On the Limits of Neo-Gramscian International Relations

Abstract

This chapter argues for a more structural approach to the question of hegemony. This may seem like a strange project given that the introduction of Gramsci into International Relations (IR) would seem to be precisely in order to do the opposite. But in turning to Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, neo-Gramscians in IR are looking for a way to counter the sterile structuralism of neorealism’s account of power politics. In mainstream IR usage, hegemony is taken to mean dominance without any recourse to a consensual element. Such dominance is founded on a preponderance of material capabilities. Those in IR who have turned to Gramsci do so in order to introduce a more ideological and consensual element to relations of domination. In contrast to realist power politics, the introduction of Gramsci into IR is designed to highlight the importance of an ideological, consensual, value- and understanding-based account of world order. As Robert Cox explains, I use “hegemony” to mean a structure of values and understandings about the nature of order that permeates a whole system of states and non-state entities. In a hegemonic order these values and understandings are relatively stable and unquestioned.… Hegemony derives from the ways of doing and thinking of the dominant social strata of the dominant state or states.1