United States and the Neo-Gramscian Perspectives - Essay Example

United s and the Neo-Gramscian Perspectives Introduction Essentially, neo-Gramscian perspectives approach international relations based on the position that hegemony is critical in understanding the world order. The approach is further complimented by counter-hegemonic solutions against it. Hegemony is viewed as a mutually irreducible configuration between dominant ideas, institutions and material capacities that are widely accepted as.1 The manner by which states, groups and players navigate the intricacies of the global order is seen to lead to global hegemonies as a way to ensure survival and perpetuate domination. The United States is an interesting case as explained through neo-Gramscian perspective. The model is able to evaluate American policies and their motivation, including their impact on the global arena. There is valuable insight offered with respect to the American behavior in international relations and how to understand and deal with it as a hegemon. This paper will explore the United States from the neo-Gramscian perspective. For this purpose a brief discourse on the theoretical model will be included, with a brief discussion of hegemony from different perspectives as well as the stability and the neo-Gramscian thought and its challenges. This paper will cover the theoretical discussions on power structural, the declinist school of thought, and the concepts of unipolarity and multipolarity. Hegemony The concept of hegemony emerged out of the integration of the world system on the strength of global economic and political developments. As members of the system struggle and compete in order to navigate its intricacies, players adopt policies that promote and advance their interests. Successful players become dominant within a process that many thinkers consider as social in terms of formation. These players are able to exploit the system to perpetuate its status. Antonio Gramsci, the Italian thinker, provided one of the most important bases to this thought by capturing the dynamics of this process. His position holds that hegemony pertains to the process in which a hegemon is able to exploit the world system for its own purposes. This is achieved through the consent of the dominated class who act for programmes that benefit the hegemon although they may not always be in their best interests.2 This Gramscian perspective is important in the sense that it implies a dominance that is not based on brute force or coercion. Rather, it is viewed as a result of manipulation, with the dominant player(s) orchestrating events and strategies in such a way that subordinate groups believe they are acting independently and for their own interests. Raymond Williams (1977) explained Gramscian thought in more detail, adding further elements when he wrote hegemony as: the central, effective and dominant system of meanings and values, which are not merely abstract but which are organized and lived... It is a set of meanings and values which as (because) they are experienced as practices appear reciprocally confirming. It thus constitutes a sense of reality for most people in society... beyond which it is very difficult for most members of the society to move, in most areas of their lives.3 Williams built on the Gramscian perspective on hegemony and further added that the process is not merely an offshoot of manipulation. Rather, the resonance is deeper with people imbibing it into their values and expectations, finally constituting a sense of reality for the subordinates. This is aligned with other Gramscian interpretations such as persistent reference to the "imagined community". Cheah and Culler (2013) pointed out that Gramsci meant the construction of this very concept to define hegemony because the process brings the many struggles, demands and interests into a common space.4 Benedict Anderson (2006) devoted an entire book on imagined communities and demonstrated how it was created in the interactions within the world system, including the roles of forces such as capitalism and the media.5 Neo-Gramscian theorists who further contributed to the development of the Gramscian perspective include Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu.6 Their work has developed the dynamics of power relations in the world system, particularly the incidence of domination and resistance. All in all, the concept of hegemony has developed through the years. The Gramscian concept was only for the purpose of explaining the reason behind the persistence of capitalism in the West on account of its many inherent contradictions. Neo-Gramscian perspectives have acquired a wide range of underpinnings, significantly expanding Gramscian hegemony beyond the original meaning. The neo-Gramscian perspective posits a hegemonic world that is created and reproduced on societal level, eventually extending on international and transnational levels, with the goal of integrating a world system that can be exploited. This perspective also provided an opportunity to understand the role of hegemony in maintaining the stability and order to world systems. This is within the neo-Gramscian discourse on soft power, which will further be discussed in the later section. However, to provide some context, one could just turn to the ideas of students of international political economy in their argument that any the world system rely on the dominant state or the hegemon to assume the mantle of responsibility to maintain order and stability in the global system. David and Grondin (2013), for their part, used the case of China and several Asian countries that oppose the so-called baquanzhuyi and the use of force in the war for terrorism to demonstrate this by citing that the opposition does not prevent them from accepting the US domination in the region.7 This is for the simple fact that they agree with the hegemon’s importance in the neo-liberal economic order, one that is built on the strength of the existing international institutions.8 There are some challenges to the neo-Gramscian