You are on page 1of 15

Summary of Comments on 12306352

Page: 85
crucial break emerged, in the 1980s, in the work of Robert Cox from mainstream International Relations (IR) approaches to hegemony. comprehensive 'state-of-the-discipline' overview of this critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change outlining the historical context within which various diverse but related neo-Gramscian perspectives emerged. various controversies and criticisms that surround the neo-Gramscian perspectives historical materialist critical theory of hegemony hegemony and thus forms of social power through which conditions of capitalism are reproduced, mediated and contested.

Page: 86
In contrast to mainstream routes to hegemony in IR, which develop a static theory of politics, an abstract ahistorical conception of the state and an appeal to universal validity (e.g. Keohane 1984 and 1989; Waltz 1979), debate shifted towards a critical theory of hegemony, world order and historical change Rather than a problem-solving preoccupation with the maintenance of social power relationships, a critical theory of hegemony directs attention to questioning the prevailing order of the world. It 'does not take institutions and social and power relations for granted but calls them into question by concerning itself with their origins and whether they might be in the process of changing' (Cox 1981: 129) it is specifically critical in the sense of asking how existing social or world orders have come into being, how norms, institutions or practices therefore emerge, and what forces may have the emancipatory potential to change or transform the prevailing order. a critical theory develops a dialectical theory of history concerned not just with the past but with a continual process of historical change and with exploring the potential for alternative forms of development (Cox 1981: 129,133-4). Cox focuses on interaction between particular processes, notably springing from the dialectical possibilities of change within the sphere of production and the exploitative character of social relations, not as unchanging ahistorical essences but as a continuing creation of new forms (Cox 1981: 132) 1. conceptual framework developed by Cox, linking it back to Gramsci's own work. 2. similar, but diverse, neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations (IR) that build on Cox's work 3. Finally, various controversies surrounding the neo-Gramscian perspectives will be traced,

Page: 87
conventional IR theory, reduces hegemony to a single dimension of dominance based on the economic and military capabilities of states,

ethnicity. rather than brute force or dominance. but it refers more to a consensual order so that 'dominance by a powerful state may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition of hegemony' (Cox 1981: 139). Hegemony is therefore a form of dominance. manifested in the acceptance of ideas and supported by material resources and institutions. which is initially established by social forces occupying a leading role within a state. forms of state historically contingent state-civil society complexes. class and ideology. situation of hegemony may prevail 'based on a coherent conjunction or fit between a configuration of material power. in relation to each other … it becomes possible to represent the historical process through the particular configuration of historical structures Social forces. linked to changes in production.What is world hegemony? a neo-Gramscian perspective developed by Cox broadens the domain of hegemony à an expression of broadly based consent. there . '"Reality" is not only the physical environment of human action but also the institutional.note says it broadens hegemony from economic and military to ideas/consent. If hegemony is understood as an 'opinion-moulding activity'. institutional and discursive forms that engender particular social forces. rather than replaces them. operate within and across all spheres of activity NB like NGOs are in the economy. economy. how intersubjective meanings—shared notions about social relations—shape reality. quote . moral and ideological context that shapes thoughts and actions' (Cox 1997: 252). civil society & the state proper Through the rise of contending social forces. gender. then consideration has to turn to how a hegemonic social or world order is based on values and understandings that permeate the nature of that order (Cox 1992/1996: 151). culture. the prevalent collective image of world order (including certain norms) and a set of institutions which administer the order with a certain semblance of universality' (Cox 1981: 139). world orders^ phases of stability and conflict but = not just economy. but is then projected outwards on a world scale. hegemony filters through structures of society. Hegemony within a historical structure is constituted on three spheres the social relations of production = the totality of social relations in material. as the main collective actors engendered by the social relations of production. but also the non-state superstructures? Page: 88  scope for thinking about how alternative forms of world order might emerge (Cox 1981: 135-8) If considered dialectically.

