To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Power and hegemony.
Journal articles on the topic 'Power and hegemony'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Power and hegemony.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Lo Bianco, Andrea, and Natalia Valdés del Toro. "The Hegemon’s Perspective, Part I. On the inner source and morphology of world power and hegemony." Relaciones Internacionales, no. 46 (February 28, 2021): 41–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.15366/relacionesinternacionales2021.46.003.
Full textAbstract:
Modernity unfolds through the unrelenting exploitation, appropriation, and dispossession of human and natural substance; through the radical devaluation of nature, both human and extra-human; on hierarchy, racism, patriarchy, all in service to capitalist accumulation. A grasp of what lies at the base of one of the most important world-historical mechanisms of power formation and systemic reproduction that has hitherto kept the capitalist world-system/ecology going, hegemony, can be relevant for the formulation of new strategies of contention and practices of anti-systemic movements against this perverse mode of life organization. Such a grasp, thus, can be regarded as part of the anti-systemic program towards a more just society and ecologically-devoted humanity. Understanding how a hegemon can form and produce power can be conducive to the comprehension of how to jam or confront such a world-systemic mechanism, which is pivotal for the unabated expansion and reproduction of capitalism. This investigation endeavors to shed some light on this agency of world-historical power and systemic re/production. More to the point, it will posit a methodological way of reading and understanding the inner source and morphology of the hegemonic power. This paper, however, represents the spadework for further research. As we shall see, the complexity of the argument imposed a provisional “ecological expurgation”. As a consequence, nature will be silenced in Part I. The reasons for such a painful expurgation will be clear once we delve into the articulation of analysis and narrative. Such methodological and conceptual weakness is to be overcome through further research in Part II. It shall posit a complete hegemon’s perspective, namely, a world-ecological perspective on the hegemonic power. Part I, hence, will explore part of the material relational complexity that spawns hegemony in reality. On the present groundwork indeed, an understanding of the hegemonic power through post-Cartesian, that is, a world-ecological lens, could be unfolded to the fullest, both methodologically and historically. Provisional and fictional separation calls for permanent and lifelike reconstitution —which is the final aim of the research—. Part I will not engage in a traditional analysis of hegemony as a projection of power towards and onto world space. By contrast, it will deal with how a hegemon succeeds in projecting such power; that is, how the hegemon manages to internally generate power enough to make masses and states throughout the world captive and legible to the hegemon’s project of world leadership and historical development. What is seldom acknowledged is that a hegemon, before projecting power outward, must develop an internal formula. Hence, through this (provisional) methodological frame it will be argued that it is not simply an overt power that defines a hegemon, but its infra-structural power. More to the point, in Part I will posit the hegemon as a regime of power accumulation wherein state, capital and society work hand in glove with a particular degree of coherence developed within the established, or legal, boundaries of its territorial sovereignty. The internal organization of power that originates from this “coherent work” breeds hegemony, that is, the capacity to project power towards and onto world space. Part I purports to provide a way to explain analytically the hegemon’s organization, control, and logistics in order to understand sociospatial capacity for infrastructural power — a mode for investigating the tangled whole of powers, relations and networks that makes and permeates the fabric of the hegemon itself -. I would here hint at the world-ecological reading of the hegemon. In short: the world-ecological perspective of the Hegemon thinks of hegemonic power not solely as infra-structural power but as infra-relational power —meaning the capacity to historically design first, and then organize the project of power, science and nature by activating operations to harness the relational forces between humans and nature (as well as within both and their own inextricable intertwining) in service of capitalist power—. The hegemon is thus an organization of human-and-extra-human space that extensively and intensively re/produces, organizes, mobilizes and maximizes human-and-extra-human wealth, knowledge and interaction better than any other organization in the modern world-ecology. In short: before projecting power outward, the hegemon must develop a socioecological formula. Thus, from a complete hegemon’s perspective, hegemony is firstly an inner actual world-ecological design of the world. This is the idea behind the methodological and historical investigation of world-ecology to be carried out. Part I maintains that hegemonic power is the product of a trialectic unity of state, capital and society in which multiple overlapping and intersecting spatial networks of power, and the attendant immanent relations, are viewed as constitutive of the working totality. A hegemon deploys the most coherent – efficient and effective – design and operationalization of infrastructural power. Complementary then, hegemonic infrastructural power is to be also seen as the specifically-organic product and conflation of extensive and intensive power – firstly, within its own legal space and borders. The hegemon is a regime of power accumulation that extensively and intensively re/produces, organizes, mobilizes, and maximizes wealth, knowledge and interaction better than any other organization in the modern world-system. Hence, compared to any other jurisdiction that vies with it, a hegemonic regime manages to generate and combine the highest organizational cooperation (put simply: cooperation among the largest number of people with and through the most expansive management of resources – extensive power) with the greatest organizational command (put simply: the highest level of commitment from participants and utilization of resources – intensive power). The investigation of networks and relations, (bundled by) extensive and intensive power, is, in short, the method being argued for. As a whole, this will allow us to see the socio-spatial dynamic of infrastructural power production and to account for (the coherence of) the hegemon’s structure – the hegemony’s source. Finally, this is to prepare the ground, on the one hand, for the factual analysis of the hegemons’ historical development, since it purports to provide a useful framework to investigate the hegemons’ historical organization as well as the manifold web of power relations contained within it. On the other, it provides, as a whole, the springboard through which to unfold the world-ecological perspective on the hegemon, both methodologically and historically.
2
Morales Ruvalcaba, Daniel. "Ciclos políticos hegemónicos: implicaciones para la gobernanza internacional." Brazilian Journal of International Relations 7, no. 3 (November 12, 2018): 452–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.36311/2237-7743.2018.v7n3.03.p452.
Full textAbstract:
El hegemón es un actor fundamental en la gobernanza internacional. No obstante, mientras que el comercio, poder y guerra han sido temas ampliamente abordados desde los estudios sobre hegemonía en las Relaciones Internacionales, se ha avanzado poco en análisis de las ideas que orientan el comportamiento del hegemón. La hipótesis aquí planteada es que las hegemonías recorren a lo largo de su existencia cinco fases (emergencia, despliegue, apogeo, declive y extinción) y, durante cada una de ellas, el Estado hegemónico asume ideologías específicas que orientan su comportamiento internacional, lo cual se traduce en la promoción de ciertas políticas internacionales, así como de alianzas y organizaciones internacionales con vocaciones específicas. Sin embargo, en la medida que evoluciona su poder nacional y el hegemón transita de una fase a otra, éste tiende a cambiar ideológicamente, abandonando ideas previas y asumiendo otras nuevas. Si bien dicha transición ideológica es pragmática -en función de las necesidades de su poder nacional- este cambio resulta discordante y criticable por otros actores del sistema. Este documento se compone de dos grandes partes: en la primera se establecen las cinco fases de un ciclo hegemónico y, luego, se exponen las ideologías que orientan el comportamiento del Estado hegemónico en ellas; la segunda parte se orienta a comprobar empíricamente las transiciones ideológicas durante las hegemonías neerlandesa, británica y estadounidense.
Abstract: The hegemon is a fundamental actor in international governance. However, while trade, power and war have been topics widely discussed from studies on hegemony in International Relations, little progress has been made in analyzing the ideas that guide the behavior of the hegemon. The hypothesis proposed here is that the hegemonies pass through five phases during their existence (emergence, deployment, apogee, decline and extinction) and, during each of them, the hegemonic State assumes specific ideologies that guide its international behavior. However, as the national power evolves, and the hegemon moves from one phase to another, it tends to change ideologically, abandoning previous ideas and assuming new ones. Although this ideological transition is pragmatic - depending on the power needs of the hegemon- this change results discordant and is criticized by other actors in the system. To demonstrate this, the following document is composed of two major parts: the first presents the five phases of a hegemonic cycle and, along with it, the ideologies that guide the behavior of the hegemonic State; the second part aims to empirically verify the ideological transitions during the hegemonies that have existed: the Dutch, the British and the American.
Keywords: Hegemony, hegemonic political cycles, ideology, national power, hegemonic interregnum.
Recebido em: Agosto/2018.
Aprovado em: Dezembro/2018.
3
Nexon, Daniel H., and Iver B. Neumann. "Hegemonic-order theory: A field-theoretic account." European Journal of International Relations 24, no. 3 (July 4, 2017): 662–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354066117716524.
Full textAbstract:
This article outlines a field-theoretic variation of hegemonic-order theory — one inspired primarily by the work of Pierre Bourdieu. We argue that hegemony derives from the possession of a plurality of meta-capital in world politics; hegemons exercise “a power over other species of power, and particularly over their rate of exchange.” Recasting conventional hegemonic-order theories along these lines carries with it at least three advantages: it helps bridge the differences between realist and neo-Gramscian approaches to hegemony; it provides scaffolding for exploring the workings of hegemony and hegemonic ordering across different scales; and it better addresses the fact that hegemonic powers are enabled and constrained by international order itself. After reviewing some of the major variants of hegemonic-order theory, we explore Bourdieu’s understanding of hegemony and cognate concepts. We then elaborate on our field-theoretic approach, with examples drawn from US foreign relations and the Roman Empire. Finally, we provide a longer illustrative sketch in the form of a discussion of Roman ordering and its longue durée influence on social, political, and cultural fields in world politics.