conception of hegemony. For example, Germain and Kenny (1998) criticized how the perspective is unidirectional, stressing that "the new Gramscians have downplayed one of the central insights provided by Gramsci with regard to hegemony, namely, that dominant and subaltern classes engage in a series of material and ideological struggles which change the very nature of the terrain under contestation".9 There are also those who argue that neo-Gramscian concept approaches the international system in terms of dominant elites and that they provide no alternative concepts to theories. According to Ayers (2013) neo-Gramscian theorists do not give enough attention to the role of social power, undermining the position that hegemony must relate to leading factions within the economy.10 On the other hand, there are several schools that are aligned and even support the neo-Gramscian perspective. For example, there is the case of the world system theorists, who also view hegemonies as a crucial component of international relations. Frank and Gills (1996) found the neo-Gramscian schools aligned with their approach to hegemonic transitions. There are even theorists who were able to combine neo-Gramscian perspectives and world systems theory together to explain the dynamics of hegemony, particularly those neo-Gramscian approaches to international relations that include social and class variables to their analyses.11 Nevertheless, this author finds neo-Gramscian concepts valid with respect to contemporary international political and economic system as well with the hegemony of the US. They remain true to core Gramscian thought on hegemony and the concepts are flexible enough to be adjusted in order to apply to changing and modern events, providing an approach to understanding on the international system and dominant actors such as the United States. Theoretical Discussion Neo-Gramscian perspectives involved diverse theorizing with respect to hegemony. There are those who hold the position that its existence is based on the exercise of several types (and degrees) of power. This position is legitimate on account of the fact that hegemony is, in itself, a kind of power. It is one that is exercised by a hegemon in the global system. Steven Lukes (2005) provided us an excellent support for this when he investigated and outlined several arguments that demonstrate how power is never homogenous in character.12 His work supports the claim that hegemony as a power may be underpinned by structural, soft and hard types of power. For example, it is not supposed to work on the strength of structural power alone, which is an actor’s capacity to influence the global system through its rules, institutions, and even regimes.13 It must be augmented by relational, soft and hard powers in order for the power of hegemony to be effective. Soft power, for instance, cements a hegemon’s domination by ensuring that its power is perceived as legitimate by other states through a set of general principles that secure its supremacy.14 This is reflected in the way states and international actors accept the US leadership despite their antagonism or resistance to its hegemony. The US has accepted its leadership role to the point that sometimes it must act beyond its own self interest in order to protect the system and its constituents. Take the case of the American role in international monetary affairs. The US have to do more in preventing damage to financial circles and help prevent local and regional crises.15 While one could say that this willingness is also driven by a desire to protect the role of the dollar in global economic system, the leadership and dominance save the world from descending into crises. This soft power is aligned with the neo-Gramscian perspective, that one that maintains the success on the part of the hegemon to project itself as a reality for other actors and institutions in the global stage. For some theorists, this reality is something that subordinate actors in the system cannot manage to escape. The analysis of the types of power involved in hegemony links it to several theories such as the declinist school, which posited the decline of the US as a hegemon. This began in the 1980s with the collapse of the dollar system.16 There are several variables attributed to the collapse of a hegemon and according to Debrix and Lacy (2009), this include: “distemper of democracy, imperial overstretch, limits of power, military humanism and blowback.17 But the dynamics of power behind hegemony made it difficult for such decline to occur. Soft power, for example, is still strong in the case of American hegemony that is why it still persists.18 Drawing from this position, Ferguson (2004) pointed out that the US can get what it wants without coercion partly because its cultural exports are seductive.19 While American hegemony and the unipolar thesis enjoy significant support, with the argument that the United States is the only super power left based on the sheer might of its economic and political leadership, there is also the multipolarity school that serves to provide an alternative view to contemporary international relations. This is a recent position introduced by Samuel Huntington who argued that major powers maintain their own spheres of influence, taking away opportunities for leadership from the US.20 Several thinkers are increasingly siding with this argument. For example, Kenneth Waltz (2010) has maintained that as long as the US remains the hegemon in a unipolar world, other actors are bound to unite against it to counteract its domination or balance it, at least, eventually leading to multipolarity.21 The American Hegemony Having identified different neo-Gramscian interpretations of the components that guarantee domination as a hegemon, it is easy to understand how the United States could stake its claim on this status based on its leadership in the areas of economy, security and defense capability. It is important to note that, essentially, American hegemony could be attributed to its economy. After the war, with the projection