FedericoFaleschini(ID10902214) ModuleConvenor:JonathanJoseph Module:PO824(InternationalRelationsTheory) 18January2011 Essay2(wordlimit:3000;actualwords:3032)

HowDoMarxismandLiberalismConceptualizethe RoleofanHegemonicPowerintheWorldOrder? WhichDoYouFindConvincing?

Introduction Realism, Marxism and Liberalism have all given great importance to the figure of the hegemonicpowersincethebeginningofthe'70s,underthelastingimpressionmadebyevents liketheOilcrisis,theendoftheBrettonWoodsregimeandtheAmericandefeatinthe Vietnam War (Rapkin 1990: 1). However, as Connolly (quoted in ibidem: 12) puts it, hegemonicleadershipisanessentiallycontestedconcept,i.e.thevariousschoolsdonot agreenorontheconcept'sconnotations,noronitsdenotation,noronfromwhatpointofview theyvalueitspractice(whetherfromanormativeorapositivepointofview). ThepurposeofthisessayistodescribehowMarxismandLiberalismconceptualizetherole of the hegemonic power and to judge what approach is more convincing. In respect to Marxism,theessaywillfocusonthe Italianschool,whichdrawsfromtheworkofItalian MarxisttheoristAntonioGramsci(Germainetal.,1998:3);withregardstoliberalisminstead itwillconcentratemainlyonneoandstructuralliberalism.Myargumentisthattheapproach of the Italian School of IR possesses better analytical tools to understand the current historicalmoment,characterizedbytheconsequencesoftheglobalfinancialcrisis,butthe validityofeachapproachdependonthehistoricalperiodtakenintoconsideration. Theessayisorganisedasfollows.Thefirstpartwillsummarizethemostrelevantdefinitions ofhegemonyandgiveaccountoftheuncertaintysurroundingthisconcept.Thesecondpart willexpoundliberalism'sviewofthehegemonicpower:particularattentionwillbegivento thelinkbetweenhegemonicleadershipandinternationalregimes.Thethirdpartwillinstead turntoMarxistaccountsofhegemony:thefocusinthiscasewillbeontheuseofGramscian categories tocastlightonthelinksbetweensocialactorsandinternationalrelations.The fourthsectionconcludes.

WhatHegemony? Robinson(2006:16566)identifiesfourconceptionsofHegemony: Hegemony as international domination (theory of hegemonic stability): realist conception:hegemonyasdominanceenforcedbyactive,coercivedomination;

 Hegemony as state hegemony: the most diffuse conception, refers to a dominant nationstate [the Hegemon] [] that serves to anchor the world capitalist system (ibidem:7)andenforcestherulesthatsustaintheinterstatesystem.; Hegemony as consensual domination (ideological hegemony): the Gramscian conceptionofHegemony,itreferstothedominationofasocialclass throughthe permeationofaconsensualideologythroughthesocietyandthestate; Hegemonyastheexerciseofleadershipwithinhistoricalblocswithinaparticular world order: a position associated with Cox's work (1983; 1987) and the Italian School, it combines Gramsci's emphasis on social classes and the importance of ideologywiththeroleofhegemonicstates. Theessayindeedwillgiveanexampleofeachconception:arefinedversionofthefirst conception will be expounded through Keohane's (1984) work, the second one through Deudneyetal.'s(1999)theoryofstructuralliberalism,thethirdoneissummarizedinCox (1983)and finallythe fourth one will be presented throughthe work ofCox(1987) and exponentsoftheItalianSchoolwhichfocusontheanalysisofglobalisation. Neoliberalismandstructuralliberalism:theimportanceofAmericanHegemony Themostimportantneoliberaltextonthetopicofhegemonicpoweris Keohane's AfterHegemony(1984).Keohanestartsbydefiningtwofundamentaltenetsoftheclassic (realist)theoryofhegemonicstability:thatorderinworldpoliticsistypicallycreatedbya singledominantpowerandthatthemaintenanceoforderrequirescontinuedhegemony (ibidem:34).Focusingontherealmofworldpoliticaleconomy,hechallengesthesecond assumption:hisaimistoprovethatinthemodernworldpoliticaleconomyhegemonyisnora necessarynorasufficientconditionforcooperativerelations;inotherwords hewants to explorethelinkbetweenhegemonyandinternationalregimes. Todothisherefinesthecrudetheoryofhegemonicstabilitytoincludetheinfluenceof domesticpolitics,politicalstructuresanddecisionmakingprocesses(ibidem:35):hispoint indeedisthatastatedoesnotbecomehegemonicsimplybecauseitpossessesmorematerial resourcesrelativetootherstatesbutalsobecausehefacesincentivesstrongenoughtotakethe lead.ThegoalthenistounderstandwhatconditionsaffectingtheHegemon,domesticand international, are conducive to the creation of international regimes and how changes in

hegemonyaffectthoseregimes. Keohane's case study is the hegemony of the United States. He focuses on the relations betweentheUSAandtheadvancedindustrializedliberaldemocraciesofWesternEuropeand Japan:inthisway,heargues,thereisnoneedtocontinuallytakingintoaccountthepolitics ofinternationalsecurity(ibidem:137).IndeedalthoughAmericanleadershipwas strictly connectedtoNATO,thatis,tosecurityissues,therelationsbetweentheUSAandadvanced liberaldemocracieswerebasedforalargepartoneconomicissues:securityissuesremained in the background (ibidem: 3941). He takes into account different cases of hegemonic cooperationbothintradeandfinanceandinoiltrade(thetwopillarsofAmericanhegemony) (ibidem:135181). KeohanearguesthattheUSAbasedtheregimestheycreatedonthesearchformutualinterest withtheirpartners(ibidem:138)inordertomakethesystemmorelegitimate:thisinvolved also making concessions and accepting shortterm sacrifices, overcoming domestic resistances.Ontheonehand,theUSAweresuccessfulincreatinginternationalregimesfor tradeandfinance(abovealltheGeneralAgreementonTariffsandTrade).Ontheother hand,thecreationofaninternationalregimeforoilfailedduetothedomesticoppositionof themajorAmericanoilcompanies:asaconsequence,theUSAlostpartoftheadvantagein termsofoilsupplyitenjoyed visvis itsallies,therebyerodingthematerialbasisofhis hegemonicleadership.Overall,Kehoaneconcludes,thehegemonicpoweroftheUSAduring the golden age of the '50s strongly fostered a pattern of asymmetrical [international] cooperation(ibidem:182)byreducinguncertaintyaboutfuturepatternsofbehaviorthus increasingthewillingnesstomakeagreements(ibidem:180). FinallyKeohaneconsidershowthedeclineofAmericanhegemonysincethemid'60shas influenced international cooperation (ibidem: 182240). The classic theory of hegemonic stabilitystatesthatwhentheconcentrationofpowerdiminishes(thatis,whenthehegemonic leadership vanishes because of a loss of material resources), then cooperation becomes impossible. Keohane instead argues that since the conditions for maintaining existent international regimes are less demanding than those required for creating them [] the declineofhegemonydoesnotnecessarilylead[]totheirdecay(ibidem:51).Again,the evolutionintheissueareoftradeandfinancewasdifferentfromtheoneoftheoilissuearea: intheformer,theinternationalregimeswhichhadbeensetupunderhegemonicleadership continuedtofostercooperationbetweenstateswithsharedinterests;inthelatter,instead,