4
HE, KAI. "The hegemon's choice between power and security: explaining US policy toward Asia after the Cold War." Review of International Studies 36, no. 04 (May 21, 2010): 1121–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210510000227.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractAfter the Cold War, US strategists have suggested four strategies for the hegemon: hegemonic dominion, selective engagement, offshore balancing, and multilateralism. Rather than debating which strategy is the best for the US at all times, this article focuses on examining which policy is more likely to be chosen by the hegemon – the US – under different strategic conditions. Through a neoclassical realist argument – the power-perception hegemonic model, I argue that US foreign policy depends on how US policymakers perceive US hegemonic status in the international system. Under rising and stable hegemony, selective engagement and hegemonic dominion are two possible power-maximisation strategies given the weak security constraints from the system. Under declining hegemony, offshore balancing and multilateralism are more likely to be chosen by US policymakers to pursue security because of a resumed security imperative from anarchy. US policy toward Asia after the Cold War is a case study to test the validity of the power-perception hegemonic model. I conclude that US policymakers should prepare for life after Pax-Americana, and early implementation of offshore balancing and multilateralism may facilitate the soft-landing of declining US hegemony.
5
Raouf, Huda. "Iranian quest for regional hegemony: motivations, strategies and constrains." Review of Economics and Political Science 4, no. 3 (July 12, 2019): 242–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/reps-02-2019-0017.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study and specify to what extent Iran will succeed in being a regional hegemon. The paper is devoted to clarification of the constitutive elements for regional hegemony. These elements will be related to an actor’s perception of its role and regional perception, and how these hegemons exert power, do these work for the public good in the region (provision) and how this regional power projects power and exerts power to influence others’ preferences and values without reference to violence (projection). For the Middle East, Iran emerged as a key player in most regional conflicts and it tried to increase its sphere of influence as a regional hegemon. Therefore the question here would be: To what extend could Iran succeed in being a regional hegemon and what are the circumstances that could enhance or constrain this Iranian ambition? So the aim of the paper is to look at three dimensions in general and see whether Iran makes a plausible candidate for regional hegemony. The paper outlines the essential traits of a regional hegemon, and the main elements that constitute a regional hegemony such as perception, provision and projection, and then analyze how Iran follows those elements by analyzing internal perceptions of the Iranian elite about Iranian regional role, regional acceptance, provision of public good, projection and finally impact of the relation with external great powers. Through analyzing its regional strategy in Syria and Iraq since 2003, the year of invasion of Iraq, since ever a political vacuum was created, that enabled Iran to extend its regional influence, after the fall of its historical regional rival, Saddam Hussein baathi regime. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts an analytical framework of analyzing a regional hegemony strategy which is approached by Miriam Prys in her study “Hegemony, domination, detachment: differences in regional powerhood” to study and analyze Iran’s regional behavior as one of regional power that is seeking regional hegemony. This analytical framework is one of the most significant analytical tools that interests in the study of the behavior of regional power and identify the constitutive dimensions for regional hegemony such as self-perception, regional perception, provision and power projection. Findings The study concludes that there are obstacles completely in front of achieving the Iranian quest to regional hegemony over the Middle East. These are the continuing US involvement in the Middle East and the consequent tense relationship between Iran and the USA. It is most unlikely that Iran will be hegemonic state over the Middle East as long as there are refusal and resistance from other regional states for Iranian regional role; as each of regional powers has tools to contain the influence of the other. The Iranian regional behavior that is sectarianism-based, whether to protect Shiite shrines and holy places or to protect Shiites in the region, such policies deepen the ideological and sectarian conflicts. It also has not provided an attractive cultural model for the peoples of the region. Research limitations/implications This paper enhances the deep analysis of the Middle East dynamics through the prospective of regional power. Also, the paper focuses on the analysis of the relation between great power and aspiring regional power and the impact on its strategies. Practical implications This study enhances the understanding of how Iranian decision-makers perceive their regional Iranian and the threats. Moreover, the tools that Iran uses its hard power and ideational one to create regional followers and change its allies’ normative and value systems to come in line with its national interests. Moreover, the study tries to measure the actual Iranian influence, its weakness and strength so that the Arab states and the West could behave in a fruitful way. Originality/value In the final analysis, the paper offers an insight into the regional behavior and the importance of external power in regional dynamics and to what extent the regional hegemon is applicable to Iran.
6
Paulino, Luís Antonio. "Hegemonia ou Governança Global Compartilhada. O que a China pensa?" Brazilian Journal of International Relations 7, no. 3 (November 12, 2018): 581–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.36311/2237-7743.2018.v7n3.07.p581.
Full textAbstract:
Frente à experiência histórica do Ocidente, na qual o ciclo de hegemonia, competição, guerra e nova hegemonia tem se repetido desde que o Tratado de Vestfália, em 1648, criou o atual sistema de estados-nação independentes, a ascensão recente da China à condição de grande potência e o concomitante declínio do “soft power” e do “hard power” dos Estados Unidos tem levado muitos a prever um inevitável confronto entre os dois países na disputa pela hegemonia mundial. Mesmo nos Estados Unidos, a preocupação de que a China possa vir a tomar seu lugar como potência hegemônica global tem gerado reações fortes, com a China sendo apresentada para a opinião pública como o inimigo a ser contido e derrotado. Os chineses, por seu turno, alegam que a lógica poder-hegemonia está baseada na experiência histórica dos países ocidentais e que a mesma não se aplica ao caso da China. Afirmam que não é da natureza da China buscar a hegemonia, que a China pode alcançar o desenvolvimento sem buscar a hegemonia e que a busca da hegemonia seria um convite para sua própria destruição. Para os chineses, o atual sistema de governança global pelo Ocidente está em desacordo com o atual balanço de poder mundial e, por isso, advogam um novo modelo de governança compartilhada entre o Ocidente e o Oriente.
Abstract: In the face of Western historical experience in which the cycle of hegemony, competition, war and new hegemony has been repeated since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 created the present system of independent nation-states, China's recent rise to the condition of great power and the concomitant decline of soft power and hard power in the United States has led many to foresee an inevitable confrontation between the two countries in the struggle for world hegemony. Even in the United States, concern that China may take its place as a global hegemonic power has generated strong reactions, with China being presented to public opinion as the enemy to be restrained and defeated. The Chinese, for their part, claim that the logic of power-hegemony is based on the historical experience of Western countries and that it does not apply to the case of China. They assert that it is not China's nature to seek hegemony, that China can achieve development without seeking hegemony and that the pursuit of hegemony would be an invitation to its own destruction. For the Chinese, the current system of global governance by the West is at odds with the current balance of world power and therefore advocate a new model of shared governance between the West and the East.
Key-words: China, United States, Hegemony.
Recebido em: Agosto/2018.
Aprovado em: Outubro/2018.
7
Dore, Rosemary, and Herbert Glauco de Souza. "GRAMSCI NUNCA MENCIONOU O CONCEITO DE CONTRA-HEGEMONIA." Cadernos de Pesquisa 25, no. 3 (October 11, 2018): 243. http://dx.doi.org/10.18764/2178-2229.v25n3p243-260.
