Neo-Gramscianism
is the critical theory based on studying of the international relations and
global political economy. This theory investigates various ideas, institutes
and their material resources as they form concrete contours of the state
formation.

   Neo-
Gramscianism analyzes how concrete social forces, the states and the dominating
ideological formations define and keep world order. Proceeding from it,
neogramscian approach destroys the long-term stagnation and contradictions
existing between so-called realistic school of a thought and the liberal
theory. This approach makes theoretical bases of two directions historic as a
part of a certain world order, and tries to find interrelation in the relations
between a functional and structural component.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

  The critical
theory of the international relations is developed by Robert Cox who applies
Gramsci’s principle to the international relations. The main idea of this
theory is under strong influence of works of Antonio Gramsci. He considered social factor of impact on historical
processes. A concept of social factor or civil society which, without being
directly neither political, nor economic, nevertheless, plays sometimes a key
role. Gramsci called it ‘the doctrine about hegemony.’

   Robert Cox,
the former Marxist, such classical Marxist, applies gramscian model to the
theory of international relations. Also begins to consider everything that
occurs in the sphere of the international relations from the point of view of
hegemony. That is, from his point of view, there is a hegemonic discourse in
the international relations which not only is produced by heads of states, not
only class structures which are interested in comprehending the relations
between the states anyway in own interests. But there is still a huge number of
representatives of science, theorists of the theory of the international
relations which accompany this imperious game and are hegemony carriers.

  The critical
theory of Robert Cox is engaged in creation of a counter- hegemonic discourse. That
is, the critical theory, despite the radical revolutionism, quite acceptable
paradigm in the international relations.

  Further we
will consider the main ideas stated by Cox in article “Gramsci, hegemony
and the international relations: The essay about a method” the 1983rd
year. This article establishes understanding by Cox of what Gramsci means by
hegemony and concepts, adjacent to it. Cox shows how these concepts can be
adapted, keeping the main sense, not deforming understanding of a problem of a
world order. Cox itself says about the article that it “is not criticism
of the political theory of a research of Gramsci, and only brings some ideas
useful to revision of the current theory of the international relations out of
his theory”.

   In his
article, Cox stops on origin of the theory of hegemony. He writes that there
are two main directions conducting to the idea of hegemony of Gramsci.

   The first
should be looked for from discussions within the Third International concerning
the strategy of Bolshevist revolution and creation of the Soviet socialist state.
“Gramsci, in fact, undertook the idea which was propagandized in circles
of the Third International: workers carry out hegemony over allied classes and
dictatorship over the enemy of classes”. According to Cox, In Northern
Europe, in the countries where capitalism was for the first time established,
hegemony the bourgeoisie was established most fully.

   The second
line leading to the ideas of hegemony of Gramsci is traced in Machiavelli’s
compositions and helps to expand potential scope of this concept even more.
Gramsci analyzed that Machiavelli, especially wrote in work
“Sovereign”, on a problem creation of the new state.

  Cox asks a
question ‘whether the concept of hegemony of Gramsha is applicable at the
international or world level?’

   Extending from the national level to
international

  At application
of the concept of hegemony in a world order, becomes important to define when
the period of hegemony begins and when comes to its end. The period in which
world hegemony was it is created it is possible to call hegemonic and in what
domination without hegemony, not hegemonic prevails. Illustrating it, Cox
considers the last century and a half present, divided into four various
periods, 1845-1875,1875-1945,1945-1965 and since 1965 till present.

  It turns out
that historically to become hegemonic, the state have to find and protect world
order which was universal, i.e. not an order in which one state directly
exploits others, but an order, at most of which the states (or, at least those,
within reach from hegemony) which can find interests compatible to the interests.

World supremacy, thus, at the beginning is external
expansion of the internal (national) hegemony established by the dominating
social class.

   Hegemony at
the international level is … not merely an order among states. It is an

order within a world economy with a dominant mode of
production which penetrates

into all countries and links into other subordinate
modes of production. It is also a

complex of international social relationships which
connects the social classes of the

different countries1.

   The global
hegemony is described as social structure, economic and political structures.
It cannot exist when only one component functions or prevails. Hegemony is an
interaction of all three structures together. The global hegemony is only in
that case possible.

  World hegemony,
besides, is expressed in universal norms, institutes and mechanisms which
establish the general rules of conduct for the states and for those forces of
civil society which work outside national borders – rules which are supported
by the dominating way of production.

  One of
mechanisms via which universal norms of world hegemony are expressed is the
international organization. The international organization functions as process
by means of which institutes of hegemony and ideology are developed.