may occur mutually reinforcing transformations in forms of state and world order. The aim is to break down over time coherent historical structures—consisting of different patterns of social relations of production. which are amalgams of the previous two elements and are means of stabilising a particular order. It is not confined to the production of physical goods used or consumed.26). It covers the production and reproduction of knowledge and of the social relations. There is no unilinear relationship between the spheres of activity and the point of departure to explain the historical process may equally be that of forms of state or world order (Cox 1981: i53n. which encapsulate configurations of social forces engaged in the process of production. understood as intersubjective meanings as well as collective images of world order. Hegemony Hegemony is thus understood as a form of class rule linked to social forces. Cox “Production. . engendered by the social relations of production (Overbeek t994). Within each of the three main spheres it is argued that three further elements reciprocally combine to constitute an historical structure: ideas. made by collective human activity and transformed through collective human activity' (Cox 1987: 4). patterns of production relations are the starting point for analysing the operation and mechanisms of hegemony = not be taken as a move that reduces everything to production in an economistic sense. material capabilities. changing production relations give rise to particular social forces that become the bases of power within and across states and within a specific world order Ryan says can’t explain why production relations change though the reciprocal relationship between production and power is crucial power in social relations of production may give rise to certain social forces very tentative here… these social forces may become the bases of power in forms of state this might shape world order difference from Marx is he makes no distinction between base & superstructure -subsumed in the material-ideational category of production NB NB NB NB – but base in marx isnt just material either remember persistent social practices.. forms of state and world order —that have existed within the capitalist mode of production Page: 89 he main characteristics ofthe three spheres of activity are outlined. and institutions.. as the core collective actors. An attempt is Therefore made to capture 'the reciprocal relationship of structures and actors' ( historical structures. morals and institutions that are prerequisites to the production of physical goods” Kind of a cop out to avoid accusations of economism & makes it sound like ideas come first… These patterns are referred to as modes of social relations of production. referring to accumulated to be understood in the broadest sense.

consideration is given to the historical construction of various forms of state and the social context of political struggle.. and at once class struggle is in the forefront.on a "universal" plane' (Gramsci 1971: i8i-2) The very nature of an historical bloc. ecology. not how Gramsci uses it really? It is more than simply a political alliance between social forces represented by classes or fractions of classes = the integration of a variety of different class interests that are propagated throughout society 'bringing about not only a unison of economic and political aims. This downplays view of state as capitalist state rather than taking the state as a given or pre-constituted institutional category. The 'universal plane' that Gramsci had in mind was the creation of hegemony by a fundamental social group over subordinate Page: 91 groups. but also intellectual and moral unity. class is viewed as an historical category and employed in a heuristic way rather than as a static analytical category class identity emerges within and through historical processes of economic exploitation Bring back exploitation as the hallmark of class. Hegemony would therefore be established 'if the relationship between intellectuals . This is accomplished by drawing upon the concept of historical bloc and by widening a theory of the state to include relations within civil society. identity-based approach to class? "non-class" issues—peace. and feminism^—are not to be set aside but given a firm and conscious basis in the social realities shaped through the production process – fair enough if they were but in practice they aren’t view of class: seems to blur the distinction between objective and subjective notions of class .classes objectively exist but may not be perceived. nationalist. but also include other forms of identity involved in struggle such as ethnic.. Changes in the social relations of production give rise to new configurations of social forces.a class in itself and a class for itself . as Anne Showstack Sassoon (1987. 123) has outlined. gender or sexual forms i.e. as it should be' class-consciousness emerges out of particular historical contexts of struggle rather than mechanically deriving from objective determinations that have an automatic place in production relations who said it did? the focus on exploitation and resistance to it ensures that social forces are not simply reduced to material aspects. State power rests on these configurations. An historical bloc refers to the way in which leading social forces within a specific national context establish a relationship over contending social forces.Page: 90 For Cox. religious. necessarily implies the existence of hegemony.

