There can be few doubts as to the fact that the concept of hegemony, as formulated by Antonio Gramsci, is quite applicable when it comes to defining the essence of international relations in particular historical era, simply because this concept appears metaphysically versatile. According to Gramsci, the reason why ever-increased discrepancy within juxtaposition labor vs. capital did not result in the overthrow of worldâs capitalist system of economic relations, by the time Western countries had become completely industrialized, is because coercion is not only the instrument of allowing bourgeoisie to maintain its dominance over proletariat. It is namely due to the fact that Western countriesâ workers had felt themselves being deeply affiliated with bourgeois cultural values, that they were not able to go about effectively protecting their class agenda. In its turn, the realization of this fact had led Gramsci to suggest that, throughout the course of modern history, bourgeoisie never ceased exerting a hegemonic influence over proletariat â that is, the representatives of dominant social strata had managed in convincing oppressed workers that they had common interests with that of their oppressors.
We can argue long and hard about whether such Gramsciâs observation justifies ideological failure of Marxism. However, as we have pointed out earlier, it would be wrong to doubt the conceptual validity of idea of hegemony as âthing in itselfâ, because various emanations of this idea are not being solely observed in the field of labor relations, but in the field of international relations, as well. In its turn, this explains the geopolitical phenomenon of so-called âsuperpowersâ â countries that succeeded in exerting strong political and cultural influence over the world, despite the fact that this influence appears being quite inconsistent with a particular superpowerâs ability to maintain its dominant geopolitical status by the mean of an application of a direct military force.
In his article âSocial forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theoryâ, one of the most prominent neo-Gramscian theorists of international relations Robert W. Cox, provides us with the insight on how, during the course of 19th century, Britain was able to attain an undisputed geopolitical dominance: âIn the mid-Nineteenth century, Britain’s world supremacy was founded on its sea power⊠The norms of liberal economics (free trade, the gold standard, free movement of capital and persons) gained widespread acceptance with the spread of British prestige, providing a universalistic ideology which represented these norms as the basis of a harmony of interests⊠with British sea power remaining in the background as potential enforcerâ(1981, p. 140). Apparently, even as far back as in 19th century, a particular countryâs ability to succeed with promoting its geopolitical agenda, corresponded to its political establishmentâs understanding of what another neo-Gramscian political scientist, Susan Strange defines as difference between âstructuralâ and ârelationalâ instruments of international influence. Whereas, the strength of countryâs âstructuralâ power is being concerned with its possession of instruments of direct geopolitical influence, such as army and navy, the strength of countryâs ârelationalâ power is being reflected in this particular countryâs ability to impose its socio-cultural and economic values upon the subjects of international body politics.
As Strange had put it in her article âState and marketsâ: âStructural power, in short, confers the power to decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to each other, relate to people, or relate to corporate enterprisesâ (1988, p. 25). The reason why, during the course of Cold War, America was able to gain a support, on the part of countries representing âfree worldâ, is because, after having coined up the concept of âfree worldâ, American politicians had succeeded in convincing people in capitalist countries to believe that they belong to it as much as Americans do. In its turn, this allowed the establishment of a variety of international organizations that were meant to serve as yet additional tools of protecting Americaâs geopolitical agenda, even though the formal purpose of their existence was proclaimed âstrengthening the extent of economic cooperation between free countriesâ â IMF, World Bank, WTO.
The closer analysis if these organizationsâ actual agenda reveals an undeniable fact that they exist solely for the purpose of providing legitimacy to U.S. Dollar as worldâs major international currency, even though ever since 1971, the representational value of American currency had attained purely mythical subtleties. The actual reason why, after the end of WW2, the strength of Americaâs economy began to increase in exponential progression to the flow of time, is that during the course of second half of 20th century, U.S. never ceased exporting its economic inflation into other countries of âfree worldâ by the mean of pumping these countriesâ economies with tons and tons of essentially worthless green paper as an âeconomic aidâ.
Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that the foremost explanation, as to how, up until recently America was able to maintain its dominance in the arena of international politics, is being primarily concerned with this country rulersâ acute understanding of what accounts for consequential stages of establishing hegemony in modern world. In his other article âGramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in methodâ, Robert Cox states: âInternational institutions and rules are generally initiated by the state which establishes the hegemony. At the very least, they must have that state’s support. The dominant state takes care to secure the acquiescence of other states accordÂing to a hierarchy of powers within the inter-state structure of hegemony. Some second-rank countries are consulted first and their support is secured. The conÂsent of at least some of the more peripheral countries is solicitedâ (1983, p. 172). The first sign of world superpowerâs geopolitical influence beginning to decline is when international organizations, which were created to serve this superpowerâs agenda, become overly independent.
As of today, there are many clear indications that suggest that the process of America losing its hegemony over worldâs international affairs has already began. The most important of them is the fact that, as time goes by; the willingness of Americaâs traditional allies to associate their own geopolitical well-being with that of U.S. continues to progressively lessen. In its turn, this is being reflected in how second-ranking countries now vote on UNâs resolutions, initiated by U.S. In their article âThe United Nations Security Council and the rally round the flag effectâ, Terrence L. Chapman and Dan Reiter state: âIt has become increasingly difficult for the U.S. government to persuade the Security Council to adopt resolutions favoring the use of military force except in the most extreme circumstancesâ (2004, p. 904). Apparently, even such Americaâs traditional allies as France, Germany and Britain, are now striving to dissociate themselves from U.S. geopolitical interests, as such that do quite correspond to their own.
This is exactly the reason why U.S. is now being left with little choice but to increasingly rely on coercion, as the mean of ensuring its continuous geopolitical dominance. As it has been rightly pointed out in Mark Rupertâs article: âGlobalizing common sense: A Marxian-Gramscian (re)vision of the politics of governance/resistanceâ: âWhile the market-oriented liberal vision continues to animate U.S. world-order policy, it is no longer represented by chief U.S. policymakers as presumptively nature or spontaneous – that is voluntary, cooperative and multilateral, but is now portrayed more explicitly as the product of the global assertion of unilateral U.S. power, especially military forceâ (2003, p. 195). Given the fact that post-9/11 worldâs geopolitical realities had undergone a qualitative transformation, and also the fact that an ongoing process of economic Globalization deems the traditional concept of a nation-state outdated, political scientists are now being presented with the challenge of redefining the very concept of hegemony.
In the article from which we have already quoted, Robert Cox comes up with perfectly valid suggestion that the new critical theory of geopolitical hegemony must be created, in order for this theory to be consistent with worldâs post-industrial realities: âCritical theory, unlike problem-solving theory, does not take institutions and social power relations for granted but calls them into question by concerning itself with their origins and how and whether they might be in the process of changingâ (1981, p. 129). Due to an ongoing process of Globalization, the executive powers of state-based geopolitical entities in the arena of international politics are being increasingly undermined.
The essence of earlier mentioned geopolitical developments appears being dialectically predetermined. Given the rapid progress in the realm of informational technologies, which had taken place during the course of recent decades, and the fact that the policy of multiculturalism had attained an official status in Western countries, we can no longer believe that the citizens of these countries continue to think of their existential identity in ethnically-defined terms. In its turn, this undermines the conceptual soundness of todayâs international law, the legal premises of which derive out of 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
In his book âThe next global stage: Challenges and opportunities in our borderless worldâ, one of the most ardent proponents of Globalization, Kenichi Ohmae had made a perfectly good point while stating: âThe global economy ignores barriers, but if they are not removed, they cause distortion. The traditional centralized nation-state is another cause of friction. It is ill equipped to play a meaningful role on the global stageâ (2005, Plot). During the course of last twenty years, the share of Western transnational corporations in worldâs GNP had risen dramatically. Whereas; in 1960, this share would amount to only 17%, by the year 2005, it amounted to 45%, while continuing to increase dramatically. As of today, the combined annual profit, generated by worldâs five largest transnational corporations, overexceeds the total worth of all African countriesâ annual GNP by ten. In its turn, this explains why during the course of recent decades, the gap between worldâs rich and poor countries has been widening rather exponentially â the Globalization of worldâs economy had created objective precondition for this to happen, in the first place.