Full textAbstract:
Antonio Gramsci formulou o conceito de hegemonia e Raymond Williams o de contra-hegemonia, pois considerava o primeiro lacunar. Seria mesmo? Essa pergunta orienta a abordagem aqui realizada, por meio da qual objetiva-se mostrar que o conceito de hegemonia de Gramsci explica a configuração do Estado, depois da segunda metade do século XIX, e novas estratégias de luta social. Em momento algum, Gramsci refere-se à ideia de contra-hegemonia, mesmo analisando situações que Williams interpretaria como contra-hegemônicas. O conceito de contra-hegemonia ganhou enorme difusão em âmbito internacional, em vários campos do conhecimento, de modo que se chegou a afirmar que foi produzido por Gramsci. O exame do tema utilizou como metodologia uma revisão bibliográfica de textos clássicos e de comentadores, possibilitando concluir que a ideia de contra-hegemonia é de Raymond Williams e demonstrar o não entendimento do conceito de hegemonia. O acréscimo ao corpus teórico gramsciano da categoria de contra-hegemonia manifesta também retrocesso e contradição. Retrocesso porque tal ideia se insere no contexto de guerra de movimento, da “fórmula de 1848” e aplica-se à conjuntura europeia da primeira metade do século XIX, analisada por Gramsci, quando o Estado era sinônimo de sociedade política e a sociedade civil era incipiente. Então, não havia espaço para os grupos subalternos se organizarem e influírem sobre a política estatal. Contradição porque hegemonia e contra-hegemonia se excluem mutuamente, pois, enquanto a luta pela hegemonia apenas se configura em um contexto de desenvolvimento da sociedade civil, a ideia de contra-hegemonia remete ao contexto de guerra de movimento, ao Estado-força, em que predomina a sociedade política, a coerção.GRAMSCI NEVER MENTIONED THE CONCEPT OF COUNTER-HEGEMONYAbstract: Antonio Gramsci formulated the concept of hegemony and Raymond Williams the counter-hegemony, considering the first incomplete. Was it really? This question guides the approach taken here. It is shown that Gramsci's concept of hegemony explains the configuration of the state after the second half of the nineteenth century and new strategies of social struggle. At no time, Gramsci refers to the idea of counter-hegemony, even analyzing situations that Williams would interpret as counter-hegemonic. The concept of counter-hegemony gained enormous diffusion in an international scope, in several fields of knowledge, coming to claim that it was produced by Gramsci. The examination of theme used as a methodology a bibliographical revision of classic texts and commentators, allowing to conclude that the idea of counter hegemony is of Raymond Williams and demonstrates the non-understanding of the concept of hegemony. The addition to the Gramscian theoretical corpus of the category of counter-hegemony also manifests retrogression and contradiction. Retrogression because such an idea fits into the context of war of movement, the "formula of 1848". It applies to the European context of the first half of the nineteenth century, analyzed by Gramsci, when the state was synonymous with political society and civil society was incipient. So there was no political condition for subaltern classes to organize themselves and influence state policy. Contradiction because hegemony and counter-hegemony mutually exclude each other. While the struggle for hegemony only takes place in a context of civil society development, the idea of counter-hegemony refers to the context of war of movement, characterized by the prevalence of coercion, in which political society (which rules through force) predominates.Keywords: Antonio Gramsci. Raymond Williams. Power. Hegemony. Counter-hegemony.GRAMSCI NUNCA MENCIONÓ EL CONCEPTO DE CONTRAHEGEMONÍAResumen: Antonio Gramsci formuló el concepto de hegemonía y Raymond Williams el de contra hegemonía, pues consideraba el primer incompleto. ¿Sería mismo? Esta pregunta guía el enfoque aquí adoptado, por medio del cual se objetiva mostrar que el concepto de hegemonía de Gramsci explica la configuración del Estado, después de la segunda mitad del siglo XIX, y las nuevas estrategias de la lucha social, sino que, en ningún momento, Gramsci se refiere a la idea de contra hegemonía, incluso analizando situaciones que Williams interpretaría como contra hegemónicas. El concepto de contra hegemonía ganó enorme difusión en el ámbito internacional, en varios campos del conocimiento, llegando a afirmarse que fue producido por Gramsci. El examen del tema utilizó como metodología una revisión bibliográfica de textos clásicos y de comentaristas, posibilitando concluir que la idea de contra hegemonía es de Raymond Williams y demuestra el no entendimiento del concepto de hegemonía. El acrecimiento al corpus teórico gramsciano de la categoría contra hegemonía manifiesta también retroceso y contradicción. Retroceso porque tal idea se inserta en el contexto de guerra de movimiento, de la "fórmula de 1848". Se aplica a la coyuntura europea de la primera mitad del siglo XIX, analizada por Gramsci, cuando el Estado era sinónimo de sociedad política y la sociedad civil era incipiente. Entonces no había espacio para los grupos subalternos se organizar y influir sobre la política estatal. Contradicción porque hegemonía y contra hegemonía se excluyen mutuamente, pues la lucha por la hegemonía sólo se configura en un contexto de desarrollo de la sociedad civil, la idea de contra hegemonía se remite al contexto de guerra de movimiento, al Estado-fuerza, en que predomina la sociedad política, la coerción.Palabras clave: Antonio Gramsci. Raymond Williams. Poder. Hegemonía. Contra hegemonía.
8
Zeitoun, Mark, and J. A. Allan. "Applying hegemony and power theory to transboundary water analysis." Water Policy 10, S2 (November 1, 2008): 3–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wp.2008.203.
Full textAbstract:
This paper introduces the basic concepts of hydro-hegemony which are employed in the analysis of the contributors of this special issue. It emphasises the roles of hegemony, power and political–economy processes in shaping international transboundary water relations. Central to the analysis is Lukes’ concept of the three dimensions of power and Gramscian notions of hegemony (see S. Lukes, Power: A Radical View, 2005). Hegemony depends on the skilful use of hard and soft forms of power, between formally equal parties such as nation states. Hydro-hegemony is hegemony active in international transboundary water settings, the analytical framework for which is laid out in detail by Zeitoun and Warner in Water Policy vol 8 (2006, 435–460). The challenges of conceptualising the complex nexus of international water relations are also addressed. A recurring theme is that both power and political economy processes are especially effective when they operate invisibly. The approach furthermore sets the frame for exploration of improvement of the options of hegemon riparians and non-hegemon riparians alike for more principled transboundary water governance.
9
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. "The policy maker in conference interpreting and its hegemonic power." Culture and Society 5, no. 2 (November 28, 2016): 200–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ts.5.2.03zwi.
Full textAbstract:
This paper sets out to explore the concept of hegemony in the field of conference interpreting practice. It presents the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) as the hegemon in conference interpreting and examines its power as a policy maker. The paper associates this type of investigation with the sociological turn in conference interpreting research. It takes two large-scale surveys by Feldweg (1996) and Zwischenberger (2013) as its starting point, based on the self-representations of conference interpreter members of AIIC. The examples taken from these two surveys reveal a consistent degree of consensus and highlight the hegemonic power exerted by AIIC. This study’s main focus is on appropriating the hegemony concept for conference interpreting and thereby showing that AIIC governs the entire field of conference interpreting practice. AIIC’s power as a policy maker is based on a large degree of consent, although its hegemonic power is not uncontested.
10
Rein, Marlen. "Power Asymmetry in the Mekong River Basin: The Impact of Hydro-Hegemony on Sharing Transboundary Water." Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 8, no. 1 (December 20, 2017): 127–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/vjeas-2016-0005.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Does the allocation of transboundary water strengthen cooperation among states or cause international conflicts? This is a question that is highly disputed among several scholars, whereas the arguments of both sides seem equally rational. An analogous dissent can be seen in the research area of the Mekong River. For that reason, it is rational to avoid engaging in this everlasting disagreement and rather look at the problematic question from another viewpoint. This article deals with the Mekong case from a relatively new angle by combining the concepts of power, hydro-hegemony, and coexistence of conflict and cooperation as proposed by the London Water Research Group for analysing the impacts of hydro-hegemony on water allocation. This approach enables us to observe that the power asymmetry deriving from four types of power (geographic, material, bargaining, and ideational power) gives China the position of the hydro-hegemon that is followed by five weaker non-hegemons in the following order: Laos, Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Despite the great number of collaborative groups, the non-hegemons have not been able to resist the hydro-hegemony of China effectively, as the unity of non-hegemons is mostly hampered by different national interests. Therefore, the bilateral relations of China with the other riparian states individually-especially with Laos and Cambodia-have been stronger than on the multilateral basis with the Mekong River Commission.
11
Ougaard, Morten. "Dimensions of Hegemony." Cooperation and Conflict 23, no. 4 (September 1988): 197–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001083678802300402.
Full textAbstract:
Ougaard, M. Dimensions of Hegemony. Cooperation and Conflict, XXIII, 1988, 197- 214. The first section of the article deals briefly with the history of the concept of inter national hegemony. The second section identifies several dimensions in various defi nitions of the concept. The first dimension is the distribution of resources implying that hegemony is defined as a preponderance of material power resources, while the second dimension is control over outcomes. In some definitions the hegemon has a greater control than other actors, no matter which outcomes are attained. In other definitions a specific kind of outcome is required, such as the provision of certain collective goods. A related question is whether the hegemon takes care of shared interests or is catering to its own interests, to the detriment of those of others. This points to what is arguably a somewhat neglected dimension of hegemony: the underlying pattern of interests. It is suggested that the concept of hegemony is relevant in situations with common basic interests and secondary but significant contradictory interests. In such a situation hegemony is defined as one actor's ability to provide for its own interests in conflicts of a secondary nature. The third section focuses on the patterns of interests underlying US hegemony. Three possible changes that can lead to declining hegemony are examined: increasing difficulties for the common interests, increasing incompatibility between the interests of the hegemon and its allies, and finally a growing disparity within the hegemon's own interests. The evidence is only suggestive and points in different directions, but on balance it tends to strengthen the case for declining hegemony.
12
Taylor, Peter J. "Ten Years That Shook the World? The United Provinces as First Hegemonic State." Sociological Perspectives 37, no. 1 (March 1994): 25–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1389408.
Full textAbstract:
In world-systems analysis, the United Provinces are interpreted as one of only three hegemonic states in the history of the capitalist world-economy. Unlike the subsequent hegemons Britain and the United States, the United Provinces only became an independent country just before its rise to hegemony in the early seventeenth century. This essay explores how this new small state became the first hegemon of the modern world-system. Two questions are asked: why did the area of northern Netherlands became a state, and why did this state became a hegemon? Using Mann's sources of social power, it is shown how a promiscuous combination of ideological, military, political, and economic power produced a unique state combining the economic policies of city-states with the protective capacity of territorial states. It is concluded that the Dutch promotion of an economic raison d'etat was a necessary component for the consolidation of a competitive interstate system, itself a necessary requirement for the expansion of the capitalist world-economy.
13
Oktaviany, Dhany, and Muh Rosyid Ridlo. "JARANAN KEDIRI: HEGEMONI DAN REPRESENTASI IDENTITAS." Journal of Development and Social Change 1, no. 2 (October 29, 2018): 127. http://dx.doi.org/10.20961/jodasc.v1i2.23050.