of the US military might, American policy networks sought to reinforce and maintain its dominance by leading the establishment of an economic system – a liberal and integrated economy – that would help maximize the country’s economic strength and capabilities.22 A new world order was expected to arise from this, where the US reigns supreme. During the rebuilding of Europe, for instance, the US worked to ensure that the European states had strong liberal democracies and the reinforcement of class compromise, corporatism, Keynesian economic management and the Fordist mode of production, among others.23 The idea is to complement the American economy in such a way that prosperity for the country is sustained. Objectives such as the raising of wages and the increase in demand and mass consumption where achieved for the benefit of American industry. International finance were driven by US capital exports while the global monetary system and trade were dominated by the US dollar. Indeed, the US was able to successfully dominate using economy to establish soft power and structural power. The need for primacy in defense and security capability underlines the requirement for hard power for the US as a hegemon. As the leader, the state needs the muscle to back its soft power and protect its interests. It is all about imposing one’s will – a variable that is quite straightforward to understand. Clearly, weaponry and defense capability ensure that the US has command over land, air, sea and space.24 This outright manifestation of might does not only help to directly coerce others to submission. Rather, it also serves as a deterrent and leverage when the US deals with its enemies and rivals. The country, today, remains the biggest spender on defense, which represents about 5 percent of the American gross domestic product (Brown, p. 36). Weaponry, defense and security capability constitute the American strategy of preponderance which assumes that the US must maintain security and stability in the international system because it serves its interests.25 Rivals such as Germany and other European states also support an American leadership because without it, they will be forced to augment their capabilities for deterrence in a vicious cycle of competition and security threats. Al-Rhodan, for example notes that American military presence ensures the safe and free flow of oil to countries, ensuring cheap price that help achieve lower cost of commodities.26 American leadership is also widely seen as a necessity in terms of stability when rogue states such as North Korea, Iran and Libya pose their respective threats. Certainly, there are challenges and opportunities facing the US as a hegemon. Not a few observers, for instance, have already posited a decline in its power. This is not entirely without merit. The international system is transitioning into a world that is increasingly multipolar in character. There is, for example, the emergence of the projected mega states composed of Brazil, Russia, India and China. There are also the coalitions that might emerge involving developing economies. The emergence of these new players is aligned with the Gramscian concept of counter-hegemony or resistance to the dominant power. There are also new transnational player such as terrorist groups and even multinational companies. As a sole superpower, it will be difficult for the US to address each of these threats without wearing thin the powers in its disposal. These prompt theorists to project a diminished authority for the US. This is an important theme to further study because a hegemon in decline will resort to all sorts of exploitative means in order to protect its interest and its position. Arrighi explained that this was what happened in the case of Britain and that in the throes of its life as a hegemon, it devoted all of its energy and power to exploitative domination as opposed to pursuing a policy that was open to adjustment and accomodation.27 The neo-Gramscian perspectives have captured this development effectively in the discourse of hegemony transitions in the past. Theorists such as Hoffman, have chronicled the extent and manner of exploitative domination of declining hegemons such as the empire-building nations of Britain and France. Levantrosser and Perotti (2004) has came up with a name for the American hegemony, calling it a minimalist hegemony where a semblance of power is maintained, one that is challenged in all fronts.28 The opportunity here for the US rests on the collective fear of a collapse in the international system. Many still believe that the American hegemony is necessary to maintain international order or that once the US is removed as a major power, no one will be willing and will be capable to protect and maintain a stable international system. One could turn to several events in the past to highlight the need for American leadership. For example, in the 1970s and the 1980s, the US began withdrawing its leadership in the international political economy. This has severely weakened international institutions and brought about disturbance to international stability.29 The constituents of the international community surely know that American hegemony will not last forever. This knowledge combined with fear for the impending problems entailed in a post-American multipolar world, will guarantee a high degree of cooperation for American policies and strategies today. Drawing from this condition, America could then work on improving and resolving the contradictions that the Gramscian school identified as its weaknesses. Conclusion The Gramscian perspective demonstrates its usefulness when it effectively explains the narrative of American hegemony even the superpower’s experience to this day. Neo-Gramscian theorists contribute greatly in this respect. Collectively, they are able to determine the dynamics of power in a unipolar world, particularly with respect to how the US has built and supported the international system and how it deals with other actors in the international community. As a hegemon, America