wherenointernationalregimeshadbeenbuilt,thedeclineinAmericanhegemonicleadership provokedareductionincooperation(inaccordancewiththetheoryofhegemonicleadership). Anotherliberalpointofviewovertheconceptofhegemonicleadershipisprovidedby Deudney etal.'s(1999)Thenatureandsourcesofinternationalliberalorder.To bemore precise,theyfocusontherelationbetweenWesterncountriesaftertheendoftheColdWar. Theydefinefivetenetsofthisstructuralliberalorder(ibidem:181),inpartdrawingfrom Kehoaneetal.'s(1977:360)notionofcomplexinterdependence: Securitycobinding:liberalstates,itisargued,havecreatedinstitutionstomutually constrain the use of force between themselves, thus moderating anarchy without needingahierarchicalorder; Semisovereign & partial great powers: the status of Germany and Japan, whose institutionalstructureisbasedonpeaceconstitutionsandonconstraintstoexternal sovereignty.Asaconsequence,theauthorssustainthatthesetwocountrieswillnever againtrytoreachanhegemonicstatus; Economicopenness:liberalstateswanttolimitanarchyevenintheabsenceofan Hegemon for three reasons: first, the prospects for absolute gains (ibidem: 190) createdbyadvancedcapitalismaresohighthatstateswanttoavoidworryingabout relative gains (as they should do in an anarchic environment); second, modern economyissocomplexthatreducinguncertaintyisevenmoreimperativethaninthe past; third, economic openness gives also political guarantees of a more stable internationalorder; Civicidentity:refersabovealltothesetofvaluesandbeliefscommontoallWestern worldanddistinctfromnational,ethnicandreligiousidentities(ibidem:193),but alsotothecommonconsumeristcultureandtothewidespreadcirculationofelites andeducationalexchange(ibidem:194). Allthepointsabovearemeantasconsequencesofthedistinctivelyliberalcast(ibidem:185) ofAmericanhegemony.Indeed,theothertenetofthewesternpoliticalorderis(American) Penetratedhegemony.Theauthorsclaimthatthehighlevelsofreciprocityandlegitimacy whichcharacterizeAmericanhegemonyareadirectconsequenceoftwofactors(ibidem:185): 1) ThestructureoftheAmericanstate:thehighlydecentralized(federal)structureof theUSAoffersnumerouspointsofaccesstodifferentinterests,whetherdomesticor

international. This openness allows governmental and civil groups from liberal societieswideaccesstotheUSA'sdecisionmakingprocessandisintegraltothe operationoftheinternationalliberalorder; 2) The prevalence of transnational relations: such relations are considered a fundamentalelementofthepenetratedhegemony,becausetheyaddlegitimacytothe systemandshapesthepreferencesofthemostimportantactorsthereforereducing differencesandincreasingcooperation. Overall, liberalism gives to hegemonic leadership a positive connotation. Hegemony is consideredtohaveafundamentalroleintheconstructionofinternationalregimesbutitisnot necessary for their survival and development. The essay will now turn to the Marxists conceptionofHegemony.

Marxism:HegemonyasatoolofinquiryintoCapitalism Cox (1983) was the first International Relations (IR) theorist to introduce the Gramscian thought on Hegemony in IR theory (Germain et al. 1998: 3). In this article he first summarizesGramsci'sconceptionofhegemonyandthenargueshowitcouldbeappliedtothe studyofIR. Gramsci described Hegemony as the domination of a social class exerted by consensual meansthroughboththegovernmentalapparatusandtheinstitutionsofthecivilsociety(i.e. thepress,theschools,etc.):thehegemonicsocialorderisthusbasedonastrongconnection betweenStateandcivilsociety,astructuredefinedbloccostorico(historicbloc).Theforceof thisconnectionineachWesternEuropeansociety(i.e.country)variedgreatlydependingon the history of each country; Gramsci distinguished between societies which undergone thoroughrevolutionandworkedoutfullyitsconsequencesandothersstuckinapassive revolution,thatis,asituationinwhicholdandnewforcesbalanceeachother.Acountry standinginaconditionofpassiverevolutioncansolvethestalemateintwoways: Caesarism: the intervention of a strong, charismatic leader (either progressive or reactionary); Trasformismo:orthecooptationofthepotentiallitesofthesubordinateclassesinto thehegemonicrulingclass,topreventtheemergenceofacounterhegemonicblocco