Full textAbstract:
<p>Abstract : Disscussion about jaranan art performance is never going to stand as an art alone. Jaranan art performance is part of socio-histories in Kediri’s society. There are several aims of this research such as, to know the identity representation of jaranan’s community in Kediri, to explain the rulling class’s hegemony and to explain the representation politic of jaranan Kediri’s community. Antonio Gramsci’s Hegemony theory dan Stuart Hall’s Representation theory are being used in this research. This research is located in Kota subdistict of Kediri city, East Java. This qualitative research used the etnography approach by James Spradley. Purposive sampling is being used as sampling technique in this research. Interview, focus group discussion (FGD) and documentation are being used as data collecting technique. The analysis technique is using theme analysis by Spradley. The result form this research is that, in order to face the power relation, jaranan Kediri’s community form several kind of identity representation. That identity representation such as, (1) Festival Jaranan; (2) tanggapan Jaranan; (3) dance-drama Jaranan for religious event and; (4) dance-drama lakon Dewi Sanggalangit. Jaranan Kediri isnt stop being just an art in the cultural area of Kediri’s society, but Jaranan aslo become an area of power domination in the hegemony system of rulling class. Jaranan stood as a social-cultural power in the society, make it’s hard to slipped away from the hegemony hand. There are two hegemonic alliance in the rulling class level, there are government/Islam religion alliance and economi/local elit alliance. Govenment/Islam religion using cultural-leadership based on Islam ideology and the eceonomy/local elit using fromal economy ideology. Ruling class is side on hegemony block, whereas the jaranan community stood as counter hegemony block. the hegemony fall to descedent hegemony rank. Representation politic are beling held to face the three sector which is, government, religion and economy.<br />Keywords :Jaranan, hegemony, representation, identity, politics, government, religion, economy.</p><p>Abstrak : Membicarakan kesenian jaranan tidak akan pernah bisa dibahas dalam satu topik tunggal berupa seni. Kesenian jaranan merupakan bagian integral dan sosiohistoris masyarakat kota Kediri. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui representasi identitas komunitas kesenian jaranan Kediri, menjelaskan hegemoni rulling class dan menjelaskan politik representasi idetitas dari komunitas kesenian jaranan kota Kediri. Teori yang digunakan adalah teori hegemoni yang dikemukakan oleh Antonio Gramsci dan teori representasi oleh Stuart Hall. Penelitian ini mengambil lokasi di Kecamatan Kota, Kota Kediri, Jawa Timur. Peneltitian kualitatif ini menggunakan metode penelitian yakni, studi etnografi James Spradley. Teknik pengambilan sampel data adalah dengan Purposive sampling. Teknik pengambilan data adalah dengan wawancara, FGD dan dokumentasi. Teknik analisis yang digunakan adalah teknik analisis tema yang diadaptasi dari etnografi James P. Spradley. Hasil penelitian komunitas kesenian jaranan di kota Kediri. Dalam menghadapi relasi kuasa pemerintah, agama dan pasar tersebut, komunitas kesenian jaranan membentuk empat representasi identitas yakni; (1) Jaranan festival; (2) jaranan tanggapan; (3) Jaranan Sendratari untuk acara Agama Islam dan; (4) Jaranan Sendratari lakon Dewi Sanggalangit.Kesenian jaranan tidak berakhir hanya menjadi suatu kesenian dalam aspek budaya saja namun jaranan Kediri mejadi arena dominasi kekuasaan dari rulling class. Jaranan di Kota Kediri hadir sebagai suatu kekuatan sosio-budaya rakyat, yang tak luput dari proses hegemoni oleh rulling class tersebut. Terdapat dua aliansi kelompok hegemonik yakni pemeritah/agama dan ekonomi/elit lokal. pemerintah/agama menggunakan kepemimpinan kultural dasar ideologis agama, sementara ekonomi/elit lokal menggunakan ideologi ekonomi formal. Blok hegemoni oleh rulling class dan counter hegemoni oleh komunitas jaranan. Tingkatan hegemoni yang tercipta adalah decedent hegemony. Politik representasi yang dilakukan menyasar pada tiga bidang yakni, pemerintah, agama dan pasar.</p><p>Kata kunci: Jaranan, hegemoni, representasi, identitas, politik, pemerintah, agama, pasar.</p>
14
Lash, Scott. "Power after Hegemony." Theory, Culture & Society 24, no. 3 (May 2007): 55–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276407075956.
Full text
15
Mansfield, Edward D. "The Concentration of Capabilities and International Trade." International Organization 46, no. 3 (1992): 731–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300027880.
Full textAbstract:
Over the course of the previous two decades, political scientists have become increasingly interested in the relationship between international politics and global trade. Much of the literature on this topic centers on the effects of a hegemonic distribution of power on commerce. Hegemonic stability theorists argue that hegemony is a necessary condition for the existence of a liberal economic order and that in the absence of a hegemon, a liberal international economy is particularly difficult to establish and maintain. However, a growing number of theoretical and empirical critiques have been leveled against the gemonic stability theory, and the issue of whether hegemony helps shape patterns of global trade continues to be the topic of heated debate.
16
Ogunnubi, Olusola, and Adeoye Akinola. "South Africa and the Question of Hegemony in Africa." Journal of Developing Societies 33, no. 4 (November 8, 2017): 428–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0169796x17736583.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the viability of mainstream neo-realist international relations scholarship for understanding regional power dynamics within Africa by offering a critical evaluation of the categorization of South Africa as a hegemonic power on the continent. Using the theoretical framework of hegemonic stability theory, it argues that there is a somewhat weak link between South Africa’s foreign policy character and its hegemonic disposition in Africa. The South African state, which is the driving force for political, economic and foreign policy processes, is itself subordinate in relation to international capital and lacks the influence expected of a regional hegemon. Despite South Africa’s development, the article demonstrates that its dependency provides the theoretical construct for understanding the country’s ambiguous hegemonic projection. This analytical framework captures the crux of the “hegemonic debate” as well as other conversations in relation to the adaptation of the concept of hegemony to Africa. Therefore, any application of the hegemonic discourse to South Africa necessarily requires a deeper understanding that takes cognizance of the fact that country’s regional hegemony operates within the orbit of a dependent-development paradigm in the global economic order, a neo-liberal order that continues to deepen Africa’s dependency syndrome. Dependency, as well as other complexities, impedes the reality of South Africa’s hegemonic ambitions in Africa.
17
Rana, Usha. "Cultural Hegemony and Victimisation of Bedia Women in Central India." Space and Culture, India 8, no. 2 (August 5, 2020): 96–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.20896/saci.vi0.798.
Full textAbstract:
Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci first coined the term “hegemony” and also elaborated on cultural hegemony. It is a common perception that cultural powers and organisations are hegemonic-centred, resulting in a network of invisible powers. Hegemonic power processes are an integral part of daily social and cultural practices that help to perpetuate power relations. The repercussions of hegemony can be seen in various aspects of society, such as caste, class, ethnicity, occupation, gender, tradition, etc. This paper enlightens on the gendered hegemonic cultural practice of prostitution (sex work) as a traditional institution in the Bedia community. The intensive fieldwork in Habla hamlet, a sub-village of Luhari village (village assembly) of the Bedia community in Sagar district in Madhya Pradesh, India, was conducted to reveal the hegemonic practices in the community. Forty people aged between 50 to 60 years have been interviewed for this study. Twenty females and twenty males were selected for data collection, and observations had been made in the hamlet to understand hegemony through social institutions.
Moreover, we have found that the male members are alert to the preservation of the purity and chastity of their wives but compelled their sisters and daughters, with the support of social institutions, to remain unmarried and take up prostitution (sex work). In particular, Bedias' hegemonic traditional cultural behaviour plays an essential role in the continuation of discrimination against Bedia women. Additionally, we explore the mechanism of this hegemonic power through the role of gender, patriarchy, false consciousness, emotions, power of common sense, ideology, and history, which have been responsible for the victimisation of Bedia women for a long time.
18
Menga, Filippo. "Reconceptualizing hegemony: the circle of hydro-hegemony." Water Policy 18, no. 2 (September 14, 2015): 401–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wp.2015.063.
Full textAbstract:
This paper proposes a partial reconceptualization and a redesign of the Framework of Hydro-Hegemony, an analytical tool devised to study how power, hegemony, and power asymmetries can influence transboundary water politics. This is done by presenting the original Circle of Hydro-Hegemony (CHH), an analytical framework that places the neo-Gramscian notion of hegemony at the centre of its structure, to illustrate how various forms of power are connective in the function of hegemony. Following a theoretical discussion on how the concepts of power and hegemony can interact, the case of the Aral Sea basin in Central Asia provides a practical application of the CHH to transboundary water politics.
19
Diez, Thomas. "Normative power as hegemony." Cooperation and Conflict 48, no. 2 (June 2013): 194–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010836713485387.
Full textAbstract:
This article identifies four key problems in the debate about normative power Europe that may be fruitfully tackled when linking it to the concept of hegemony: the debate about whether EU foreign and external policy is driven by norms or interests; the problem of inconsistent behaviour as a result of competing and contested norms; the question of the role of state and non-state actors in EU foreign and external policy; and the problematic standing of normative power as an academic engagement, in particular in regard to whether the theory is of primarily explanatory, descriptive or normative value. The author suggests that the concept of hegemony may address these problems. First, it combines norms and interests, thus transcending the divide that has resulted in endless debates about the EU’s standing as a normative power. Second, hegemony does not start from a pre-given set of norms with fixed meanings, but rather puts the struggles about these norms at centre stage, thus seeing inconsistencies not as undermining but as part and parcel of normative power. Third, hegemony expands our understanding of the actors involved in the construction and exercise of normative power, thus bringing not only Member States but also social forces in a much broader sense into the picture. Finally, hegemony reorientates the debate about normative power so as to reinstate the critical purpose that the concept was supposed to have from the start.