then. is provided by an organic cohesion . what contradictions may be contained within an historical bloc upon which a form of state is founded. 15:08:35 Page: 8 Author: Diana Subject: Highlight the state in this conception is understood .e. therefore. not just as the apparatus of government operating within the 'public' sphere (government. the rulers and the ruled. leaders. this relationship is referred to as the state-civil society complex For Gramsci.and people-nation.. Different forms of state are principally distinguished by 'the characteristics of their historic [al] blocs. i. military) but also as part of the 'private' sphere of civil society (church. media. education) through which hegemony functions (Gramsci 1971: 261). the raison d'etat for a particular state' by considering different forms of state. a wider theory of the state emerges Considering different forms of state as the expression of particular historical blocs and thus relations across state-civil society Overall..Only then can there take place an exchange of individual elements between the rulers and ruled. Cox: “Cox: A particular configuration of social forces defines in practice the limits or parameters of state purposes … and the modus operandi of state action. The state should be understood. in other words. but manages to win the active consent of those over whom it rules' This alternative conception of the state is inclusive of civil society.and led. the configurations of social forces upon which state power ultimately rests. to conventional state-centric approaches in IR. political parties. The state presents itself in a different way beyond the political society of public figures and top leaders so that 'the state is the entire complex of Page: 92 practical and theoretical activities with which the ruling class not only justifies and maintains its dominance. the state was not simply understood as an institution limited to the 'government of the functionaries' or the 'top political leaders and personalities with direct governmental responsibilities'.. Date: 13/05/2012. and what potential might exist for the formation of a rival historical bloc that may transform a panicular form of state Instead of underrating state power … attention is given to social forces and processes and how these relate to the development of states In contrast. it becomes possible to analyse the social basis of the state or to conceive of the historical 'content' of different states The notion of historical bloc aids this endeavour by directing attention to which social forces may have been crucial in the formation of an historical bloc or particular state.. and can the shared life be realised which alone is a social force—with the creation of the "historical bloc"' (Gramsci 1971: 418). between the leaders and the led. defines.

different social relations of production engender different fractions of social forces.and transnationally-based capital and labour. 15:08:42 Page: 8 Author: Diana Subject: Highlight The state is not unquestioningly taken as a distinct institutional category. 271). which are induced by class antagonisms between nationally. A world hegemony is thus in its beginnings an outward expansion of the internal (national) hegemony established by a. then. Cox 1987: 149-50). hegemony through national political frameworks Yet the hegemony of a leading class can manifest itself as an international phenomenon insofar as it represents the development of a particular form of the social relations of production Once hegemony has been consolidated domestically it may expand beyond a particular social order to move outward on a world scale and insert itself through the world order (Cox 1983: 171. is the condensation of a hegemonic relationship between dominant classes and class fractions This occurs when a leading class develops a 'hegemonic project' … which transcends particular economic-corporate interests and becomes capable of binding and cohering the diverse aspirations and general interests of various social classes and class fractions It is a process that involves the 'most purely political phase' of class struggle and occurs on a '"universal" plane' to result in the forging of an historical bloc (Gramsci 1971: 263). . The state. foreign' capital … is not simply represented as an autonomous force beyond the power of the state but instead is represented by certain classes or fractions of classes within the constitution of the state apparatus There are contradictory and heterogeneous relations internal to the state. or contest. and between different fractions of national capital & different functions of parts of the state . Date: 13/05/2012. or thing in itself. The construction of an historical bloc cannot exist without a hegemonic social class and is therefore a national Page: 93 nb THIS IS THE CRUCIAL SECTION phenomenon (Cox 1983: class' (Cox 1983: 171).as a social relation. 174) NB NB NB NB NB This is because the very nature of an historical bloc is bound up with how various classes and fractions of classes construct. but conceived as a form of social relations through which capitalism and hegemony are expressed It is this combination of political and civil society that is referred to as the integral state through which ruling classes organise intellectual and moral functions as part of the political and cultural struggle for hegemony in the effort to establish an 'ethical' state (Gramsci 1971: 258. By doing so it can connect social forces across different countries..

