Rethinking the Concept of Hegemony in International Relations: The Smart Hegemony of America

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Ph.D. in International Relations, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Hegemony is considered as one of the important and debatable concepts in the field of political science and international relations. The main goal of this research is to investigate the formation process of this concept in the field of international relations in order to reconsider the concept of hegemony in the literature of international relations. A crucial question addressed in this research is about the contemporary dimensions of the formation of the concept of hegemony in the literature of international relations. The research method is based on theoretical research process. This method aims to explore the major intellectual transformations in the international hegemony concept and, through reconsideration, to clarify the smart hegemony of America in contemporary international relations. Therefore, based on the findings of this research, it can be said that this research first explains the concept of smart hegemony as a type of institution at a theoretical level, which has four dimensions of power and seeks to reproduce its civilizational and identity discourse. In addition to conceptual and theoretical reconsideration, an attempt is made to examine the functions and dimensions of power of the smart hegemony of America in the contemporary international order.

Keywords

Smiley face

References

Balogun, M. J. (2011). Hegemony and sovereign equality: the interest contiguity theory in international relations. Springer Science & Business Media.
Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in International Politics. International Organization, 59(01), 39–75.
Bates, T. R. (1975). Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony. Journal of the History of Ideas, 36(2), 351-366.
Chase-Dunn, C. K. (1998). Global formation: Structures of the world-economy. Rowman & Littlefield.
Clark, I. (2009). Towards an English School theory of hegemony. European Journal of International Relations, 15(2), 203-228.
Clark, I. (2011). Hegemony in international society. Oxford University Press.
Cox, R. W. (1987). Production, power, and world order: Social forces in the making of history (Vol. 1). Columbia University Press.
Dirzauskaite, G., & Ilinca, N. C. (2017). Understanding “hegemony” in international relations theories. Development and International Relations Aalborg University, 18.
Doran, C. F., & Parsons, W. (1980). War and the cycle of relative power. American Political Science Review, 74(4), 947-965.
Dutkiewicz, P., Casier, T., & Scholte, J. A. (Eds.). (2020). Hegemony and world order: reimagining power in global politics. Routledge.
Engström, V. (2012). Constructing the powers of international institutions. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Gilpin, R. (1983). War and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press.
Goldstein, J. (2002). Long Cycles Prosperity and War in the Modern Age. In Yale University Press: New Haven and London (Vol. 52).
Guzzini, S. (1993). Structural power: the limits of neorealist power analysis. International Organization, 47(3), 443-478.
Herschinger, E. (2010). Constructing global enemies: Hegemony and identity in international discourses on terrorism and drug prohibition. Routledge.
Ikenberry, G. J. (1989). Rethinking the origins of American hegemony. Political Science Quarterly, 104(3), 375-400.
Joseph, J. (2003). Hegemony: A realist analysis. Routledge.
Joseph, J. (2008). Hegemony and the structure-agency problem in International Relations: a scientific realist contribution. Review of International Studies, 34(1), 109-128.
Krahmann, E. (2005). American hegemony or global governance? Competing visions of international security. International studies review, 7(4), 531-545.
Krauthammer, C. (1990). The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs., 70, 23.
Layne, C. (2009). The waning of US hegemony—myth or reality? A review essay. International Security, 34(1), 147-172.
Lee, Y. W. (2011). Soft power as productive power. In Public diplomacy and soft power in East Asia (pp. 33-49). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Martin, J. (1997). Hegemony and the crisis of legitimacy in Gramsci. History of the Human Sciences, 10(1), 37-56.
May, C. (1996). Strange fruit: Susan Strange's theory of structural power in the international political economy. Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, 10(2), 167-189.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to fail: The rise and fall of the liberal international order. International Security, 43(4), 7-50.
Modelski, G., & Thompson, W. R. (1988). The Long Cycle of World Leadership. In Seapower in Global Politics, 1494–1993 (pp. 97-132). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Monteiro, N. P. (2014). Theory of unipolar politics (No. 132). Cambridge University Press.
Organski, A. F. (1958). World politics. Knopf.
Pass, J. (2019). American Hegemony in the 21st Century: A Neo Neo-Gramscian Perspective. Routledge.
Strange, S. (1987). The persistent myth of lost hegemony. International organization, 41(4), 551-574.
Strange, S. (1990). Finance, information and power. Review of International Studies, 16(3), 259-274.
Thompson, W. R., & Rasler, K. A. (1988). War and systemic capability reconcentration. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32(2), 335-366.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for comparative analysis. Comparative studies in society and history, 16(4), 387-415.
Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International security, 25(1), 5-41.
Wohlforth, W. C. (1999). The stability of a unipolar world. International security, 24(1), 5-41
American Strategic Studies
Volume 3, Issue 1 - Serial Number 9
January 2024
Pages 115-144

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 07 August 2022
  • Revise Date: 18 October 2022
  • Accept Date: 12 November 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics