In Gramsci, Hegemony and International
Relations: An Essay in Method, Robert Cox sets out to outline Antonio
Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, and considers how his theory might apply to the
modern international system. In his conception of hegemony, Gramsci emphasizes
the influence of the relationship between civil society and the political power
on the ability of a socio-economic class to effectuate a new social order, and
postulates that in societies with well-functioning civil societies
comprehensive change, both with respect to institutional structure and modes of
thought, must be brought to bear in order to achieve that end. Although
Gramsci’s theory was written in response to what he observed with respect to
the rise of socialism in Russia and the onset of fascism in Italy, his theory
is still relevant to the international system in modern times. For example, in
recent years, Hugo Chavez has had success in creating a working-class hegemonic
discourse that may threaten U.S.-capitalist hegemony in the region. While it
remains unclear whether Chavez’s powerful rhetoric will end with the creation
of a new global socio-economic order, it does appear that his efforts to
nurture an anti-capitalist and anti-American civil society have proven
powerful. Thus, Cox’s conception of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony has
application both in the context of world history and in describing contemporary
international relations.
Cox begins by setting forth the
theoretical foundation of Gramsci’s theory, asserting that he proceeded on the
basis of his historical happenstance and refused to make limiting abstractions
which may or may not prove to have application in the real world. (Cox 1993:
49-50) Specifically, Gramsci sought to find an alternative to Italian fascism,
and in doing so, examined the onset of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. (Cox
1993: 52) He proceeded to question why it was that social revolution occurred
in the relatively backward state of Russia, as opposed to Western Europe, where
capitalism had advanced the farthest and where Marx would have expected it.
(Cox 1993: 52, 53) His answer lied in his understanding of power and
hegemony. His concept of hegemony meant
that the ascendance of the dominant class would “necessarily involve
concessions to subordinate classes,” and he believed the class domination
achieved through these concessions becomes indoctrinated into the social fabric
not only through state policy, but through civil society and its related
institutions (Cox 1993: 51). Gramsci followed a Machiavellian view of power,
believing that power, when properly executed, should involve “a necessary
combination of consent and coercion” (Cox 1993: 52).
The influence of civil
society on Gramsci’s conception of social change was evident in his notion of a
“war of movement,” or a rebellion formulated and carried out within the state
apparatus, which he viewed as doomed to failure in states with well-developed
civil societies (Cox 1993: 52). He noted that in states with bourgeoning civil
societies, a long-running “war of position” would have to be waged within the
civil society before social change could be effectuated (Cox 1993: 53). To
emerge victoriously from a “war of position,” new institutions would need to be
formed, along with a new intellectual and public discourse centered on a
refusal to accept the status quo. (Cox 1993: 54) Gramsci considered the
resultant birth of a new social hierarchy and the institutional culture it
generates to form the components of a new integrated social structure, or
“historic bloc,” which arises only when the historic bloc it replaces “exhaust[s]
its full potential” (Cox 1993: 56). It this basic difference between a “war of
movement” and a “war of position” which explains why it was that Russia, only
needing to proceed by way of “war of movement” was able to undergo a social
revolution ahead of Western Europe, a social revolution within which, with its
burgeoning civil society, would have required the emergence of a
successfully-waged “war of position” capable of winning over the hearts and
minds of the society (Cox 1993: 52-53).
In continuing his effort to resolve some of the seeming
inconsistencies which ensue when comparing Marx’s prediction of the inevitable
crisis of capitalism with the evolution of history after his death, Gramsci
characterizes a “passive revolution” imposed from the outside and failing to
replace an old social order as creating a “non-hegemonic society” within which
no single class would have attained hegemony. (Cox 1993: 54) Gramsci identifies
the onset of “reactionary ceasarism,” or rule by a strong-man without the support
of a coherent social class, and “trasformismo,”
or the process by which varying social classes are assimilated into a political
framework, as two incidences he observed as leading to a non-hegemonic state
under Italian fascism (Cox 1993: 54, 55). These occurrences can explain why it
was that fascism did not take hold as the global hegemonic discourse and that a
fascist revolution did not spread throughout the world. (Cox 1993: 55)
Cox concludes by showing how Gramsci’s theory of hegemony can
be applied to the global arena. He finds states and their relations to be
reflections of the existing socio-economic order, and similarly notes that
international organizations embody the universal rules and norms set forth by
the hegemonic power. (Cox 1993: 58, 61)
From this analysis, he finds that states that are more powerful have
greater independence to enact the foreign policy which best serves to advance
their domestic interests, whereas less powerful states become entangled in a
web of socio-economic dependency. (Cox 1993: 59) Consequently, he determines
that weaker states, and by extension, the social standing of their majority
class, will rise in relative power only after emerging successfully from a
comprehensive “war of position” aimed at garnering the support of the weaker
class and the institutional culture coupled with the support of strong
Machiavellian-type leadership which balances the interests of consent and
coercion (Cox 1993: 52, 64-65). The continuing hegemony of the global
capitalist class is thus explained by the absence of strong and effective
leadership capable of diffusing a fresh view of the social order and effecting
multifaceted structural change.
