Neo-Gramscian Approaches and Marxist Thinking on International Relations - Essay Example

In what ways do neo-Gramscian approaches differ from other Marxist thinking about international relations Besides realism and liberalism, radicalism is considered as "the third overarching theoretical perspective to international relation" (Mingst, 2005, p.71). However, radicalism is not a homogeneous perspective, it is an umbrella term to denote a number of perspectives which have significantly different world views while sharing some central tenets of Marxism. "Radicals are concerned most with explaining the relationship between production, social relations and power" (Mingst, 2005, p.72). The neo-Gramscian perspective is a current of Marxist theories in international relations but retains a distinct identity among them since it significantly differs from other Marxist perspectives on questions of the sources of power, the role ideology and culture, the significance of consensus and the nature of hegemony. Gramsci who was a leader of Italian Communist party in the fascist era did not ever write much directly on international relations. Gramaci did not see state merely as the government since its functioning is effectively constrained by the hegemony of the dominant capitalist class. Along with the government, he saw the role of "the church, the educational system, the press, all the institutions which helped to create in people certain modes of behaviour and expectations consistent with the hegemonic social order" (Cox, 1993, p.51). In brief, he clearly saw that "the hegemony of a dominant class thus bridged the conventional categories of state and civil society, categories which retained a certain analytical usefulness but ceased to correspond to separable entities in reality" (Cox, 1993, p.51). Gramsci's delineation of the concept 'passive revolution' is particularly useful in characterising the social formations in most of the third world countries since they are "caught up in a dialectic of revolution-restoration which tended to become blocked as neither the new forces nor the old could triumph" (Cox, 1993, p.54). It means that since there is enormous pressure from the advance countries, the third world countries cannot remain stagnant although these societies are characterised by the dominance of old forces such as feudal and conservative forces. The crucial fact is that the industrial bourgeoisie in these countries cannot rule the society without allying with the reactionary forces. "Most of Gramsci's substantive work focused upon the analysis of national social formations in particular historic periods, particularly Italy" (Gill, 1993, p.3). Gramsci is significant in breaking the mould of orthodoxy in both Marxist theory and practice. Gramsci's ideas are so vital to develop a comprehensive understanding of the state- civil society relationships only in the West but also the rest of the world. Gramsci considered political economy as just the anatomy of civil society. Gramsci's works raise a number of critical questions on the nature of culture, the state, ideology, hegemony and civil society in advanced capitalist societies. It does not mean that his ideas have limited relevance to the non-Western contexts, rather denotes the particular milieu of his scholarship. In the realm of International Relations and International Political Economy, Gramsci's ideas are much used in understanding "the internationalisation of state and civil society, the international aspects of social hegemony and supremacy, and the transnational class and bloc formations and economic forces, the role of organic intellectuals and of international organisations and other issues which help to define the nature of global politics in twentieth century" (Gill, 1993, p.4). There is dialectical relationship between the integration and disintegration of the world order, mainly due to the crises faces by the global system and the measures taken to overcome them. On the contrary, neo-realists presuppose that the international relations are characterised by a systemic continuity. "For them, the conditions of anarchy in world politics persists, and the inter-state rivalry and insecurity which goes with this condition will reassert itself now the Cold War is over in Europe" (Gill, 1993, p.5). Frankfurt school introduced the influential concept authoritarian personality in its effort to explain fascism. Adorno et al. developed this concept from the works of Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich. The major characteristics of authoritarian personality are subsumption to anti-democratic political ideals, unquestioned acceptance of hierarchies, repression and denial, authoritarian parent-child relationships and stereotypical thinking. Ideology implies that dominant classes do not simple ensure the continuity of their rule through the enforcement of physical force. The fact is that the perception of prospective violence is always maintained and enforced by complementary beliefs from which the ruling classes derive their legitimacy. In other words, consent too is extracted systemically from the ruled. It is a concrete possibility the subordinate classes that are trapped in the vicious cycle of ideology would hold beliefs and ideas, which are directly against their own ultimate class interests. However, the novelty of the concept hegemony lies in its central postulate that the worldview of the dominant classes is not simply subscribed by the dominated classes but contested and negotiated from the vantage point of their own lived in experiences. It means that culture is not only a site of class inequalities but also of protracted and persistent class struggle. Gramscian/neo-Gramscian ideas of hegemony that emphasize more consensus and leadership to explain why the disappearance of American hegemony has not lead to hegemonic wars but rather the relatively peaceful transformation of a bipolar international system. Gramsci's idea of hegemony cannot be understood unless it is related to his other ideas such as passive revolution, historic bloc and civil society. Robert Cox's neo Gramscian approach significantly deviates from the state-centric approaches in international relations. Both realism and neo-realism consider power as the key factor that shapes the activities of the actors at the realm of international politics. Here, power is narrowly defined as the ability to bring about changes in one's acts even against his/her own will. Although neorealism draws much from the classical realist theories of international relations, it tries to develop itself as more empirical and systematic. Still, neo-realism uphold the core beliefs of realism that states are the principal actors of the world politics; states behaviour can be explained rationally; and states primarily seek power and they define their interest in terms of power. According to Kenneth Waltz structure is the principal point of study in international relations and it must be studied at the level of international system where changes in the distributional capacities of actors are paramount. In the anarchical system of the international structure, power of the states undergoes constant changes. For neorealist theories, hegemony is the product of the concentration of power in the hands of single state and its paramount ability keep the prevailing global order intact or aloof from the aspirations of the other subordinate states. It means that if there is a decline in the power and capabilities of the hegemonic actor, it would automatically lead to the decaying of the existing international