20
Baranyi, Márton. "German institutional hegemony in EU sustainability policies." Köz-gazdaság 16, no. 2 (June 20, 2021): 180–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.14267/retp2021.02.13.
Full textAbstract:
German hegemony is a research topic subject to significant academic attention, especially within the studies linked to European integration. The existence of German hegemony within the EU is disputed, but several studies and models demonstrate that German hegemony within the European Union is significant but at the same time not desired (therefore the designation of Germany as a reluctant or benevolent hegemon). Is this true for the EU policies linked to sustainability as well, i.e. can institutional German hegemony be identified in the related policy fields? The study aims at assessing German institutional power linked to sustainability in the European Union (narrowing down policies linked to sustainability to EU energy and climate policy). It concludes that, based on a novel power ranking model assessing Member States’ influence in the various EU institutions, German institutional power is not significant in the fields of EU energy and climate policy.
21
Jiang, Yang. "‘Great Power Style’ in China’s Economic Diplomacy: Filling the Shoes of a Benign Hegemon?" Hague Journal of Diplomacy 6, no. 1-2 (2011): 63–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187119111x564104.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractChina’s ascendance attracts concern, even though Beijing claims to be a responsible great power and tries to demonstrate its ‘great power style’ in economic diplomacy. This article therefore discusses the following questions: to what extent does the current notion and practice of Chinese ‘great power style’ in economic diplomacy comply with, or differ from, the criteria of benign hegemony; and what are the major constraining factors? Conceptually, China’s ‘great power style’ is rooted in ancient Chinese political philosophy and institution, but it highly resembles the Western notion of benign hegemony. Empirically, China has started to provide more public goods in trade, finance and aid, and it seeks voting powers at international institutions. However, it is still far from being a benign hegemon because of its level of development, domestic political constraints, and tension between political and economic interests.
22
Brizhinev, Dmitry, Nathan Ryan, and Roger Bradbury. "Modelling Hegemonic Power Transition in Cyberspace." Complexity 2018 (2018): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/9306128.
Full textAbstract:
Cyberspace is the newest domain of conflict and cooperation between states. In cyberspace, as in all other domains, land, sea, air, and space, these interactions often lead to the emergence of hegemons which are characterised by their predominant influence over global world order and all other states. We examined the emergence and collapse of hegemons in a modelled cyberspace world through the notions of power transition and power diffusion. We used Repast Simphony to construct a simple agent-based model (ABM) of a system of states interacting both competitively and cooperatively in this world. Our simple model parsimoniously captures the character of the real international system of states through simple parameters of wealth and power determining the outcome of attack or cooperation amongst pairwise interacting states. We found hegemons of global world order emerged in cyberspace as they do in the other traditional domains from models with these few parameters. And we found that hegemons, contrary to traditional understanding, are not exceptional states but merely occupy the tail of a continuous distribution of power and lifetimes. We also found that hegemony in the system depends on two perhaps unexpected parameters: the difficulty of acquiring power as wealth increases and the amount of cooperation between states. And as a consequence, we argue that cyberspace, as a power-diffuse domain where cooperation is easier than elsewhere, is less suited to the kind of hegemony we see in the traditional domains of state interaction.
23
Cascão, Ana Elisa. "Ethiopia–Challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile Basin." Water Policy 10, S2 (November 1, 2008): 13–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wp.2008.206.
Full textAbstract:
The Framework of Hydro-Hegemony (described by Zeitoun & Warner, in Water Policy8, pp 435–460, 2006) challenges mainstream analyses of hydro-political relations in transboundary river basins and highlights the role of power. The approach asserts that asymmetric power relations represent the cornerstone of the analysis of hydro-political relations. Varying hegemonic configurations and the unequal control of water resources among riparian states are characteristic of these relations. The hegemonic riparian in a given international transboundary water setting deploys several strategies to attain and maintain control, sometimes unilaterally, over the shared water resources. But is the control always as deep and entrenched as it sometimes seems to be? The starting point of this paper is that hydro-hegemony is not incontestable. An established hegemonic order may often be challenged and resisted through a variety of counter-hegemonic strategies. Through examination of Ethiopian contest and consent of Egyptian hydro-hegemony, this study attempts to provide insights into the condition of counter hydro-hegemony and to provide a framework for further analysis in the field of transboundary water relations. The approach explores the options available for non-hegemonic riparians to challenge a particular hydro-hegemony and finds that these come from unexpected or unacknowledged sources. An assessment of these strategies shows how non-hegemonic riparians might challenge unequal hydro-political configurations and eventually contribute towards a more sustainable and equitable water and benefit-sharing regime.
24
Subotin, A. "FUTURE OF US HEGEMONY." Actual Problems of International Relations, no. 139 (2019): 4–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/apmv.2019.139.0.4-12.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract. The demise of the bipolar system of international politics has revived interest in such closely related and contested terms as "superpower", "hegemon", "empire" and "imperialism". This article represents an attempt to define the most probable trend in the future evolution of the international system with regard to the role of the United States of America as the most prominent state power of today's world. This article seeks to analyse the US power posture in today's world politics by comparing its core capabilities to those of the classical empire of the previous century - the British Empire - with analytical emphasis on both the "hard power" and the "soft power" dimensions. The author maintains that the notion of US hegemony or even American Empire is still relevant despite a clear historic tendency of hegemonic decline seen throughout the second part of the 20th century. The United States still ranks high on the scale of most traditional power factors and, what is by far more important, they continue to be able to shape and control the scale and the volume of international exposure of all other major players within the framework of contemporary global international system. The relative decline of US influence upon world politics at the beginning of the new millennia has been effectively off-set by the profound change in the nature of American power which is now assuming the form of a structural dominance. The author's personal view is that US hegemony is not doomed to wane, given the enormous impact the United States have already made economically, politically and intellectually upon the post World War II international relations. The continuance of the US playing the pivotal role in the international politics of the 21st century will be dependent on the ability of the US political class to adapt to and to harness the social power of numerous non-state international actors that are due take over the leading role in the future world's politics.
25
Djohar, Hasnul Insani. "The Power of Hegemonic Classes in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby." Buletin Al-Turas 19, no. 2 (January 23, 2018): 297–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.15408/bat.v19i2.3722.
Full textAbstract:
Topik dari tulisan ini adalah untuk membahas kajian budaya dengan berfokus pada hegemoni budaya, memperkenalkan gagasan dari kelompok yang berkuasa untuk mengontrol masyarakat. Tulisan ini akan mengangkat isu bagaimana kelas-kelas yang menguasai hidup pada tahun 1920an. Tujuan dari tulisan ini adalah untuk menganalisis The Great Gatsby karya Scott Fitgerald untuk menyimpulkan tentang gambaran kelas dan kekuatan aristrokrasi untuk mendominasi kelompok yang tidak berkuasa, dengan menggunakan kajian budaya, dari teori hegemoni Antonio Gramci. Secara khusus, penelitian ini berfokus pada perjuangan Jay Gatsby untuk menghadapi hegemoni kelompok aristokratik, yang kekuasaannya sangat berpengaruh. Dalam cerita tersebut, kelompok kaya baru, yang diwakili oleh Jay Gatsby, hidup di daerah West Egg, sementara kelompok aristokratik, yang diwakili oleh Tom Buchanan, tinggal di East Egg. Tom selalu menjadi pemenang karena dia datang dari kelompok aristokratik, yang keluarganya sangat berpengaruh. Oleh karena itu, Gatsby selalu kalah dalam persaingan melawan Tom walaupun sebesar apapun Gatsby berkuasa. Dengan mempelajari perjuangan Gatsby dalam novel ini, kita mendapatkan sebuah pemahaman yang lebih baik bagaimana kelompok yang lemah, bukan hanya di masyarakat Amerika, tetapi juga masyarakat lain di dunia juga akan berjuang untuk berkompetisi dengan kelompok aristrokratik.---Abstract The topic of this paper is the pursuit of cultural studies focusing on cultural Hegemony, introduces the notion of the dominant groups’ power to control society. It will also raise the issue of how hegemonic classes live in 1920s. The objective is to analyze, using cultural studies, Antonio Gramsci’s Hegemony, Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby in order to come to some conclusions about depictions of aristocratic classes and powers in order to dominate powerless groups. Specifically, the research focuses on Jay Gatsby’s struggles to face the hegemony of aristocratic groups, whose affluent supremacy. In the story, the new moneyed group, represented by Jay Gatsby, lives in West Egg while the aristocratic group, represented by Tom Buchanan, lives in East Egg. Tom is always the winner because he comes from the aristocratic groups, whose prestigious family. Therefore, Gatsby always loses compete against Tom no matter how hard Gatsby tries. By learning Gatsby’s struggle in this novel, we gain a better understanding of how other powerless groups, not only in American society, but also other society in the world, who also struggle to compete with the aristocratic groups.
