory. Keywords: International Relations Theory, Realism, Liberalism The study of International Relations (IR) is a worldwide pursuit but every country has its own theoretical orientations, preoccupations and debates. This is true for the American experience—and deeply so. Beginning in the early twentieth cen- tury, the US created its own scholarly traditions of IR.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geostrategic Debate in the United States of America: the Place of Eurasia, the Western Hemisphere, and Mexico
    DOI 1022491/1809-3191.v24n2.p395-418 THE GEOSTRATEGIC DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THE PLACE OF EURASIA, THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, AND MEXICO Raphael Padula1 ABSTRACT The main objective of this study is to present the geostrategic debate on the power projection of the USA, from the perspective of its most relevant authors: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Samuel Huntington and Robert Kaplan. The argument is that such authors, although following premises of the Realistic School of International Relations, have shown different positions regarding the place of Eurasia and the Western Hemisphere, and particularly of Mexico, in the security and in the geostrategic actions of the United States of America. The study is based on books and original articles by the authors, and very marginally on interviews and secondary texts about the authors. Keywords: United States of America. Geopolitics. Security. 1 Doutor. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (COPPE - UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brasil. E-mail: [email protected] R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 24, n. 2, p. 395-418. maio/agosto. 2018. 396 THE GEOSTRATEGIC DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTRODUCTION The geographic dimension has a central role in the strategic-related and foreign policy formulation of the United States of America. What would be the fundamental relations for the USA in terms of geographic axis? Would it be the North-South axis, which points to the priority of US relations with the Western Hemisphere (America)? The main objective of this study is to present the geostrategic debate on the power projection of the USA, from the perspective of its most relevant authors: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Samuel Huntington and Robert Kaplan.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Hegemony in International Relations: Ontology and Social
    Hegemony and international relations Article (Accepted Version) Antoniades, Andreas (2018) Hegemony and international relations. International Politics, 55 (5). pp. 595-611. ISSN 1384-5748 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/70470/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk A VERSION OF THIS PAPER IS FORTCOMING IN THE JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL POLITICS HEGEMONY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Andreas Antoniades Senior Lecturer in Global Political Economy Department of International Relations University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9SN, UK Tel: +44 (0)1273 872875 Email: [email protected] Abstract The paper interrogates the current state-of-the-art in hegemony analysis in International Relations (IR).
    [Show full text]