3. Hegemony and World Order: Neo-Gramscianism Approach to IR Social forces, state and IR: transcending existing theories One of the theoretical ambitions of Cox is to explore the different configuration of state and society complexes and their implication for IR study. In this theoretical process, he especially emphasized social dimension of the state, which are most clearly seen in Gramscian concepts of hegemony, historical bloc, and civil society. On the one hand, beware of underrating state power; on the other hand, he gave additional attention to social forces and process to see how they relate to the development of states and world order. The Gramscian approach to IR thus provides a way to conceptualize world order free of the constraints …show more content…
Conclusion: Beyond Orthodoxy Agency-structure arguments of Neo-Gramscianism Neo-Gramscian approach is a specific form of structuralist historicism. As Robert Cox points out in his article, structure in Gramscian approach is opposed to structuralism of Althusser and Balibar, or from a different tradition of Waltz. It is true that in Neo-Gramscianism approach, structure is the analysis unit, however it differs from the structural Marxism represented by Althusser in that it has taken the role of human being into consideration. It has human dimension: historical structure is the real result of collective human interaction, and although social action is constrained by prevailing social structure, however the historical is transformed by agency. Neo-Gramscianism has taken a structural thinking but never structure determining. It also differs from neo-realism structuralism in that the international structure in Neo-Gramscianism is space and time constrained, just as stated by Cox in 1981, imperialism is loose concept in practice to be defined with reference to each historical period. Thus in the Neo-Gramscianism approach, historical structure is what can be called limited totalities. The historical structure does not represent the whole world, but rather a particular sphere of human activity in its historically located …show more content…
In this sense, the mainstream theory is conservative, while critical Neo-Gramscianism theory, by analysis of forces and trends, attempts to discern possible futures and to point to the conflicts and contradictions in the existing world order that could move things towards one or other of the possible futures, allows for a normative choice in favor of a social and political order different from the prevailing
“A&P” by John Updike is written through the eyes of a young grocery store clerk named Sammy. While working, a group of girls walk into the store, wearing their bathing suits, causing all the workers to drool over them, but when they come to check out the manager Lengel tells them that what they are wearing is against policy. As the girls leave, embarrassed, Sammy courageously quits his job due to this incident, hoping to impress the girls, but as he walks out of the A&P he realizes that they are gone. Post-Structuralism, also known as Deconstruction, is a school of literary criticism where the reader “focuses on the inherent, internal contradictions in language and interpretation” (deconstruction).
The essence of John J. Mearsheimer’s “Anarchy and the Struggle for Power” relies on the argument that great powers have been and will continue to be in a perpetual struggle for dominance. Mearsheimer conveys that the need hegemony is not only omnipresent but also inescapable. His rationale is delineated through five assumptions: 1. International order does not exist with anarchy.
According to the spread of imperialism, many empires use military force or coercion to control other countries actively, then to build colonies in other countries. Those practices of empire are so called ‘Imperialism’. Imperialism has become the driving force of many important historical events since ancient time. Before we trying to consider many important global issues, such as globalization, income gap etc. We should have belief understanding to the cause of those issues.
According to Watson, there cannot be case in which there is absolute anarchy or hierarchy but between the two which he used pendulum as a metaphor. International politics is explained through the terms of empire, dominion, suzerainty and independence. Order prevails in the empire and away from the core of the empire exist the anarchic system. Watson argues against the notion that the interactions between the independent states in IR is far from possibility.
It is heavily influenced from the Groation tradition. According to this perspective, regimes are much more pervasive and exist in all areas of international relations. Contrary to the conventional structure and modified structural, this viewpoint moves away from realist thinking as it is “too limited to explain an increasingly complex, interdependent, and complex world.” This approach rejects the assumption that the international system is comprised of states and the balance of power is solely due to force. Rather, it argues that elites are the principal actors and that they have national and transnational ties.