26
Crawford, Beverly, and Stefanie Lenway. "Decision Modes and International Regime Change: Western Collaboration on East-West Trade." World Politics 37, no. 3 (April 1985): 375–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2010248.
Full textAbstract:
Is consent a sure foundation upon which to build a stable world order? Under what conditions is it achieved? The burgeoning literature on international regimes and regime change is beginning to address the issue E. H. Carr raised over forty years ago. Hegemonic stability theory argues that a preponderance of power provides the basis for international order. Recent observers, however, have noted that order can break down even when the hegemon exercises dominance. Furthermore, stable collaboration can be achieved in the face of declining hegemony. The exercise of power alone cannot lead to a stable international order.
27
Kwon, Roy. "Hegemonies in the World-System: An Empirical Assessment of Hegemonic Sequences from the 16th to 20th Century." Sociological Perspectives 54, no. 4 (December 2011): 593–617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sop.2011.54.4.593.
Full textAbstract:
Both the world-economy perspective in sociology and the world politics perspective in political science recognize the importance of examining the rise and fall of world powers, and generally agree on the main causal mechanisms responsible for the rise and fall process. However, there is much less convergence between these perspectives on the indicators used to measure the relative power of nation-states. Thus, although in agreement over theory, there is much less agreement on the identity and timing of hegemonies. This article attempts to overcome this impasse by creating a hegemony index to assess the power structure of the capitalist world-system. Though results support the world-economy view of three hegemons since the 16th century, findings also contradict this perspective and show that England is the most powerful nation during two successive hegemonic sequences. Conclusions highlight the possibility of hegemonic resuccession, while supplementary analysis provides evidence of U.S. resuccession since the 1980s.
28
Norrlof, Carla. "Dollar hegemony: A power analysis." Review of International Political Economy 21, no. 5 (April 17, 2014): 1042–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2014.895773.
Full text
29
Allan, Bentley B., Srdjan Vucetic, and Ted Hopf. "The Distribution of Identity and the Future of International Order: China's Hegemonic Prospects." International Organization 72, no. 4 (2018): 839–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020818318000267.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractExisting theories predict that the rise of China will trigger a hegemonic transition and the current debate centers on whether or not the transition will be violent or peaceful. This debate largely sidesteps two questions that are central to understanding the future of international order: how strong is the current Western hegemonic order and what is the likelihood that China can or will lead a successful counterhegemonic challenge? We argue that the future of international order is shaped not only by material power but also by the distribution of identity across the great powers. We develop a constructivist account of hegemonic transition and stability that theorizes the role of the distribution of identity in international order. In our account, hegemonic orders depend on a legitimating ideology that must be consistent with the distribution of identity at the level of both elites and masses. We map the distribution of identity across nine great powers and assess how this distribution supports the current Western neoliberal democratic hegemony. We conclude that China is unlikely to become the hegemon in the near term.
30
IDRIS, SUPRIANI. "KAJIAN HEGEMONI DALAM BERTINDAK TUTUR GURU PADA PEMBELAJARAN BAHASA INDONESIA DI SMP NEGERI 1 PANGKEP KABUPATEN PANGKEP." KONFIKS : JURNAL BAHASA DAN SASTRA INDONESIA 1, no. 2 (December 30, 2016): 85. http://dx.doi.org/10.26618/jk.v1i2.182.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractHegemony is an embodiment of the power of the teacher as a managerial class emphasizes the bourgeois form of expression and like always indoctrinate students in several ways the application, run mechanism to maintain, and develop themselves through obedience to the students so that an attempt was made to influence and shape the minds of students. In this study the function of hegemony representasidan described in learning Indonesian teacher at SMP Negeri 1 Bungoro Pangkep. This study used a qualitative research approach. The research data recorde of the speech act hegemony in learning Indonesian teacher at SMP Negeri 1 Bungoro Pangkep and field notes. The Sources of data were Indonesian teacher at SMP Negeri 1 Bungoro Pangkep. Thus, the data source of this research was all the Indonesian teacher who was still active in teaching. Technic of data collection were observation and recording. Analisis the data flow analysis performed by embracing the concept of data flow model of Miles and Huberman. The results showed that the hegemony of the acting teacher speaking on learning Indonesian in SMP Negeri 1 Bungoro Pangkep represented in the follow-directive, assertive, and expressive. Representation hegemony in the follow-directive, the teacher as authority in the classroom using five types of directives, ie commands, requests, prohibitions, persilaan, questions, and rejection. The use of the speech act has a high level of restriction that tend to represent the dominating power. Hegemony in the follow-assertive representation, the teacher as authority in the classroom using three types of follow-assertive, that is asserted, indicating, mempertahankan. Using assertive showed the nature of the dominating power of the students. Follow-expressive anger represented in the form of teachers who also have high levels of restriction that is dominating. Hegemonic function of speech acts on learning Indonesian teacher at SMP Negeri 1 Bungoro Pangkep represented in the commission of preventive and corrective. Associated with preventive measures, hegemony functioned to prevent violations of the rules in learning. As corrective action, hegemony functioned to improve student actions, behavior of students in learning, and how students working in the task. Key Words: Hegemony, speech acts, and learning AbstrakHegemoni adalah suatu perwujudan kekuasaan guru sebagai manajerial kelas yang menekankan pada bentuk ekspresi dan layaknya borjuis yang selalu mendoktrin siswa melalui beberapa cara penerapan, mekanisme yang dijalankan untuk mempertahankan, dan mengembangkan diri melalui kepatuhan para siswa sehingga upaya itu berhasil memengaruhi dan membentuk alam pikiran siswa. Dalam penelitian ini dideskripsikan representasidan fungsi hegemoni dalam bertindak tutur guru pada pembelajaran bahasa Indonesia di SMP Negeri 1 Bungoro Kabupaten Pangkep. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan penelitian kualitatif. Data penelitian ini berupa rekaman tentang hegemoni dalam bertindak tutur guru pada pembelajaran bahasa Indonesia di SMP Negeri 1 Bungoro Kabupaten Pangkep dan catatan lapangan. Sumber data, yaitu guru bahasa Indonesia di SMP Negeri 1 Bungoro Kabupaten Pangkep. Jadi, sumber data penelitian ini adalah semua guru bahasa Indonesia yang masih aktif dalam mengajar. Teknik pengupulan data yaitu observasi dan perekaman.Analisis data dilakukan dengan menganut alur analisis data model alir konsep Miles dan Huberman. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa hegemoni dalam bertindak tutur guru pada pembelajaran bahasa Indonesia di SMP Negeri 1 Bungoro Kabupaten Pangkep direpresentasikan dalam tindak direktif, asertif, dan ekspresif. Representasi hegemoni dalam tindak direktif, guru sebagai pemegang kekuasaan di kelas menggunakan lima jenis direktif, yaitu perintah, permintaan, larangan, persilaan, pertanyaan, dan penolakan. Penggunaan tindak tutur tersebut mempunyai kadar retriksi tinggi sehingga cenderung merepresentasikan kekuasaan yang dominatif. Representasi hegemoni dalam tindak asertif, guru sebagai pemegang kekuasaan di kelas menggunakan tiga jenis tindak asertif, yaitu menegaskan, menunjukkan, mempertahankan.Penggunaan tindak asertif ini menunjukkan sifat kekuasaan yang dominatif terhadap siswa. Tindak ekspresif direpresentasikan dalam bentuk kemarahan guru yang juga memiliki kadar retriksi yang tinggi sehingga bersifat dominatif. Fungsi hegemoni tindak tutur guru pada pembelajaran bahasa Indonesia di SMP Negeri 1 Bungoro Kabupaten Pangkep direpresentasikan dalam tindak preventif dan korektif. Terkait dengan tindakan preventif, hegemoni difungsikan untuk mencegah pelanggaran aturan dalam pembelajaran. Adapun tindakan korektif, hegemoni difungsikan untuk memperbaiki tindakan siswa, perilaku siswa dalam belajar, dan cara kerja siswa di dalam mengerjakan tugas. Key Words:Hegemoni, tindak tutur, dan pembelajaran
31
SPERLING, JAMES. "Neither Hegemony nor Dominance: Reconsidering German Power in Post Cold-War Europe." British Journal of Political Science 31, no. 2 (March 20, 2001): 389–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0007123401000151.
Full textAbstract:
German unification in 1989 raised the spectre of German hegemony in post-cold war Europe. In this article, I demonstrate that Germany lacks the structural power consistent with European hegemony or dominance; that there is little evidence supporting an appreciable gap between Germany's structural power and foreign policy ambitions; and that apparent symptoms of German hegemony, particularly the process of institutional emulation in Central and Eastern Europe, reflect other international processes and incentives emanating from the state system itself. This reassessment and downgrading of Germany's relative and absolute power resolve the paradox of German structural power and German reluctance identified by others. But this alternative narrative raises another more important question: why is Germany treated as a potential or even aspiring hegemon in Europe? The answer to that question is located in the interconnected legacies of Auschwitz and the occupation regime. This joint legacy constitutes an important part of the historical context within which we frame our assessments and judgements of German power; explains the frequently unwarranted exaggeration and suspicion of German power; and demonstrates how the past can function as a powerful prism though which we interpret the intentions, ambitions and capabilities of a state.