characterised by mass production and mass consumption.e. a policy of full employment via budget deficit spending. Cox argues that a us-led hegemonic world order. maintained through the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates and institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank based on the principle of 'embedded liberalism'. = the result of two particular tendencies: the internationalisation of production and the internationalisation of the state that led the thrust towards globalisation. began to alter following the world economic crisis of the 1970s and the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the 1970s: overall crisis.The outward expansion of particular modes of social relations of production and the interests of a leading class on a world scale can also become supported by mechanisms of international organisation. capitalism! Hegemony can therefore operate at two levels: by constructing an historical bloc and establishing social cohesion within a form of state as well as by expanding a mode of production internationally and projecting hegemony through the level of world order Gramsci's time: expansion of Fordist assembly plant production beyond the us which would lead to the growing world hegemony and power of'Americanism and Fordism' from the 1920s and 1930s one of Cox's key objectives to explain the change from the post-World War 11 order to Page: 94 Pax Americana/Keynesian Hegemony globalisation. The underlying social relations of production were organised around the Fordist accumulation regime. movements. i. Gramsci (1971: 243) referred to as the 'internal and international organisational relations of the state': i. such as the Rotary Club. however. or the Roman Catholic Church that had an 'international' character whilst rooted within the state. the mixed economy and an expansive welfare system (Gill and Law 1988: 79-80). which allowed the combination of international free trade with the right for governments to intervene in their national economy in order to ensure domestic stability via social security and the partial redistribution of economic wealth The corresponding form of state was the Keynesian welfare state. prevailed until the early 1970s. by a 'transnational managerial class' (Cox 1981: 147) . and tripartite corporatism involving government-business-abour coalitions (Cox 1987: 219-30) The forms and functions of us-led hegemony. increasing internationalisation of production and finance driven at the apex of an emerging global class structure. voluntary associations and organisations. characterised by interventionism. labelled pax Americana.e. Social forces may thus achieve hegemony within a national social order as well as through world order by ensuring the promotion and expansion of a mode of production. both of the world economy and of social power within various forms of state.

and non-established workers in temporary and part-time positions at the periphery of the labour market (Cox 1981: 235 posits the main conflict as between national and ‘international’ labour rather than between labour & capital !! the transnationalisation of production has led to a fractionalisation of capital and labour into transnational and national social forces alike this just doesn’t ring true for me… in the 1970s … the social basis across many forms of state altered as the logic of capitalist market relations created a crisis of authority in established institutions and modes of governance. Page: 95 Class structure under globalisation the transnational managerial class. It is this organisation of production and finance on a trans. rift between established workers in secure employment. Gill 1995a: 400-i).they are more class fractions or allied social strata to the capitalist class rise in the structural power of transnational capital supported and promoted by forms of elite interaction that have forged common perspectives … between business. which fundamentally distinguishes globalisation from the period of pax Americana the transnational restructuring of capitalism in globalisation has led to the emergence of new social forces of capital and labour. Gill and Law t989: 484. other elements of productive capital (involved in manufacturing and extraction). contradictions are likely to exist between transnational social forces of capital and nationally-based capital The latter. engendered by national production systems.national level. Weiss 199 . including small. shadowing the split of capital. Cox identifies two main lines of division within the working class so the working class still exists workers of TNCS can be in conflict with workers of national companies. others have decried the global proportions of such changes in production (Hirst and Thompson 1999. some have championed such changes as the 'retreat of the state' (Strange 1996). 1996).and medium-sized businesses acting as contractors and suppliers and import-export businesses. as well elements of financial capital (involved in banking insurance and finance) have been supportive of this internationalisation of production inaccurate to refer to these as classes . may oppose an open global economy Parallel to the division between transnational and national capital. state officials and representatives of international organisations favouring the logic of capitalist market relations Cox 1987: 298.integration of production processes on a transnational scale with Transnational Corporations (TNCS) promoting the operation of different elements of a single process in different territorial locations. or the emergence of a 'borderless world' (Ohmae 1990. often within the core workforce of TNCS.

the capitalist class is supremacy prevails.the internationalisation of production has profoundly restructured—-but not eroded —the role of the state. thereby implying that a historical bloc can be established without necessarily enjoying hegemonic rule (Gill 1993: 40 Gill argues that the current transnational historical bloc has a position of supremacy but not hegemony. treasuries. underpinned by the internationalisation of production and Page: 96 the thrust of globalisation. consisting of institutions such as the World Bank. central banks—have gained precedence over those agencies closest to domestic public policy—ministries of labour and industry or planning offices (Cox 1992: 3i) he state became a transmission belt for neo-liberalism and the logic of capitalist competition from global to local spheres (Cox 1992: "ii)* he thesis of the internationalisation of the state has received much recent criticism. – all this is moot in my approach but an historical bloc as a cross-class phenomenon is not hegemonic . when a situation of hegemony is not apparent and when dominance is exercised Page: 97 through an historical bloc over fragmented opposition (Gill 1995a: 400. towards a transnational historical bloc. which have ensured the ideological osmosis and dissemination of policies in favour of the perceived exigencies of the global political economy. have been transmitted through the policy-making channels of governments The network of control that has maintained the structural power of capital has also been supported by an 'axis of influence'. 412). forging links and a synthesis of interests and identities not only beyond national boundaries and classes but also creating the conditions for the hegemony of transnational capital. Gill departs from Gramsci to assert that an historical bloc 'may at times have the potential to become hegemonic'. The notion of the internationalisation of the state captures this dynamic by referring to the way transnational processes of consensus formation. new constitutionalism involves the narrowing of the social basis of popular participation . those state agencies in close contact with the global economy—offices of presidents and prime ministers. established in the post-World War ii period. 402. This politics of supremacy is organised through two key processes: the new constitutionalism of disciplinary neo-liberalism and the concomitant spread of market civilisation. the work of Stephen Gill has greatly contributed to understanding this process as part of the changing character of us-centred hegemony in the global political economy Gill the global restructuring of production is located within a context of structural change in the 1970s … in this period … transition from what Gill recognises as an international historical bloc of social forces.

