Is there

a relationship
between
theories of international politics
and the practices of hegemony?

Greng Hassan

Introduction

word count: 2128

102091874

In this essay, a relationship between hegemony and international theory is

traced, with a view to showing how the theoretical arguments are used to underpin
hegemonic practices, and how the theory/practice relationship operates.
The problem of the theory/practice relationship appears to be one of the most
controversial for the IR discipline. While it is commonly assumed that a theory is a
combination of suppositions on the actual causes and consequences of specific
phenomena, as well as their connections with each other, one may conceive of a
theory as a set of cultural expectations that would predetermine the actors concepts
of the proper course of things. In particular, the theory of international politics seems
to be performing the function of the determinant of actual inter-state policies, while
being in turn influenced by the latter. In this essay, the more detailed exposition of
this claim shall be presented, with a view to presenting the complicated correlations
between supposedly abstract theory and imaginably pragmatic political praxis.

Hegemonic and critical theories in IR studies

As observed by Cox (1983), the very concept of hegemony was appropriated
from the works by Antonio Gramsci, the historical leader of Italian Communist Party,
who purported to apply it to the 20th century bourgeois states apparatuses of
control, in order to show how the state utilizes the institutions which helped to create
in people certain modes of behaviour and expectations consistent with the
hegemonic social order (Cox, 1983, p.51). Whereas the orthodox Marxist theory
emphasized the capitalist societys dislocation and antagonistic character, Gramsci
managed to demonstrate how the ideological apparatuses of control are used to

word count: 2128

102091874

integrate the supposedly dangerous social classes into this society and bring about
its superficial unity (Cox, 1983, pp.51-52).
The application of the Gramscian notion of hegemony to the subject of
international politics has been carried mainly by the representatives of the various
strands of international critical theory, such as Gill (1993 or Cox (1983. In order to
understand the character and premises of such application, it is necessary to review
the main differences between the traditional concept of the connections between
international theory (grand theory, meta-theory) and political practice, on the one
hand, and the critical theorists interpretations thereof, on the other.
The traditional presentation of the relationship between academic theory and
international political practice appears to be resting on several important premises
and concepts. Thus, it is assumed that the process of academic inquiry in IR theory is
necessarily objective and isolated from the vicissitudes of the empirical political
arrangements (Smith, 2003, p.235); that the research process in IR discipline should
be necessarily value-neutral to engage with the underlying social reality (p.235); and
that the academic professionals are expected to advise the powers that be on the
desired course of their policies from an objective and disinterested viewpoint, i.e.
speak truth to power (p.236). In total, this formal theory-based approach seeks to
present academic IR theory as a source of objective knowledge and advice to the
policy makers and other external actors that are expected to accept them, in
accordance with their own best interests.
However, such objectivist and positivist approach would appear to be running
counter the empirically observed connection between formal IR theory and the
international politics goals and objectives. Gill (1993) pointed that the social sciences

word count: 2128

102091874

process of inquiry deals with second-order phenomena, because the social world
analysed by the researcher has been logically pre-ordered (Gill, 1993, p.21) by its
participants who usually retain a significant modicum of control over it. Hence, the
one-sided objective notion of a theory as an unbiased set of cause-and-effect
relations between the respective elements of social reality would actually be
untenable.
Furthermore, the formal theories that appear to be dominant in the current IR
scientific milieu are based on the expressly problem-solving assumptions. A problemsolving theory is tuned to the purposes of exploring the structures of the present
international system, without questioning the current power dynamics and their
structures, or attempting to understand the possible correlation between these
structures and the international problems it purports to solve. In contrast, a critical
theory is characterized by its practitioners willingness to question how [the present]
order came into being, how it may be changing, and how that change may be
influenced or channelled (Cox, 1994, p.101). Thus, the fundamental difference
between these two types of international theory lies in their diverging perspectives on
the development of international politics as such; whereas the former is mainly
descriptive, the latter basically aims to discover the power relations and dynamics
behind the supposedly anarchic international environment.
This observation would lead one to determine the nature of hegemonic
relationship in the field of IR theory. Zalewski (1996) observes that the two main
concepts of the nature of international theory (i.e. theory as a tool and theory as a
critique) are necessarily combined into theory as everyday practice (Zalewski, 1996,
p.346). In this interpretation, a theory is best conceived of not as a thing that may be