Therefore, in the future, it is namely the forces of Globalization that will redefine neo-Gramscian concept of geopolitical hegemony into something that will have very little to do with the existence of nation-states, but rather with the existence of transnational quasi-sovereign entities (just like EU), which will strive to exercise hegemonic control over Third and Second worlds. Given the fact that the existence of cosmopolitan quasi-states will be associated with the absence of national borders, in traditional sense of this word, and with the absence of strong military (maintaining strong armies is economically unfeasible), it is namely empirical science that will be relied upon by these quasi-states as the instrument of both: content and coercion. Let us explain this thesis at length.
As we have mentioned earlier, the forces of Globalization will define the shape of âbrave borderless worldâ. However, it would be wrong to assume that the metaphysical roots of Globalization are of purely economic essence. It was exactly the process of scientific progress attaining exponential momentum, which had brought about Europeâs Industrial Revolution in early 19th century. And, as we have mentioned earlier, it was also the rapid rise of informational technologies at the end of 20th century, which created objective preconditions for investors to be able to transfer large financial assets from one corner of the globe to another, within the matter of an instant â thus, establishing conceptual premise of Globalization. In both cases, empirical science served as the foremost trigger of geopolitical change.
It is specifically peopleâs genetically predetermined ability or inability to indulge in scientific pursuits, which defines the extent of their countriesâ geopolitical influence. The reason why, throughout the course of modern history, Western countries have been traditionally associated with worldâs highest standards of living, is simple â ever since 16th century, these countries were strongly associated with the notion of an ongoing scientific progress. And, as we are well aware of – the more a particular society is being affected by technological progress, the less its members require natural resources to sustain their physical existence, and vice versa.
In its turn, this explains why, after African countries had liberated themselves of âcolonial oppressionâ, they began to rapidly descend back into primeval savagery – as it has been revealed in Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanenâs book âIQ and the wealth of nationsâ, native Africansâ average rate of IQ equals 60, which explains why their existential talents are limited to making babies. And, as popular saying goes â the more there are people, the less there is oxygen.
Therefore, it is utterly inappropriate to suggest the laws of empirical sciences do not correlate with the laws of sociology and geopolitics, as some particularly âprogressiveâ social scientists do. For example, in his book âPower and resistance in the new world orderâ, Stephen Gill came up with a ridiculous suggestion that: âThe key contrast between social and natural science is that the structure of social relationships and the meaning of social events are not principally functions of scientistâs theoryâ (2003, p. 15). Author could not be possibly more wrong. For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics are just as much applicable, within the context of defining the essence of dynamics within a particular society, as they are applicable within the context of defining dynamics within some non-organic matter, simply because both: non-organic matter and human society are essentially material.
Due to the continuing progress in the field of computer science and biology, in 15-20 years from now, it will become practically possible for citizens in Western countries to instantly learn new languages (by installing microchips in their brain), to âupgradeâ their memory and even to go as far as being able to save their consciousness (soul) onto computer hard drives â thus, attaining virtual immortality. At the same time, the utilization of genetic engineering will allow married couples to make sure that their children would be born without any physical or mental defects. In fact, people will be able to grow new limbs, to alter their physical appearance and to create biological replicas of themselves by the mean of genetic cloning.
In other words, Westerners are standing on the threshold of attaining a status of semi-gods. This is exactly what causes them to be endowed with highly individualistic mentality, which in its turn explains why in these peopleâs eyes; the concept of nation-state had lost the remains of its theoretical soundness â semi-gods are essentially the âcitizens of universeâ, as opposed to being simply the citizens of spatially limited nation-states.