In modern times, however, the dynamic and charismatic
leadership of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela epitomizes a counter-hegemonic force
which may challenge the future prospects of American-capitalist hegemony. Over
the past decade, Chavez, through his Bolivarian Revolution, has sought to alter
the social fabric of Venezuelan society by promoting the interests of the
peasantry over that of the capitalists. In nationalizing Venezuelan industries,
returning land to native peasants, and reducing inequality by spreading the
distribution of the benefits brought about by oil production, Chavez has sought
to eliminate the socio-economic dominance of the capitalist class. (Furshong
2005: 2) In nationalizing the media,
Chavez has demonstrated a commitment to controlling the flow of information in
an effort to alter the fabric of public opinion and promote an alternative to
the structurally, deeply-embedded institutional hegemony of the
American-dominated global capitalist class. (Barrionuevo 2009: 2) Furthermore,
rather than seeking further integration with existing international
organizations, Chavez has expressed a commitment to spreading his ideology
beyond Venezuela’s borders by endeavoring to create competing international
organizations focused on restructuring the role of the peasantry in the global
hegemonic order and challenging the accepted norms of behavior brought about by
capitalist hegemony. (Cawthorne 2009: 1-2) His efforts have succeeded in
arousing public sentiment, as demonstrated by his ongoing popular electoral
support. (Carroll 2009: 1) The energy released by the strengthening of the
peasant class may prove appealing to surrounding states, thus encouraging the
“outward expansion of the internal (national) hegemony” (Cox 1993: 61). While
it is unclear if Hugo Chavez’s efforts will lead to the creation of a new
global hegemonic order, it certainly appears that his efforts in recent years
have begun to sow the seeds for the structural changes which must inevitably
accompany a “war of position” and precede the creation of a new “historic bloc”
with the interests of the working-class at its core.
In conclusion, in Gramsci,
Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method, Robert Cox seeks
to apply Gramsci’s theory of hegemony to the international order. He describes
hegemony as not just simple domination of one state over another, but as a
complex, structurally-embedded phenomenon which involves the institutions of
civil society and the norms of behavior espoused by the dominant socio-economic
class. Cox finds that the concept of hegemony can be applied to the
international system, as the hegemonic class finds itself able to transform the
world order after its own image. In outlining the prospects for change, he
notes that a successful counter-hegemonic force will necessarily be one which
arouses public sentiment and seeks to transform the rules and norms of society
from within the institutions of civil society. Hugo Chavez and his efforts in
recent years to advance the cause of peasant ascendance, coupled with his
transformation of the institutions of civil society and his ongoing popular
support demonstrate a potential counter-hegemonic force brewing to our South.
While it is unclear if Chavez will be able to restructure the world order and
shift the hegemonic discourse on a global level, those with a vested interest
in the capitalist system would be well-advised to consider the implications of
the principles espoused by Antonio Gramsci and Robert Cox.
Works Cited:
Barrionuevo,
Alexei. "Latin American Journalists Face New Opposition." International
Herald Tribune. New York Times, 30 Aug. 2009. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/world/americas/31brazil.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=venezuela%20media&st=cse>.
Carroll, Rory.
"Hugo Chávez wins referendum allowing indefinite re-election." The
Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 16 Feb. 2009. Web. 30 Sept.
2009.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/16/hugo-chavez-indefinite-rule>.
Cawthorne,
Andrew, and Kevin Gray. "Chavez, Gaddafi Push Africa - South America
Unity." International Herald Tribune. New York Times, 26 Sept.
2009. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/26/world/international-uk-latam-africa.html?scp=1&sq=hugo%20chavez%20multilateral&st=cse>.
Cox, Robert W.
“Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations: An Essay in Method.” In Gill,
Stephen (Ed.) Gramsci, Historical
Materialism, and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993.
Furshong,
Gabriel. "What is Bolivarian Socialism? And When?" Venezuelanalysis.
Fundación para la Justicia Económica Global, 4 Sept. 2005. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1342>.
No comments:
Post a Comment