32
Buono, R. A. Dello. "The Crisis of US Hegemony in the Era of Obama: Four Views from Latin America." Critical Sociology 38, no. 2 (September 9, 2011): 153–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0896920511419902.
Full textAbstract:
The unraveling of the Washington Consensus in Latin America is part of a broader decline of US hegemony in the region and beyond. Four distinct approaches by Latin American analysts from Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Cuba are introduced that examine different aspects of this decline. It is argued that any serious analysis of regional hegemony must include consideration of the interrelationship between economic and military factors; the emergent modalities of exercising hegemony such as free trade agreements; the power structure of the hegemonic state; and the broader context of the global political economy.
33
Safranchuk, Ivan, Vera Zhornist, and Alexander Nesmashnyy. "Hegemony and World Order: an overview of the concept “Hegemony as Complexity”." International Organisations Research Journal 16, no. 1 (June 1, 2021): 172–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-01-09.
Full textAbstract:
This article reviews the key topics and debates in Hegemony and World Order: Reimagining Power in Global Politics(Routledge, 2020), edited by P. Dutkiewicz, T. Casier, J. A. Scholte. The volume covers several issues related to hegemony in contemporary politics from neo-liberal, realist, constructivist, neo-Gramscian, world-systems and postcolonial theoretical perspectives. The concept of “complex hegemony,” briefly evaluated in this review, and the analysis of the recent stage of globalization presented in the volume offer meaningful contributions to the theoretical debates. From a more practical perspective, Hegemony and World Order dwells on the future of world order and the prospects for alternative hegemonic projects, including those sponsored by China and Russia. Additionally, the hegemony of non-state actors in global governance is studied in detail. The review considers the ability of the leading states to execute complex hegemony and discuss the demand for hegemony in the context of the transformation of world order.
34
Goltsov, A. "LEADERSHIP AND HEGEMONY IN GEOSTRATEGY OF INFORMAL NEO-EMPIRES." ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, no. 130 (2017): 39–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/apmv.2017.130.0.39-49.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyzes the controversial issues of the relationship between leadership and hegemony in international relations, especially in the context of geostrategy of the informal neo-empires. Ideally, leadership of the certain actor means that other actors voluntarily accept its proposed values, norms and rules, recognize its authority to implement a policy for the realization of common goals. Hegemony is the dominance of a particular actor (hegemon) over other actors, establishing his controls over them, imposing its political, economic and cultural values. Hegemony in international relations is carried out usually covertly and often presented as a leadership. Leadership and hegemony are possible at various levels of the geopolitical organization in the world. We treat leadership and hegemony as mechanisms of implementation of a geostrategy of powerful actors of international relations, particularly of informal neo-empires. Each of the contemporary informal neo-empires develops and implements geostrategy, aimed at ensuring its hegemony, usually covert, within a certain geospace and realizes it as a means of a both “hard” and “soft” power. The USA, which is the main “center” of the Western macro-empire, trys to maintain its world leadership, and at the same time secure a covert hegemony over the strategically important regions of the world. The EU is a neo-imperial alliance and has geostrategy of “soft” hegemony. Russia opposes the hegemony of the West and advocates the formation of a multipolar world order with the “balance of power”. The RF carries in the international arena neo-imperial geostrategy in the international arena directed to increase its role in the world and ensure its hegemony in the post-Soviet space.
35
Goltsov, A. "LEADERSHIP AND HEGEMONY IN GEOSTRATEGY OF INFORMAL NEO-EMPIRES." Actual Problems of International Relations, no. 130 (2017): 39–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/apmv.2017.130.1.39-49.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyzes the controversial issues of the relationship between leadership and hegemony in international relations, especially in the context of geostrategy of the informal neo-empires. Ideally, leadership of the certain actor means that other actors voluntarily accept its proposed values, norms and rules, recognize its authority to implement a policy for the realization of common goals. Hegemony is the dominance of a particular actor (hegemon) over other actors, establishing his controls over them, imposing its political, economic and cultural values. Hegemony in international relations is carried out usually covertly and often presented as a leadership. Leadership and hegemony are possible at various levels of the geopolitical organization in the world. We treat leadership and hegemony as mechanisms of implementation of a geostrategy of powerful actors of international relations, particularly of informal neo-empires. Each of the contemporary informal neo-empires develops and implements geostrategy, aimed at ensuring its hegemony, usually covert, within a certain geospace and realizes it as a means of a both “hard” and “soft” power. The USA, which is the main “center” of the Western macro-empire, trys to maintain its world leadership, and at the same time secure a covert hegemony over the strategically important regions of the world. The EU is a neo-imperial alliance and has geostrategy of “soft” hegemony. Russia opposes the hegemony of the West and advocates the formation of a multipolar world order with the “balance of power”. The RF carries in the international arena neo-imperial geostrategy in the international arena directed to increase its role in the world and ensure its hegemony in the post-Soviet space.
36
NABERS, DIRK. "Power, leadership, and hegemony in international politics: the case of East Asia." Review of International Studies 36, no. 04 (October 2010): 931–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210510001373.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe article inquires into the conditions of effective leadership of states in international politics, and develops a framework for the study of so-called (new) regional powers such as Brazil, China, India, and South Africa in processes of regional institution-building. Various theoretical strands will be discussed as to the requirements of effective leadership in international affairs. Most importantly, the relationship between power, leadership and hegemony will be outlined. It is argued that the connection between leadership and hegemony is one of co-constitution. Leadership is necessarily based on hegemony, while hegemony can only be sustained through leadership. Furthermore, it will be shown that both leadership and hegemony are essentially political in character, whereas power has no such insinuation but has to be translated into leadership and hegemony through discursive means. Finally, the analysis asks for the preconditions of leadership in East Asia, using China's and Japan's roles in East Asian regionalism as an illustration.
37
Zeitoun, Mark, and Jeroen Warner. "Hydro-hegemony – a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts." Water Policy 8, no. 5 (October 1, 2006): 435–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wp.2006.054.
Full textAbstract:
The increasing structural and physical scarcity of water across the globe calls for a deeper understanding of trans-boundary water conflicts. Conventional analysis tends to downplay the role that power asymmetry plays in creating and maintaining situations of water conflict that fall short of the violent form of war and to treat as unproblematic situations of cooperation occurring in an asymmetrical context. The conceptual Framework of Hydro-Hegemony presented herein attempts to give these two features – power and varying intensities of conflict – their respective place in the perennial and deeply political question: who gets how much water, how and why? Hydro-hegemony is hegemony at the river basin level, achieved through water resource control strategies such as resource capture, integration and containment. The strategies are executed through an array of tactics (e.g. coercion-pressure, treaties, knowledge construction, etc.) that are enabled by the exploitation of existing power asymmetries within a weak international institutional context. Political processes outside the water sector configure basin-wide hydro-political relations in a form ranging from the benefits derived from cooperation under hegemonic leadership to the inequitable aspects of domination. The outcome of the competition in terms of control over the resource is determined through the form of hydro-hegemony established, typically in favour of the most powerful actor. The Framework of Hydro-hegemony is applied to the Nile, Jordan and Tigris and Euphrates river basins, where it is found that current hydro-hegemonic configurations tend towards the dominative form.. There is evidence in each case of power asymmetries influencing an inequitable outcome – at the expense of lingering, low-intensity conflicts. It is proposed that the framework provides an analytical paradigm useful for examining the options of such powerful or hegemonized riparians and how they might move away from domination towards cooperation.
38
Corbridge, S. "Bretton Woods Revisited: Hegemony, Stability, and Territory." Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 26, no. 12 (December 1994): 1829–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a261829.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper I examine the achievements and lessons of the Bretton Woods System (BWS) fifty years after its founding in 1944. I do so with particular reference to propositions associated with hegemonic stability theories. In section 2 I challenge the view that the BWS was successful because it was a unique embodiment of US ‘benign hegemony’. I join with Walter, Strange, and other revisionist historians in arguing that the BWS was less a formal monetary system than a broad set of guidelines that was adopted and adapted by member states quite flexibly. The BWS was the product of a series of compromises reached by the USA and its West European allies in the period between 1944 and 1971. The Golden Age of Capitalism that coincided with the BWS in the advanced industrial world was also the product of factors that cannot be reduced to the BWS. US hegemony in the 1950s and 1960s was most obviously embedded in its military commitments overseas. I further suggest that international economic disorder after 1971 cannot be explained with reference to the alleged disappearance of a hegemonic power in the world economy. The USA has remained broadly hegemonic since 1971, but the nature of hegemony is changing in a changing global political economy. In section 3 I consider the claim that the international economy must become more unstable in the absence of a benign hegemon. The concept of order or instability is rendered problematic, and a model of ‘ordered disorder’ is set out. I suggest that a degree of order is being maintained in a dispersed hegemonic core at the cost of increased disorder in peripheral regions and communities that cannot positively access the emerging circuits of transnational capitalism or liberalism. Section 4 concludes the paper with some reflections on the lessons of Bretton Woods in the wake of the changes described in sections 2 and 3.
39
Hearn, Jeff. "A Multi-Faceted Power Analysis of Men's Violence to Known Women: From Hegemonic Masculinity to the Hegemony of Men." Sociological Review 60, no. 4 (November 2012): 589–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2012.02125.x.