policy credibility and competitiveness. the ideological promotion of American liberalism. be it by progressive social movements and Green Parties. as "domination" and as "itirellectual and moral leadership'" Where the former strain of supremacy involves subjugation by force. nationalist movements. Yet this projection of supremacy did not simply unfold through domination Rather than simply equating supremacy with dominance. = primitive accumulation (2) the capitalist production process. submitting education and health to capitalist profit criteria and leading to the destruction and exhaustion of the environment. referring to the exploitation of labour in the work place. affirmation of a set of macro-economic policies such as market efficiency. assured American supremacy through the 1970s and was reconstructed in the 1980s. mainly relevant during the early history of capitalism. or be it by populist. Gramsci (1971: 57) himself states. The overarching concept of supremacy has also been used to develop an understanding of the construction of us foreign policy towards the 'Third World' and how challenges were mounted against the us in the 1970s through the New International Economic Order (NIEO) (Augelli and Murphy 1988). 'the supremacy of a social Page: 98 group manifests itself in two ways. Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) within the European Union (EU) is regarded as a good example of this process (Gill 2001 New constitutionalism & Supremacy attempt to make neo-liberalism the sole model of development by disseminating the notion of market civilisation based on an ideology of capitalist progress and exclusionary or hierarchical patterns of social relations (Gill 1995a: 399). based on individualism and free trade. = accumulation by dispossession? the latter form of capitalist discipline that has become increasingly relevant during neo-liberal globalisation Resistance to it. and (3) the extension of exploitation into the sphere of social reproduction. 1992: 165). can be understood as class struggle as much as the confrontation between employers and employees at the workplace (van . construction of legal or constitutional devices to remove or insulate substantially the new economic institutions from popular scrutiny or democratic accountability' (Gill 1991. discipline and confidence. Augelli and Murphy argue that supremacy can be maintained through domination or hegemony supremacy defines the position of a leading class within an historical bloc and can be secured by hegemony as well as through domination. the latter involves leading allied groups – again opposing them… Shifts or variations in hegemony therefore characterise conditions of supremacy van der Pijl (1998) three areas of capitalist discipline and exploitation: (1) original accumulation and resistance to it.within the world order of disciplinary neo-liberalism hollowing out of democracy.

Bieler 2000. Robinson & promoting polyarchy analysing the promotion of polyarchy defined as.der Pijl 1998: 36-49) NB NB NB NB NB – but how?? an account of the historically specific way in which mass production was institutionalised in the us and how this propelled forms of American-centred leadership and world hegemony in the post-World War 11 period (Rupert 1995a) consideration of struggles between social forces in the us over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and globalisation (Rupert 1995b. Bieling and Steinhilber 2000. Overbeek and Ryner 1998. and Haiti and tentatively extended with reference to the former Soviet bloc and South Africa. Stienstra 1994. Chile. Unfashionable because many retain an essentially historical materialist position as central to analysis—focusing on the 'decisive nucleus of economic activity' (Gramsci. Other recent research has similarly focused on the promotion of'democracy' in Southern Africa (Taylor 2001) hegemony in Mexico (Monon 2003c) Criticisms neo-Gramscian perspectives have been criticised as too … lacking in Marxist rigour. Whitworth 1994 recent return to understanding forms of us foreign policy intervention within countries of peripheral capitalism. Nicaragua. or low intensity democracy. Shields 2003). Page: 99 international organisations including the role of gender and women's movements (Lee 1995. 2000) analyses of European integration within the context of globalisation and the role of transnational classes within European governance (van Apeldoorn 2002. Bieler and Morton 2001b. 1971: 161 the fallibility of al! knowledge claims is accepted across neo-Gramscian perspectives Page: 100 Peter Burnham (1991) he neo-Gramscian treatment of hegemony amounts to a 'pluralist empiricism' that fails to recognise the central importance of the capital relation and is therefore preoccupied with the articulation of ideology. is therefore analysed as an adjunct of us hegemony through institutions such as the us Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in the panicular countries of the Philippines. Ryner 2002. 'a system in which a small group actually rules and mass participation in decision-making is confined to leadership choice in elections carefully managed by elites' (Robinson 1996: 49 Polyarchy. . Holman.