has been engaged in strategies and campaign to perpetuate its status as a world power. Neo-Gramscian perspectives help us better understand the American policies and behavior better including its impact in the world stage. They are also successful in explaining the multipolar world phenomenon within the discourse of hegemony, particularly with respect to the counter forces that challenge the hegemon’s power. Again, the United States is the only superpower in the world system with no credible rivals or contending power to challenge its domination. The fall of the Soviet Union meant that the rest of major players in the world stage are merely great powers with insufficient clout and capabilities to rival that of the United States’. Neo-Gramscian perspectives have enlightened us about the need for several elements of power to support hegemony. All of the great powers today do not have the means, resources and infrastructure to achieve and maintain domination in the international system. On the other hand, the United States is also perceived to be in decline. The neo-Gramscian school attributes this to the rise of emergent state powers and transnational forces. As a result, the American ability to maintain its status as superpower is now open to debate. Indeed, the question is not about whether the decline could be arrested because the American hegemony cannot be expected to last forever. The issue now is what will happen to the world system if America ceased to be the leader. The American behavior addressing its status as well as the opportunities and threats to its superpower position has far reaching impact to the international system. Some theorists cite that the most adverse of these is the collapse of the international system itself. The neo-Gramscian perspectives tell us about this development with great insights. They also inform us that the decline may be protracted on account of the American control of the international system. Currently, it still underwrites the cohesion and expansion of the international system.30 If it persists, the US is assured of its power because it is the primary beneficiary of the system, after all. Its defense and security capabilities are still the best. This strong combination of strong and hard power will allow it to navigate an increasingly multipolar world in the future. Bibliography Al-Rodhan, Nayef. Policy Briefs on the Transcultural Aspects of Security and Stability. Berlin: LIT Verlag Munster, 2006. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso, 2006. Armijo, Leslie. Debating the Global Financial Architecture: The Perspective of Economic Reforms in China. New York: SUNY Press, 2002. Arrighi, Giovanni. Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. Astley, Jeff and Francis, Leslie. Critical Perspectives on Christian Education: A Reader on the Aims, Principles and Philosophy of Christian Education. Hertfordshire: Gracewing Publishing, 1994. Ayers, Alison. Gramsci, Political Economy, and International Relations Theory: Modern Princes and Naked Emperors. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Brown, Stuart. The Future of US Global Power: Delusions of Decline. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Brown, Michael, Cote, Owen, Lynn-Jones, Sean and Miller, Steven. Americas Strategic Choices. MIT Press, 2000. Cafruny, Alan. Ruling the Waves: The Political Economy of International Shipping. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Cheah, Pheng and Culler, Jonathan. Grounds of Comparison: Around the Work of Benedict Anderson. London: Routledge, 2013. David, Charles-Philippe and Grondin, David. Hegemony or Empire?: The Redefinition of US Power under George W. Bush. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013. Debrix, Francois and Lacy, Mark. The Geopolitics of American Insecurity: Terror, Power and Foreign Policy. London: Routledge, 2009. Foucault, Michel. "The subject and power." In Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Ferguson, Niall. Colossus: The price of Americas Empire. New York: Penguin, 2004. Frank, Andre and Gills, Barry. The World System: Five Hundred Years Or Five Thousand?. London: Routledge, 1996. Germain, R.D. and Kenny, M. Engaging Gramsci: International relations theory and the new Gramscians. Review of International Studies, 24, no. 1 (1998), 3-21. Gills, Barry. "The hegomonic transitions in East Asia: A historical perspective." In Stephen Gill (ed.) Gramsci and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Happold, Matthew. International Law in a Multipolar World. London: Routledge, 2013. Hoffman, Matthew. Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence and Contestation. London: Rotuledge, 2006. Levantrosser, William and Perotti, Rosanna. A Noble Calling: Character and the George H.W. Bush Presidency. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004. Lukes, Steven. Power, Second Edition: A Radical View. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. McNally, Mark and Schwarzmantel, John. Gramsci and Global Politics: Hegemony and Resistance. London: Routledge, 2009. Modelski, George and Thompson, William. Sea Power in Global Politics 1494-1993. London: Macmillan, 1988. Overbeek, Henk. Restructuring Hegemony in the Global Political Economy: The Rise of Transnational Neo-Liberalism in the 1980s. London: Routledge, 2002. Parmar, Inderjeet and Cox, Michael. Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. London: Routledge, 2010. Rapkin, D.P. World Leadership and Hegemony. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1990. Reus-Smit, C. and Snidal, D. The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Rosenau, James and Singh, J.P. Information Technologies and Global Politics: The Changing Scope of Power and Governance. New York: SUNY Press, 2002. Spiro, David. The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets. New York: Cornell University Press. Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. Longgrove, IL: Waveland Press, 2010. Williams, Raymond. Marxism and literature. London: Oxford University Press, 1977. Read More