Full textAbstract:
This article presents a multi-faceted power analysis of men's violence to known women, by way of assessing two main perspectives on research in men and masculinities: first, that founded on hegemonic masculinity, and, second, that based on the hegemony of men. Each perspective is interrogated in terms of understandings of men's violence to known women. These approaches are articulated in relation to empirical research, and conceptual and theoretical analysis. Thus this article addresses to what extent hegemonic masculinity and the hegemony of men, respectively, are useful concepts for explaining and engaging with men's violence to known women? The article concludes with discussion of more general implications of this analysis.
40
Lundedal Hammar, Emil. "The Political Economy of Cultural Memory in the Videogames Industry." Digital Culture & Society 5, no. 1 (December 1, 2019): 61–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2019-0105.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Following the materialist approaches to contemporary digital memory- making, this article explores how unequal access to memory production in videogames is determined along economic and cultural lines. Based on semi-structured qualitative interviews with different European, Asian and North American historical game developers, I make the case for how materialist and cultural aspects of videogame development reinforce existing mnemonic hegemony and in turn how this mnemonic hegemony determines access to the production of memory- making potentials that players of videogames activate and negotiate. My interview findings illustrate how individual workers do not necessarily intend to reproduce received systems of power and hegemony, and instead how certain cultural and material relations tacitly motivate and/or marginalise workers in the videogame industries to reproduce hegemonic power relations in cultural memory across race, class and gender. Finally, I develop the argument that access to cultural production networks such as the games industry constitutes important factors that need to be taken seriously in research on cultural memory and game studies. Thus, my article investigates global power relationships, political economy, colonial legacies and cultural hegemony within the videogame industry, and how these are instantiated in individual instances of game developers.
41
Selim, Gamal M. "The Sino-Russian strategic understanding on the Arab uprisings: Motivations and implications." Journal of Contemporary Iraq & the Arab World 13, no. 2 (September 1, 2019): 243–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/jciaw_00011_1.
Full textAbstract:
This article seeks to analyse the emerging Sino-Russian strategic understanding on the Arab uprisings of late 2010 and beyond by investigating its underlying motivations and its implications for Middle East and international politics. Building on the assumptions of ‘power transition theory’ in explaining great power interactions, it is argued that the Sino-Russian strategic understanding on the Arab uprisings dovetails with their pre-existing strategic posture in relation to global politics, and was motivated by their joint rising dissatisfaction with US unilateralist and hegemonic policies in the region. Such policies, from a Sino-Russian perspective, tended to exclude, rather than accommodate, the interests of both powers in this pivotal part of the globe. This prompted Russia and China to capitalize on their growing military and economic power and join efforts in the form of a strategic understanding in an attempt to effectively challenge an intrusive and overreaching hegemon and secure their interests in the region. This strategic understanding has had significant implications for the configuration of great power relationships in the direction of challenging US regional hegemony and facilitating a shift in the regional and global balance of power.
42
James, Scott C., and David A. Lake. "The second face of hegemony: Britain's repeal of the Corn Laws and the American Walker Tariff of 1846." International Organization 43, no. 1 (1989): 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300004549.
Full textAbstract:
One challenge facing hegemonic stability theory is to specify the processes by which hegemonic countries construct and maintain a liberal international economic order. Earlier studies have focused on direct coercion or ideological manipulation by the hegemon as a principal technique for manipulating the trade policies of other countries. This article explores a different “face” of hegemony. Specifically, we contend that by altering relative prices through the exercise of their international market power, hegemonic leaders influence the trade policy preferences of their foreign trading partners. We examine this argument in the case of the American Walker Tariff of 1846. American tariff liberalization was intimately related to Britain's repeal of its Corn Laws. In the antebellum United States, Northern protectionist and Southern free trade proclivities were fixed; Western grain growers held the balance of power. By allowing access to its lucrative grain market, Britain altered the economic and political incentives of Western agriculturalists and facilitated the emergence of the free trade coalition essential to the passage of the Walker Tariff.
43
Nelson, Joshua. "Oil, Hard Power and U.S. Hegemony." Pitt Political Review 11, no. 2 (October 13, 2017): 35–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/ppr.2015.58.
Full textAbstract:
In late 2014 and early 2015, the United States dramatically increased its presence in the oil market. This tremendous increase in production, which placed the United States ahead of every OPEC country besides Saudi Arabia, caused a global change in supply and demand that dropped the price of crude oil to $58 per barrel. This translated to an average gasoline price of $2.55 per gallon nationally on Dec. 15, 2014. The price drop reverberated throughout the global economy, affecting countries from Malaysia to Norway. In Venezuela, for example, it is estimated that a one dollar drop in the price of oil will cost the country approximately $770 million in annual revenue. The United States’ decision to act influenced the entire world, and this is no surprise – economic control is just one of the many facets of hard power and hegemony.
44
Tabak. "Transnational Kemalism—Power, Hegemony, and Dissidence." Bustan: The Middle East Book Review 11, no. 2 (2020): 145. http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/bustan.11.2.0145.
Full text
45
George, Cherian. "Soft power: looking beyond American hegemony." Media Asia 43, no. 2 (April 2, 2016): 76–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2016.1222477.
Full text
46
Morrison, Andrew. "Hegemony through Responsibilisation: Getting Working-Class Students into Higher Education in the United Kingdom." Power and Education 6, no. 2 (January 2014): 118–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/power.2014.6.2.118.
Full text
47
Carvalho, Patrícia Nasser de, and Elói Martins Senhoras. "The impact of COVID-19 Crisis on the Global Economy and the North American Hegemonic Cycle: A reading." Agenda Internacional 27, no. 38 (October 16, 2020): 9–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.18800/agenda.202001.001.
Full textAbstract:
Based on the theorical framework that considers contextual and structural long-term perspectives of world hegemonic cycles and transitions of global powers, the aim of this reading is to critically analyze the ongoing and potential impact of the pandemic in the light of a conjunctural and historical perspective. The hypothesis is that although the COVID-19 crisis has already had deep negative impact on the global economy and represents a perfect storm for the US hegemony, seeing as the country is being challenged by many factors with strong magnitude and adverse effects, indeed it would not generate an immediate terminal crisis of the North American hegemony. Just in the long run the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to trigger another world hegemonic power. The reading is based on the theoretical perspectives of world hegemonic cycles in international relations and is methodologically characterized as an explanatory and descriptive study and is built on a bibliographic review for the collection of theoretical and historical data.
48
Snidal, Duncan. "The limits of hegemonic stability theory." International Organization 39, no. 4 (1985): 579–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002081830002703x.
Full textAbstract:
Hegemonic stability theory has been advanced as an explanation of successful cooperation in the international system. The basis of this “hegemonic cooperation” is the leadership of the hegemonic state; its appeal rests on attractive implications about distribution. However, two distinct strands of the theory (“coercive” and “benevolent”) must be distinguished. These strands have different conceptions of hegemony and the role of hegemonic leaders and so have different implications. Both require us to assume that the underlying international issues are public goods and that the international system does not allow for collective action. The former assumption limits the theory's range of application while the likely failure of the latter means that the theory may be wrong even within this more limited range. Simple formal models demonstrate a conclusion completely at odds with hegemonic stability theory: the decline of a hegemonic power may actually lead to an outcome both collectively superior and distributively preferable than when the hegemon was at the apogee of its power. Thus hegemonic stability is, in fact, only a special case of international cooperation. Understanding cooperation in general requires less restrictive assumptions.
49
Layne, Christopher. "The Unipolar Illusion Revisited: The Coming End of the United States' Unipolar Moment." International Security 31, no. 2 (October 2006): 7–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/isec.2006.31.2.7.
Full textAbstract:
The conventional wisdom among U.S. grand strategists is that U.S. hegemony is exceptional—that the United States need not worry about other states engaging in counterhegemonic balancing against it. The case for U.S. hegemonic exceptionalism, however, is weak. Contrary to the predictions of Waltzian balance of power theorists, no new great powers have emerged since the end of the Cold War to restore equilibrium to the balance of power by engaging in hard balancing against the United States—that is, at least, not yet. This has led primacists to conclude that there has been no balancing against the United States. Here, however, they conflate the absence of a new distribution of power in the international political system with the absence of balancing behavior by the major second-tier powers. Moreover, the primacists' focus on the failure of new great powers to emerge, and the absence of traditional “hard” (i.e., military) counterbalancing, distracts attention from other forms of counterbalancing—notably “leash-slipping”—by major second-tier states that ultimately could lead to the same result: the end of unipolarity. Because unipolarity is the foundation of U.S. hegemony, if it ends, so too will U.S. primacy.
50
Artz, Lee. "The Media of Power, the Power of Media." Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 15, no. 5 (October 10, 2016): 497–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15691497-12341404.
Full textAbstract:
This essay combines international political economy with a critical political economy of media perspective that recognizes the crucial role of transnational media corporations (tnmc) in building consent for neoliberal globalization. Media are found to be instrumental for consolidating transnational capitalist hegemony—creating a popular culture based on individualism, deference to authority, and consumerism. tnmcs consolidate diverse national media for the production of hybrid programming that features multiple local images and symbols wrapped in consumerist ideology and narratives. Examples from animation reveal consistent themes in tnmc content that entertain and appeal to diverse audiences, illustrating media’s persuasive messages essential to the cultural hegemony of transnational capitalist leadership.