A different series of criticisms have separately centred on the thesis of globalisation and the internationalisation of the state Leo Panitch has argued that an account unfolds which is too top down in its expression of power relations and assumes that globahsation is a process that proceeds from the global to the national or the outside-in The point that globalisation is authored by states is thus overlooked b developing the metaphor of a transmission belt from the global to the national within the thesis of the internationalisation of the state (Panitch 1994. "popular beliefs" which assume the same energy as "material forces'" (Gramsci 1971: 404). Rather.' Ideas and intellectual activity can 'assume the fanatical granite compactness of. ideas in the form of inter-subjective meanings are accepted as part of the global political economy itself in contrast to Burnham's claim.. they are not regarded as an additional independent variable next to material properties. in relation to the world of production to offer the basis for a materialist and social class analysis of intellectuals. By thus asking what modes of social relations of production within capitalism have been prevalent in particular historical circumstances. street names and lay- Page: 101 out (Gramsci 1995: 155-6). the state is treated as an aspect of the social relations of production so that questions about the apparent separation of politics and economics or states and markets within capitalism are promoted. ?? weird way of answering the charge that avoids the question of economic primacy appreciation of the links intellectuals may have.By granting equal weight to ideas and material capabilities it is argued that the contradictions of the capital relation are blurred which results in 'a slide towards an idealist account ofthe determination of economic policy' he categories of state and market are regarded as opposed forms of social organisation that operate separately in external relationship to one another. the state is not treated as an unquestioned category but still vague about whether the state is a capitalist state closer to Burnham's own position than he might admit. or the wider social function they perform. This leads to a supposed reification of the state as a 'thing' in itself standing outside the relationship between capital and labour (Burnham t994). schools. architecture. he social relations of production are taken as the starting point for thinking about world order and the way they engender configurations of social forces. the 'material structure of ideology' is the principal emphasis. 2000) his is a one-way view of internationalisation that respectively: overlooks reciprocal .^ Only those ideas. there clearly exists a set of at least implicit assumptions about the state as a form of social relations through which capitalism and hegemony are expressed. linked to a particular constellation of social forces engaged in an ideological struggle for hegemony are considered to be 'organic ideas' (Bieler 2001).. Although a fully developed theory of the state is not evident. which are disseminated through or rooted in such structures. which demonstrates an awareness of the ideological mediations of the state through libraries.

as the basis for counter-hegemony to change world order. Cox (1992: 30-1. is still interested in analysing attempts to constitutionalise neo-liberalism at the domestic. globalisation and the related emergence of transnational social forces of capital and labour has not led to a retreat of the state. therefore induces the reproduction of capital within different states through a process of internalisation between various fractions of classes within states een in this way. Finally. following both Gramsci and Cox. capital is not simply something that is footloose. may differ from one neo- Page: 103 Gramscian perspective to the next . Gill too. restructuring of different forms of state through an intemalisation within the state itself of new configurations of social forces expressed by class struggle between different (national and transnational) fractions of capital and labour. Cox's focus has been on historical blocs underpinning Page: 102 particular states and how these are connected through the mutual interests of social classes in different countries. must begin. but also how states are still an integral part of this process. although he tends to take a slightly different tack on the application of notions such as historical bloc and supremacy. represented by the transnationalisation of production. following Panitch's (1994:74) argument. supremacy and historical bloc. the national context is the only place where an historical bloc can be founded and where the task of building new historical blocs. or between hegemony. stress on both intemalisation and internationalisation is somewhat different from assuming that various forms of state have become simple 'transmission belts' from the global to the national. Indeed. overlooks mutually reinforcing social relations within the global political economy.interaction between the global and the local. beyond the power of the state. 2002: 33) has made clear that the internationalisation of the state and the role of transnational elites (or a nebuleuse) in forging consensus within this process remains to be fully deciphered The overall position adopted on the relationship between the global and the national. regional and global levels Focus on transnational networks of production and how national governments have lost much autonomy in policy-making. but is represented by classes and fractions of classes within the very constitution of the state.26). even though social forces may be implicated in transnational structures he point of departure within a neo-Gramscian approach could equally be changing social relations of production within forms of state or world order (Cox 1981: I53n. or ignores class confiict within national social formations The role of the state. globalisation. is still determined by struggles among social forces located within particular social formations.