It argues that the lack of an authority higher than nation-states, causes states to act only in competitive and selfish ways, and that material power determines relations between states. John Mearsheimer supports this by saying, “States are potentially dangerous to each other. Although some states have more military might than others and are therefore more dangerous”(Mearsheimer, 70). Instead of keeping identities and interests in mind when determining relations between states, realists assert that anarchy will cause states to act solely in their best interest. Kenneth Waltz attempted to explain a structural realist perspective about anarchic structure.
Most fields of science rely on theories to explain centrally important issues, such as social phenomena, that have a wide range of applications. Sociologists attempt to describe human society though their theories, such as the structural-functionalism theory, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionalism. While the three theories attempt to describe how society functions the way it does, all three differ in their views of how humans are related to society and each other. In the structural-functionalism, the dominant view is that if the structures that exist are functional, then those structures should be preserved and maintained. Structure-functionalists tend focus on the interrelatedness to the social structures that make up society.
(Young 2014:19). In addition, this framework implies that sociocultural complexity is the striking feature of the state – or, at least, characterises social groups that are in the process of becoming one. In his paper, Possehl goes against this view by
Assess the claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, two of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations, although similar in some respects, differ multitudinously. Thus, this essay will argue it is inaccurate to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. On the contrary, it will contend that there are, in an actual fact, more of the latter than there are of the former on, for example, the nature and consequences of anarchy, the achievement of international cooperation, and the role of international institutions. Moreover, it will be structured in such a way so as to corroborate this line of argument.
The social world is a world of human consciousness: of thoughts and beliefs, of ideas and concepts, of languages and discourses. Four major types of ideas are: ideologies; normative beliefs; cause–effect beliefs; and policy prescriptions. Constructivist Alexander Wendt rejects the neorealist position of anarchy necessarily leading to self-help. That cannot be decided a priori; it depends on the interaction between states. In these processes of interaction the identities and interests of
The factors that I will look at are: the state of anarchy, an overarching regulatory body, their main objective, ranking and sovereignty. This is by no means an exhaustive list. By the end, I will strive to determine whether this analogy is accurate and, if it is, to what extent. Kenneth Waltz is the father of neorealism. His book, Theory of International Politics, departs from the classical and neoclassical realism theories.
Classical realism and structural realism are both theories of International Relations, therefore huge differences are noticed in between those two. The main difference lies in the motivation to power, which is seen differently by both theories. Classical realism is concentrated in the desire of power- influence, control and dominance as basic to human nature. Whereas, structural realism is focused on the international system anarchic structure and how the great powers behave. Classical realists believe that power is related to human nature, thus their analysis of individuals and states is similar.
The collapse of the world order calls the reflection on the social theories such as Marxism, interactionism, structuralism, systems theory, which appear to be outdated toady, outdated because they do not address the modern transformations in politics and social aspects of human life. These modern changes not only
Brad Conley Prof. Greg Young IAFS 1000-1004 Though the international system today shares many aspects of realism, neoliberalism, constructivism, and marxism, neoliberalism is the predominant principles under which the international system operates. With the formation of several influential international governmental organizations (IGOs), the world has become a much safer place. Though neoliberal ideas draw from realism in the fact that the international system is in anarchy, neoliberalism dictates that the world is in a form of structured anarchy, perpetuated by the IGOs that governments partake in. By strengthening webs of interdependence, countries find the ability to interact amicably, and build up reliance upon one another. As countries
Structuralism and Semiotics Structuralism & semiotics, the general study of signs which developed from the structuralist program, have a complex theory of the way signs work but, in essence, we may say that the categories of meaning (words) are comprised in a system of binary oppositions: white & black, body & mind, the sacred & the profane, individual & collectivity. We are engaged, then, in the study of signs & sign systems. Structuralism analyzes society & elements of society via binary oppositions that it sees as essential to the way the brain works. Post structuralism, on the other hand, sees this binary dualism as an aspect of Western thought & not universal. For postmodernism, meaning & the categories of thought are shifting & unstable.