In the future, the essence of political dynamics on international arena will be defined by confrontation between intellectually/technologically advanced and therefore âborderlessâ super-humanity, on one hand, and highly communal/collectivist sub-humanity from Third World, on another. And, the only way for representatives of sub-humanity to resist the complete hegemony of super-humanity, would taking an advantage of their oppressorsâ borderlessness. In its turn, this will create a situation when the essence of worldâs politics will no longer be defined by confrontational framework âstate vs. stateâ, but by confrontational framework âurban megalopolis vs. rural communityâ.
The realities of todayâs post-industrial living provide us with the insight onto things to come. The following are the examples of how representatives of rurally-based ethnic communities go about successfully opposing cosmopolitan bureaucracy of New World Order, even though that, as of today, this bureaucracy still operates on behalf of nation-states:
- The terrorist group Hamas, with the membership of less than 1000 men, has been keeping the whole region of Middle East (and consequentially, the whole world) in the state of permanent political tension for the duration of last 10 years, by waging largely successful war on the state of Israel, even though officially, this group does not even exist.
- Osama bin Laden (single individual) has declared a war on U.S. in 2001, which continues on even today with no end in sight; whereas, it has only taken four years for America to defeat both: Germany and Japan, during the course of WW2.
- The representatives of racial minorities have succeed in creating their own âsocieties within societyâ in just about every large European and American city. These communal societies live by their own rules, with representatives of host-societyâs law enforcement agencies being given an unofficial order not to even set their foot in âghettosâ, in order not to provoke racial riots.
Ever since political economists have realized that Gramsciâs Marxist methodology of hegemony can be utilized within the context of defining the essence of international politics, many of them would end up assessing the significance of such their discovery from strictly sociological/utilitarian perspective. That is, they would imply that the notion of hegemony is being essentially the byproduct of oneâs conscious mind. For example, in his book âProducing hegemony: The politics of mass production and American global powerâ, Mark Rupert seriously suggests that the only reason why, after the end of WW2, America had become worldâs hegemonic power, is that American capitalists actively strived to undermine industrial workersâ class-consciousness by instilling them with the sense of national pride.
Yet, as we have illustrated earlier, the notion of hegemony is best discussed as something that derives out of the most fundamental laws of nature, rather than something that is being strictly concerned with psychological anxieties of irrational greed, on the part of representatives of bourgeoisie, as Marxists would like us to believe. The fact that such countries as Britain and U.S. once held the title of worldâs hegemons simply reflected a high biological quality of these countriesâ populations, simply because the specifics of a particular nationâs behavior on international arena is nothing but extrapolation of its populationâs collective consciousness. After all, many single individuals are known for ability to psychologically manipulate with others, as the ultimate mean of promoting their personal agenda â yet, such their ability comes to them naturally. It simply reflects these individualsâ high IQ. And, as we are well aware of – IQ is genetically predetermined constant. Therefore, even though we do agree with a statement that the concept of hegemony is particularly helpful for understanding international politics, we do not subscribe to the Marxist interpretation of this sociological/geopolitical phenomenon as being ideologically rather than biologically defined.
References
Chapman, T & Reiter, D 2004, âThe United Nations Security Council and the ârally round the flag effectâ, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 48, no.6, pp. 886-909.
Cox, R 1981,âSocial forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relationsâ, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 126-155.
Cox, R 1983,âGramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in methodâ, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 162-175.
Gill, S2003, Power and resistance in the new world order. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Lynn, R & Vanhanen, T 2002, IQ and the wealth of nations. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, Conn.
Ohmae, K 2005, Next global stage: Challenges and opportunities in our borderless world, Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River.
Rupert, M 1995, Producing hegemony: The politics of mass production and American global power. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Rupert, M 2003, âGlobalizing common sense: A Marxian-Gramscian (re)vision of the politics of governance/resistanceâ, Review of International Studies, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 195-196.
Strange, S 1988, State and markets, Printer Publishers, London,