  The
international organization functions as process by means of which institutes of
hegemony and ideology develop. Among features of the international
organizations which express the role of predominant force are:

1. The organizations include the general rules which
promote expansion of a hegemonic world order.

2. They are a product of such world order.

3. They ideologically legalize norms of a world order.

4. They co-opt elite of the peripheral countries.

5. They absorb the counterhegemonic ideas.

    Also in
article Cox argues on the prospects of counter- hegemony.

   He writes
that prolonged crisis in world economy (which beginning can be carried to the
end of the 1960th and the beginning of the 1970th) is favorable for some
enterprises which can lead to counterhegemonic problems.

   The new
effective political organization will be required to rally the new working
classes generated by the international production and to build the bridge for
peasants and city outcasts. Without it, it is only possible to imagine process
where local political elite, even such which are result of unsuccessful
revolutionary shift strengthens the power in the monopolistic and liberal world
order. Reconstruction of the monopolistic and liberal hegemony will be quite
capable to carry out a trasformismo, regulating many types of National
Institutes and the practician, including nationalization of branches.

 America has the right, owing to the
prosperity, the most fair society, to interpose in the matter of other states
and to help them to go to democratization: To Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

Notion of ‘Counter- hegemony’ as the pathway to an
Alternative Order

The concept of counter- hegemony is entered by Robert
Cox as generalization of a grams?ism and its application to a global situation.
He says that today all system of the international relations is constructed on
hegemony service. Everything that is told us about the relations of the states,
about sense of history, about wars and invasions, is clean promotion of
hegemony of world oligarchical elite. Substantially this construct keeps on an
axis of the intellectuals or the intellectuals choosing hegemony.

 

    R. Cox asks
about creation of an intellectual design of global alternative revolutionary
reality and for this purpose he enters the term of counter- hegemony, giving it
fundamental justification. He speaks about need of the global historical block
of the world intellectuals choosing revolution, choosing criticism of the
status quo, and that the most important, is not obligatory on the Marxist for a
basis because the Marxism assumes a certain economic fatal predisposition of
historical processes. R. Cox considers that historical process is open and in
this regard domination of the capital is a construct. In it differs from
neomarxists very markedly, including from Vallerstayn.

 

   This post-positivistic,
constructivistic, postmodern idea of R. Cox which essence is that in the
conditions of globalization it is necessary to ask about counter- hegemony so
globally as the bourgeois and liberal hegemony, carrying out trasformismo, will
break a caesarism sooner or later.

 

   The second
principle which is entered by Cox, this countersociety as today’s global
society is based on domination of the bourgeois and liberal principles i.e. is
society of hegemony. This society of hegemony in language, in images, in
technologies, in policy, in customs, in art, in fashion, in everything.

 

   Respectively
it is necessary to construct counter- society. Everything that is good in
global society, has to be destroyed, and instead of it new society, perhaps,
society with the return sign has to be constructed. Instead of domination of
the universal principles it is necessary to build local communes, instead of
the liberal monologue we have to build a polylogue of organic cultures. Thus,
counter-society will represent an alternative to that society which exist
today, in all its basic principles.

    Aiter- globalization movement represents
Coxian counter- hegemony

 

   Conclusion

    In
conclusion Robert Cox gives a conclusion that the problem of change of a world
order begins with long, labor-consuming effort on creation of the new
historical block within national borders.

    As for
present world order that, critically estimating the own theory, Cox says that,
today the world can develop according to two possible scenarios. If to consider
a world order as it appears today, then there is a prevailing historical
structure, also as well as there are public forces which work on an alternative
historical configuration of forces, the rival historical structures.

   One of these
scenarios is that relative decline of the American power concedes to more
multiple world with several centers of world forces. These forces will act as
the continuous agreement of constantly adjustable modus vivendi similar to the
European balance of a power supply system of the 19th century, but now on a
global scale. But one widespread threat will hang over this process of
negotiations on correction of the imperious relations, and it is a problem of
global warming and fragility of the biosphere which puts pressure upon all
mankind to achieve progress in coordination of private interests in common
interests of rescue of the planet.

  Other scenario
is that continuation of fight for world supremacy, the prevailing condition
from the American side, is “a full range of domination”, pushing
together forces of the USA against potential strengthening of the Eurasian
power. War with terrorism which is waged by the USA renews need of the USA for
world supremacy.

  Trasformismo
is in what China since 1980 is engaged, than Putin’s Russia, especially during
Medvedev’s era is engaged, than the Islamic states are engaged recently. They
incorporate some elements of the West, capitalism, democracy, political
institutes of division of the authorities, help to take place to the middle
class, follow the tastes of the national bourgeoisie, internal hegemony and
international external hegemony, but do all this not up to the end, not really,
at the level of a facade to keep monopoly for the political power which is not
strictly hegemony.

Written by
admin
x

Hi!
I'm Colleen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out