Neo-Gramscianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
International relations theory
Portal icon Politics portal

Neo-Gramscianism applies a critical theory approach to the study of International Relations (IR) and the Global Political Economy (GPE) that explores the interface of ideas, institutions and material capabilities as they shape the specific contours of the state formation. The theory is heavily influenced by the writings of Antonio Gramsci.[1]

Neo-Gramscianism analyzes how the particular constellation of social forces, the state and the dominant ideational configuration define and sustain world orders. In this sense, the Neo-Gramscian approach breaks the decades-old stalemate between the so-called realist schools of thought, and the liberal theories by historicizing the very theoretical foundations of the two streams as part of a particular world order, and finding the interlocking relationship between agency and structure. Furthermore, Karl Polanyi, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Niccolò Machiavelli, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Michel Foucault are cited as major sources within the Critical theory of International Relations.[2]

Origins of the Neo-Gramscian perspective[edit]

The beginning of the Neo-Gramscian perspective can be traced to York University professor emeritus, Robert W. Cox's article "Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory", in Millennium 10 (1981) 2, and "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method", published in Millennium 12 (1983) 2. In his 1981 article, Cox demands a critical study of IR, as opposed to the usual "problem-solving" theories, which do not interrogate the origin, nature and development of historical structures, but accept for example that states and the (supposedly) "anarchic" relationships between them as Kantian Dinge an sich.

However Cox disavows the label Neo-Gramscian despite the fact that in a follow-up article, he showed how Gramsci's thought can be used to analyze power structures within the GPE. Particularly Gramsci's concept of hegemony, vastly different from the realists' conception of hegemony, appears fruitful. Gramsci's state theory, his conception of "historic blocs" – dominant configurations of material capabilities, ideologies and institutions as determining frames for individual and collective action – and of élites acting as "organic intellectuals" forging historic blocs, is also deemed useful.

The Neo-Gramscian approach has also been developed along somewhat different lines by Cox's colleague, Stephen Gill, distinguished research professor of political science at York University in Toronto. Gill contributed to showing how the elite Trilateral Commission acted as an "organic intellectual", forging the (currently hegemonic) ideology of neoliberalism and the so-called "Washington Consensus" and later in relation to the globalization of power and resistance in his book "Power and Resistance in the New World Order" (Palgrave 2003). Outside of North America, the so-called "Amsterdam School" around Kees Van Der Pijl and Henk Overbeek (at VU University Amsterdam) and individual researchers in Germany, notably in Düsseldorf, Kassel and Marburg as well as at the Centre for Global Political Economy at the University of Sussex in the UK, and other parts of the world, have adopted the neo-Gramscian critical method.

Basics of the neo-Gramscian perspective[edit]

In the mainstream approaches to international or global political economy the ontological centrality of the state is not in question. In contrast, Neo-Gramscianism, using an approach which Henk Overbeek, Professor of International Relations at the VU University, calls transnational historical materialism, "identifies state formation and interstate politics as moments of the transnational dynamics of capital accumulation and class formation".[3]

Neo-Gramscianism perceives state sovereignty as subjugated to a global economic system marked by the emergence of a transnational financial system and a corresponding transnational system of production. The major players in these systems, multinational corporations and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF, have evolved into a "transnational historic bloc" that exercises global hegemony (in contrast to the realist view of hegemony as the "predominant power of a state or a group of states").[4] The historic bloc acquires its authority through the tacit consent of the governed population gained through coercive techniques of intellectual and cultural persuasion, largely absent violence. It links itself to other social groups that have been involved in political struggles[5] to expand its influence and seeks to solidify its power through the standardization and liberalization of national economies, creating a single regulatory regime (e.g. World Trade Organization).

There are powerful forces opposing the progress of this historic bloc who may form counterhegemonies to challenge it as part of an open-ended class struggle. These might include neo-mercantilists who depend on the protection of tariffs and state subsidies, or alliances of lesser developed countries, or feminist and environmentalist movements in the industrialized west. [6] If a counterhegemony grows large enough it is able to subsume and replace the historic bloc it was born in. Neo-Gramscians use the Machiavellian terms war of position and war of movement to explain how this is possible. In a war of position a counterhegemonic movement attempts, through persuasion or propaganda, to increase the number of people who share its view on the hegemonic order; in a war of movement the counterhegemonic tendencies which have grown large enough overthrow, violently or democratically, the current hegemony and establish themselves as a new historic bloc.[7] [8]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Jameson, Fredric; Larsen, Neil (1988). The Ideologies of Theory: Essays 1971-1986. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-00658-9. 
  2. ^ Jameson, Fredric; Larsen, Neil (1988). The Ideologies of Theory: Essays 1971-1986. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-00658-9. 
  3. ^ [Henk Overbeek, Transnational Historical Materialism in Global Political Economy: Contemporary Theories (ed. Ronan Palan), Routledge: 2000, pg. 168-9.]
  4. ^ [Theodore H. Cohn, Global Political Economy: Theory and Practice, Pearson: 2005, pg. 130-131.]
  5. ^ Emre, Iseri (2007). Neo-Gramscian Analysis of US Hegemony Today. 
  6. ^ [R.J. Barry Jones, Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy, Routledge: 2001, pg. 1106.]
  7. ^ Robert W. Cox. Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method, Millennium 12 No. 2 (1983) p. 162-175.
  8. ^ Cox, Robert W. (1983). "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: and Essay in Method". Millienium 12 (2): 162–175. 

External links[edit]

  • Andreas Bieler, Adam David Morton:
    • Theoretical and Methodological Challenges of neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Political Economy [1]
    • Teaching Neo-Gramscian Perspectives [2]
  • Kees van der Pijl, The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class, London Verso, 1984. Published online 2004 [3]