order. Therefore, hegemonic powers always try to maintain maximise their control raw materials, capital sources and markets which are essential for it to remain dominant. On the other hand, the hegemonic stability theory that is a combination of theories of realism/neorealism and liberalism/neoliberalism argues that a dominant hegemon is a systemic necessity in order to ensure the existence of a global free market and the maintenance of a peaceful and secure international order. The point is that the existence of hegemon such as United States or British empire would create the laws of international cooperation and enforce them by stabilising the relations among the states. The neo-Gramscian school of International relations relies on Antonio Gramsci's works as well as the works of his followers such as Robert Cox. The neo-Gramscian school of International relations has emerged in the attempt to theoretically explore the dynamics of post-Cold War conflicts while taking account of the protracted and deep-rooted nature of such violent conflicts. Traditionally, Marxists have focused upon class struggle and imperialism that is the result of uneven and combined capitalist development. It does not see the history at the international realm as cyclical but as constantly transforming and dialectical. In the classical Marxist terms, hegemony is a matter of class power and the given position of a country in the global imperialist system. Furthermore, the source of hegemony is class contradiction between the contesting classes both within and without of a particular country. Marxists too emphasise the role of the imperialist United States in the maintenance and reproduction of the hegemonic international order as the neorealists do. As a pioneer of applying Gramsci to the studies of world order and international relations, Robert Cox has redefined the term hegemony distinctively from its neorealist connotations. Along the line of the classical reflections of Gramsci, Cox understands hegemony as something more than mere dominance of one state over another state(s). In reality, hegemony is more than dominance through the effective use or threat of use of force by the hegemon such a punishments, sanctions, wars and coercion. At this point, Robert Cox highlights the difference between domination and ideological hegemony from a Gramscian point of view. It implies that there is a unity between material forces in any given social formation through which the ruling classes consolidate, liquidate, maintain and reproduce their domination over other classes and social groups inferior to them in the social ladder. Gramsci saw the concrete elaboration of this process at the national level, but can occur at the international level too. What is important is that the structural balance between the objective and subjective forces only through which domination could be established and retained. Ideology helps to rationalise the domination of upper classes over the production process from their own perspectives against not only the economic position but also the ideological position of the lower classes. This process of hegemonisation involves compromises and consensuses by the dominant classes to the subordinate classes, especially to the subordinate classes that are ready to be part of the ruling coalition. Therefore, state does not function alone as the protector of the ruling classes but enhances its ideological powers through an alliance with a number of other social institutions such as church, family and educational institutions. Gramsci analyses the vitality of civil society through the concepts of "war of movement" and "war of position". War of movement is a military metaphor denotes the resolute confrontation between two highly antagonistic forces without any mediation. For Gramsci, civil society is the actor that has the potentials and capabilities to mediate between irreconcilably antagonistic forces. However, Gramsci asserts that since state was the unitary actor at the time of 1848 revolutions in Europe and the 1917 Russian revolution due to the fact that the civil society was not enough developed, helped the realisation of active revolution. Alternatively, civil society was advance in the Western Europe for it to play a revolutionary vanguard role, prepared the conditions for a passive revolution. Passive revolution is characterised by the alternative strategy of war of position in which the bases of a new revolutionary state can be built only through a protracted social struggle. Civil society plays an active and determinant role in this sort of a protracted struggle of the subordinate classes under the counter hegemony created by the working class. In Gramsci, the traditional Marxian distinction between the base and superstructure and the determinant role of base over the superstructure collapse. The realm of civil society provides the sites of decisive battles where the hegemony of ruling classes is persistently contested by a counter coalition of subordinate classes. The civil society is constituted at the realm of 'private' while the political society refers at the juridical state. "Dynamics of identity formation, ideological struggle, the activities of intellectuals, and the construction of hegemony" are most acutely manifested at the sphere of civil society. (Augelli and Murphy, 1993, p.129) Conclusion Importantly, Gramsci's concept of hegemony helps to change the focus of attention in international relations from power to the role of ideas and institutions at both global and local levels. An adequate understanding of the processes and patterns of domination cannot be achieved merely through the consideration of states' coercive powers. The mechanism of consent-extraction have leading role in the shaping and maintenance of the new global order in the twenty first century. There need to be a fine-tuning of the ideological forces in order to mitigate the structural violence inherent in the anarchic international system. From neo-Gramscian perspective, it is possible to take account of the cultural and psychological factors which could be used to establish peace and co-operation at the international level. The development of global media and global civil society has already indicated the power of ideas and will of progressive forces to establish just global order. The very fact that the international regime is not only characterised by the physical domination of prominent forces but their ideological hegemony created through consensus itself validates the applicability of Gramscian ideas in international relations. Bibliography Augelli, E. and Murphy, C. N. (1993) "Gramsci and International Relations: A General Perspective with Examples from Recent US Policy toward the Third World", in Stephen Gill, (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism, and International Relations.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127-148. Burnham, P. (1991) "Neo-Gramscian hegemony and the international order", Capital&Class, August 1991, n. 45, pp. 73-93. Burton, John. (1997) Violence Explained, Manchester University Press: Manchester. Cox, R. W. (1993) "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method", in Stephen Gill, (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism, and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-67. Gill, S. (1993) "Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations", (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mingst, K. A. (2005) "Essentials of International Relations" New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Read More