storico(whichinGramsci'scommunistprojectwouldhavebeenformedbyanalliance betweenthehegemonicclassofindustrialworkersandthesubordinateclassesofsmall farmersandmarginals). CoxappliestheseGramscianconcepts,conceivedaspertainingtothenationallevel,tothe internationallevel:anapproachlabelleddeductiveornomologicalbyFinocchiaro(2006: 15).Thefirstconsequenceistomatchthedeepestfoundationsofthepowerofastate/society tothewayithasworkedouttheconsequencesofsocialrevolutions:so,stateswhicharestuck inpassiverevolutionsarenotaspowerfulastheoneswhichhavemostfullyworkedoutthe consequencesofthisrevolutionintheformofstateandofsocialrelations(ibidem:134).It followsthatinanhegemonicworldorder,thehegemonicstateandthestatesclosetoitbelong tothefirstcategory,whilestateintheperipheryareusuallyexperiencingpassiverevolutions. Coxthenturnstotheroleofinternationalorganization.Theseareconsideredtheproductof thehegemonicworldorderandhavefourmaintasks: 1) Providerulesthatsupporttheexpansionofthehegemonicworldorder; 2) Provideanideologywhichlegitimisessuchexpansion; 3) Coopttheelitesfromperipheralcountries(ibidem:138)1; 4) Absorbcounterhegemonicideas(ibidem). Whilethefirsttwotasksareattributedtointernationalregimesandorganizationsalsoby liberaltheories(inthesensethatinternationalregimesaresetupbyhegemonicpowerssothat theysuittheir[i.e.ofthehegemonicpowers]interestsandtheirideologies(Keohane,1984: 136)),thelanguageusedbyCoxandtheinclusionofthelasttwopointsshowthedifferent, criticalstanceadoptedbyMarxists inrespecttotheroleoftheHegemonicstatesocietes associatedwiththemonopolyliberalworldorder(Cox1983:140).TheGramscianconcept ofbloccostoricothenbecomesthechieftooltostartaneffectivecounterhegemonicdynamic. CoxisbestknownforhisworkProduction,PowerandWorldOrder(1987).Themost importantcontributionofGramscianconceptsinthisworkisthattheyallowtolinkthelevel ofsocialforcestothelevelofthestateandtotheworldlevel.Indeedtheformationofclasses andhistoricblocsisconsideredthecrucialfactorinthetransformationofglobalpoliticaland socialorder(ibidem:357).TheGramscianconceptofHegemonicstatesocietyisthusused again to understand how class structure (determined by production relations) determines
1 This point together with the fourth one are equivalent to the practice of trasformismo.

historicblocs,whichinturnshapethestatestructure(ibidem:67).Thelinktotheworldorder ismadeagainthroughaneoGramscianframeworkofanalysis:Coxarguesthatwhenthe worldorderishegemonictheproductioninparticularcountriesbecomesconnectedto[] worldsystemsofproduction(ibidem:7)thusallowingtheexpansionofnationalclassesinto wider,globalclasses. Finally,anotheruseofNeogramsciansperspectivesinIRtheoryistheanalysisofthe processofglobalisation.Scholarshavefocusedaboveallontworesearchareas:theanalysisof the movements of resistance to globalisation (Rupert, 2003; Gill 2003) and the alleged emergence of a transnational capitalist class which tries to gain hegemonic leadership (Robinson2006;Gill1990). Gill (1990a) analyses the work and demographical composition of the Trilateral Commission,averyinfluentialprivateIRcouncilwhichwasfoundedin1972topromotea reformoftheworldpoliticaleconomycompatiblewiththeforcesoftransnazionalization (ibidem:120).HearguesthatsuchanorganizationcaneasilybeseenasaTransnational historicbloc(ibidem:145)becauseitlinksthehighestlevelsofthepoliticalendeconomic sphereatagloballevel. Robinson(2006),sixteenyearsafterGill'swork,usestheconceptofhistoricblocto steerawayfromthefocusonthenationstate,afocuswhichheperceivesasinadequateto understandcapitalismduringglobalisation.IndoingthishealsocriticizesCox(1983)which sustainedthatanhistoricbloccandeveloponlyatthenationallevelandonlyafterexpand internationally.Heinsteadarguesthateconomicglobalisationforthefirsttimemakespossible Transnational Class Formation(ibidem:169): indeedtheTransnationalCapitalistClass (ibidem)hasalreadytriedtoattaintheglobalhegemonybuthasencounteredstrongresistance notonlyintheThirdWorldbutalsointheLockeanheartland(VanDerPijl1998),i.e.the AngloSaxoncountriesinparticularandalsoWesternEurope.Robinson(2006)predictsthata counterhegemonicupheavalcouldhappenincaseofanorganicglobalcapitalistcrisis,i.e.a crisisnotonlyobjective(structural)butalsosubjective(oflegitimacyofhegemony)(ibidem: 178).Inthelightoftheglobalfinancialcrisis,thisconceptsgainrelevantanalyticalleverage.