The primary task of critical scholarship is to therefore clarify resistance to globalisation (Cox 2002: 42) !!!!!! Page: 104 LOL The final and most recent criticisms arise from the call for a much needed engagement by neo-Gramscian perspectives with the writings of Gramsci and thus the complex methodological.Criticism that: he hegemony of transnational capital has been over-estimated possibility for transformation within world order is thereby diminished by neoGramscian perspectives focus on elite agency is important: Cammack (1999) has added. ontological. while the point about a lack of empirical investigation into concrete acts of resistance is correct in many instances. it is possible to acknowledge the role played by both past forms of thought and previous historical conditions in shaping subsequent ideas and existing social relations (Morton 2003a). Page: 105 the conceptual framework developed by such neo-Gramscian perspectives rethinks prevalent ontological assumptions in IR due to a theory of hegemony that focuses on social forces engendered by changes in the social relations of production.e. to avoid overstating the coherence of neo-liberalism and to identify materially grounded opportunities for counter-hegemonic action. a host of questions related to counter-hegemonic forms of resistance are usually left for future research. epistemological and contextual issues that embroiled the Italian thinker (Germain and Kenny 1998) warning that the incorporation of Gramscian insights into IR and IPE ran 'the risk of denuding the borrowed concepts of the theoretical significance in which they cohere o commit the latter error could reduce scholars to the accusation of 'searching for gems' in the Prison Notebooks in order to 'save' IPE from a pervasive economism (Gareau 1993:301) possibility of appreciating ideas both in and beyond their context Rather than the seemingly austere historicism of Germain and Kenny's demands. – wrong by their own lights then! several neo-Gramscian attempts dealing with issues of resistance have now been formulated and provide fertile avenues for further exploration (see Cox 1999. Gill 2000. i. a critical theory of hegemony that directs attention to relations between social interests in the struggle for consensual leadership rather than concentrating solely on state dominance. forms of state and . it should not be exaggerated an analysis of the current power configuration of social forces does not by itself strengthen this configuration he analysis of hegemonic practices can be understood as the absolutely essential first step towards an investigation into potential alternative developments. which limit the relevance of past ideas in the present. an alternative critical theory route to hegemony improves on mainstream IR routes. and resistance can only be successfully mounted if one understands what precisely needs to be resisted. Morton 2002). 2001. too often. = afterthought Overall.

transmitted and used so that it [can] remain an effective tool not only for the critical Page: 105 analysis of hegemony but also for the development of an alternative politics and culture' (Buttigieg 1986: 15).. Vs. 'competition state' analysis falls into the trap of separating economics from politics and the market from the state. As a result. but not eroded role of the state. that includes the social basis of hegemony or the configuration of social forces upon which power rests across the terrain of state-civil society relation a critical theory of hegemony was developed that was not equated with dominance and thus went beyond a theory of the state-as-force. Attention is thus drawn towards the basis of state power. resembles Cerny's conceptualisation of the 'competition state' in globalisation (Cemy 2000a. resulting in an ahistoric analysis of different social forms specific to capitalism ). poses an epistemological challenge to knowledge claims associated with positivist social science what matters 'is the way in which Gramsci's legacy gets interpreted. Rather. the state is understood as an independent actor intervening in the market in different ways. Cerny & competition state At first sight. Rather than withering away. this understanding of a restructured. however. 2000b).world order. the state is not understood as resting on and being constituted by a particular configuration of social forces. Cemy argues that 'states play a crucial role as stabilisers and enforcers ofthe rules and practices of global society' In contrast to neo-Gramscian perspectives. .