word count: 2128

102091874

picked up and used and refined, but rather as a constant process of theorising, i.e.
the phenomenon of affecting and/or creating international political events based on
their interpretation (p.346). Zalewski notes that the mode of theorising chosen by a
theorist under consideration has a rather direct impact upon the understanding of
behaviours and practices connected with the everyday life of the immediate subjects
of international relations (Zalewski, 1996, p.347). The uncovering of biases inherent
in the traditional IR theory would enable the researchers to understand the power
agenda behind the supposedly objective formulations, shedding light upon the
nexus of power/knowledge relationship inherent in academic (mainstream) forms of
theorising (Smith, 2003, p.237).
However, the issue of the critical theory impracticality may often be invoked by
those sceptical of its premises. The opponents of critical theory in IR studies often
argue that this type of theorizing would not enable the researchers to lay down viable
policy recommendations that may be proffered to solve the appropriate global
problems; thus, critical theory is worthless to them. However, as noted by Zalewski
(1996, p.351), this very attitude seems to underscore the relevance of the critical
theorists arguments; by focusing on the ontologies favourable to the purposes of
perpetuating the present international system, mainstream theorists appear to be
performing the function of the latters theoretical justification. In the following sections
of this paper, the more specific examples of such relationship may be presented.

Foreign policy and multiculturalism: Hegemonic and critical theory

concepts

word count: 2128

102091874

The traditional view of the states foreign policy, as asserted by realist and
idealist schools, as well as by their modernist heirs, focuses on the states as unitary
and indivisible actors with their specific national interests. The states are assumed to
be the self-interested actors seeking to safeguard their survival and security first, and
then to satisfy their particular political and economic interests. Accordingly, the
foreign policy is usually viewed through a prism of specific national interests and the
respective power projection (Hudson & Vore, 1995, pp.209-211). In particular,
national interest has been conceived as a set of transitively ordered objectives from
the actual behaviour of central decision makers (Krasner, 1979, p.80), which would
amount to treating the state as an autonomous decision-making institution. While the
problems of small group interests and bureaucratic politics within the states decision
making apparatuses have often been raised by the researchers (Allison & Halperin,
1972, pp.40-79; Holland, 1999, p.219-224), the key presumption of the states
objective (and ultimately benign) national interests as the foreign policys main
independent variable has basically remained intact.
However, such a view may be rather one-sided, as it excludes the problem of
the cultural determination of the foreign policys decision-making process. The critical
theorists view the foreign policy as a reflection of the dominant cultural modes of
power exercise, as it may be the case with the debate on the relationship between
the new independent states sovereignty and their need for development (Doty, 1996,
p.154).
In critical theory, foreign policy may be viewed as a comprehensive praxis of
the relations between various cultures, races, nationalities, or genders that are
perceived as different, or Other, by their counterparts. For instance, Doty (1993,

word count: 2128

102091874

p.312) observes that the Westerners interpretation of the Other has been inherently
tied to the dichotomy of reason (attributed to the West) and passion (reflecting the
Euro-centric cultural perceptions of Asiatic irrationality). The analysis of foreign
policy from the perspective of cultural biases and stereotyping would thus allow the
scholars to delve deeper into the motivation underwriting the policy makers
decisions, which hegemonic theorists are unable or unwilling to do.

Hegemony and the concept of international anarchy

Another major concept constituting the foundation of hegemonic IR studies is
that of international anarchy, or the anarchic world order. In the traditionalist
interpretation, the international system is rived with contradictions between individual
actors (i.e. states) that pursue their own national interests and come into clashes with
one another, as these interests are necessarily incompatible. Hence, the
maintenance of any viable international order requires concerted efforts of several
key states to impose the limits on exercise of force in the inter-state relations.
Further, the concepts such as the clash of civilizations (Huntington, 1993, pp.22-49)
are invoked to seek the causal connections between the present inter-state rivalries
(e.g. between the USA and China) and the more significant civilizational dynamics.
The critical theorists would point that such interpretation of the world order
belies its promoters entrenched interest in maintaining the present structures of the
global hegemony. Following Hardt & Negri (2004), the latter is characterized as the
totalized system of international capitalist power supported by the structural power of
the USA and other core states. This Empire would encompass all supposed rival
state actors, united against the Multitude, a nebulous and fractured unity of countersystem groups, movements, and subjects that opposes the unified imperial

word count: 2128

102091874

administration led by the USA. In this interpretation, the inter-state conflict is

replaced by the confluence of hegemonic forces having united against the
marginalized and excluded populations of the globe.