Conclusion

Afterhavingpresentedthepositionofdifferentauthorsonthetopic,ajudgementonthe validityofeachconceptualisationisdue. Keohane'sconceptionofHegemonydrawsheavilyfromgametheoryandhasmanypointsin commonwiththepurerealisttheoryofhegemonicstability.Itishowevermoresophisticated andthefocusontheimportanceofdomesticinterestsanddecisionmakingprocesseshelpsto includesocialforcesandnongovernmentalrelationsinthepicture.Theresultisacoherentif abitrigidconceptualizationthatgivesaconvincingexplanationofhowAmericanhegemony hasworkedandisalsocorrectinstressingthepossibilityofcooperationwithouthegemony. Deudneyetal.ontheotherhandemphasizetheroleofsocialforcesasanintegralpartofthe Americanhegemony.Theirdescriptionoftheeffectsofpenetratedhegemonyisconvincing butitislimitedonlytotheWesterncountries,thereforeweakeningitsvaliditywhenappliedto thewholeworld(asisthecasewithKheoane(1984)). Cox's inclusion of Gramsci categories in IR theory has spurred a wide range of works. Althoughthishasnotbeenclearofblame(seeGermainetal.1998andtheanswerprovidedto thembyRupert1998),theconsiderablerangeofworksthatcontinuetoanalysethechanging world of globalisation with Gramscian tools is a proxy of the richness of this approach. Althoughitclearlyhassomelimitationsanddarkspots(especiallyinoverarchingworksas Cox1987),IdobelievethattheanalysisofthedynamicsofglobalisationwithGramscian conceptsenablestobringintheelementofsocietywithoutforcingoutthestate.Theanalysis on Transnational Capitalist Class and the individuation of counterhegemonic societies demonstratesthevalidityofthisapproach(seee.g.theriseoffarrightpartiesthroughout EuropeinaccordancewithRobinson's(2006:177)prediction). Notheoryofcoursecanclaimtobeconvincingonalltopicsandforeveryhistoricalperiod. GivingthatIRTheoryshouldhelpusanalysetheworldaroundus,IbelievethattheItalian schooltheoryisthebestequippedtoanalysethecontemporaryworldandtheeffectsof globalisationandisthusthemoreconvincing.

BIBLIOGHRAPHY(inalphabeticalorder)
CoxR.W.(1983), Gramsci,hegemony,andinternationalrelations:anessayinmethod,in CoxR.W.(1996), ApproachestoWorldOrder,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,pp.12443 Cox R.W. (1987), Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress DeudneyD.,IkenberryJ.G.(1999),TheNatureandSourcesofLiberalInternationalOrder, ReviewofInternationalStudies,25/2,pp.17996 FinocchiaroM.A.(2006), Gramsci,theFirstWorldWar,andtheProblem ofPolitics vs ReligionvsEconomicsinWar,inBielerA.,MortonA.D.(eds.)(2006), Imagesof Gramsci: Connections and Contentions in Political Theory and International Relations,London:Routledge,pp.1325 GermainR.,KennyM.(1998), EngagingGramsci:InternationalRelationsTheoryandthe NewGramscians,ReviewofInternationalStudies,24,pp.321 GillS.(1990),AmericanHegemonyandtheTrilateralCommission,Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress GillS.(1990a),TheEmergingHegemonyofTransnationalCapital:TrilateralismandGlobal Order,in Rapkin D.P.(ed.) (1990), International Political EconomyYearbook,5, Boulder:LynneRiennerPublishers,pp.11946 Gill S. (2003), Power and Resistance in the New World Order, New York: Parlgrave MacMillan Van Der Pijl K. (1998), Transanational Classes and International Relations, London: Routledge Keohane R. (1984), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy,NewJersey(USA):PrincetonUniversityPress KeohaneR.,NyeJ.(1977),PowerandInterdependence:WorldPoliticsinTransition,Boston (USA):Little,Brown&Co. Rapkin D.P. (1990), The contested Concept, in Rapkin D.P. (ed.) (1990), International PoliticalEconomyYearbook,5,Boulder:LynneRiennerPublishers,pp.119 Robinson W.I. (2006), Gramsci and Globalization: From NationState to Transnational Hegemony,inBielerA.,MortonA.D.(eds.)(2006),ImagesofGramsci:Connections andContentionsinPoliticalTheoryandInternationalRelations,London:Routledge, pp.16580 RupertM.(1998), (Re)engagingGramsci:aresponsetoGermainandKerry,Reviewof InternationalStudies,24/3,pp.427434 RupertM.(2003), GlobalisingCommonSense:AMarxianGramscian(Revision)ofthe PoliticsofGovernanceResistance,ReviewofInternationalStudies,29,pp.18198