Hegemony and security

In mainstream IR studies, security is generally understood as the process of
the state protecting itself from any feasible threats to its existence and national
interest (Baldwin, 1997, pp.5-26). At the same time, recently, the concept of human
security, or HS, has been introduced by the trans nationalist and neoliberal theorists
of IR, who argue that it would enable a fundamental re-focusing of global politics
toward the issues of humanitarian support.
In contrast, critical theorists view the very concept of security as based on
subjective interpretations of the concept of danger that may be necessarily vague
and unrelated to the exact level of threat to the states interests (Dalby, 1997, pp.331). Furthermore, the security discourse may be used by the policy makers eager to
establish greater levels of the states control over the global, regional, and even local
spaces (Bubandt, 2005, pp.275-296). Hence, the security studies paradigm
established by mainstream IR theorists would be used to justify such policys
conduct.

International political economy and post colonialism

The problems of structural inequality between the nation-states constituting
the international political economy system are heavily featured in critical theories of
international politics. In contrast to the traditionalists emphasizing the validity of
international aid and the future benefits of development, the critical theorists focus
on the problems of the unequal economic development driven by the combined

word count: 2128

102091874

interests of international capital, especially the financial one (Ruggie, 1982, pp.379416). Moreover, the problem of the connection between the hegemonic discourse of
development and the practical policies of the core states is frequently raised in the
critical studies of IR system; the objectification of the non-Western Others in
mainstream academic discourses may be one of the issues emphasized by the
critical scholars of international relations (Heryanto, 2002, pp.3-30).

Conclusion
Proceeding from the analysis offered above, one may assume that the core
difference between the traditionalist (problem-solving) and critical theory of
international politics lies in their divergent attitudes to the practices of international
politics. While the proponents of traditionalist paradigm seek to view their research
object as static and defined by the purely political interests of the international state
systems actors, the critical theorists purport to analyse the culturally relative and
discursive components of the processes inherent in international politics. In so doing,
they come to view political structures as intersubjective and relative, rather than
objective and absolute. Consequently, while the traditionalists strive to help the
hegemonic policy makers to tactically improve the present world order, the critical
theorists object to its maintenance, as they believe that the more perfect political
structures may be built on the new cultural premises. Thus, the relationship between
theory and practice in the traditionalist and critical international theory is markedly
different; the former is oriented toward actual practice, while the latter opts for the
search for the better potentialities.

word count: 2128

102091874

References
Allison, G. T., & Halperin, M. H. (1972). Bureaucratic politics: A paradigm and some policy
implications. World Politic, 24, 40-79.
Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies, 23(1), 5-26.
Bubandt, N. (2005). Vernacular security: The politics of feeling safe in global, national, and
local worlds. Security Dialogue, 36(3), 275-296.
Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, hegemony, and international relations: An essay in method.
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 12(2), 162-175.
Cox, R. W. (1994). The crisis in world order and the challenge to international organization.
Cooperation and Conflict, 29 (2), 99-113.
Dalby, S. (1997). Contesting an Essential Concept: Reading the dilemmas in contemporary
security discourse. In K. Krause & M. C. Williams (Eds.), Criticalsecuritystudies
(pp.3-31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Doty, R. (1993). Foreign policy as social construction: A post-positivist analysis of US
counter-insurgency policy in the Philippines. International Studies Quarterly, 37, 297320.
Doty, R. (1996). Imperial encounters: The politics of representation in North- South relations.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gill, S. (1993). Epistemology, ontology and the Italian School. In S. Gill (Ed.), Gramsci,

10

102091874

word count: 2128

historical materialism and International Relations (pp.21-48). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Hardt, M., & Negri, T. (2004). Multitude: War and democracy in the Age of Empire. New
York, NY: Penguin.
Heryanto, A. (2002). Can there be Southeast Asians in Southeast Studies? Moussons, 5, 3-30.
Holland, L. (1999). The US decision to launch Operation Desert Storm: A bureaucratic
politics analysis. Armed Forces and Society, 25(2), 219-24
Hudson, V. M., & Vore, C. S. (1995). Foreign policy analysis yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
International Studies Review, 39(2), 209-238.
Huntington, S. (1993). The clash of civilizations. Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.
Krasner, S. D. (1979). A statist interpretation of American oil policy towards the Middle East.
Political Science Quarterly, 94(1), 77-96.
Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions and change: embedded liberalism in
the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36, 379-416.
Smith, S. (2003). International Relations and international relations: The links between theory
and practice in world politics. Journal of International Relations and Development, 6
(3), 233-239.
Zalewski, M. (1996). All these theories yet the bodies keep piling up: Theory, theorists,
theorizing.

In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory:

Positivism and beyond (pp. 340- 353). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

11