International Politics

, Volume 55, Issue 5, pp 595–611 | Cite as

Hegemony and international relations

  • Andreas Antoniades
Original Article


The paper interrogates the current state of the art in hegemony analysis in international relations (IR). First, I discuss the limitations of using IR theories as a point of departure for analysing the phenomenon of hegemony in world politics. Second, I identify the ‘agent-structure problematique’ and ‘critical realism’ as two different waves of hegemony theorising and examine their contributions and limitations. Then I offer an outline of how we can move beyond the current state of the art, in order to develop a more comprehensive framework of analysing hegemony. Focusing on the multiple movements of power within a hegemonic order, the paper advances a conceptualisation of hegemony as a complex power ecology—a dynamic order that draws on multiple and conflicting social forces and temporalities, which, in the final analysis, denote an existential battle for determining desire and the meaning of life.


Theories of hegemony Hegemonic order Hegemonic power Hegemony English school Critical realism Gramsci Social change 


  1. Antoniades, Andreas. 2008a. Cave! Hic Everyday Life: repetition, Hegemony and the Social1. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 10(3): 412–428. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2008.00328.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoniades, Andreas. 2008b. From ‘Theories of Hegemony’ to ‘Hegemony Analysis’ in International Relations. In 49th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association (ISA), March 26–March 30, San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Bhaskar, Roy. 1994. Plato Etc: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Bieler, Andreas, and Adam Morton. 2003. Theoretical and Methodological Challenges of Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in IPE. International Gramsci Society Online Article.
  5. Buzan, Barry. 2008. A Leader Without Followers? The United States in World Politics after Bush. International Politics 45(5): 554–570. doi: 10.1057/ip.2008.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, Ian. 2009. Bringing Hegemony Back in: The United States and International Order. International Affairs 85(1): 23–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2009.00778.x.
  7. Clark, Ian. 2011. Hegemony in International Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Cooper, Davina. 2001. Against the Current: Social Pathways and the Pursuit of Enduring Change. Feminist Legal Studies 9(2): 119–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox, Michael. 2001. Whatever Happened to American Decline? International Relations and the New United States Hegemony. New Political Economy 6(3): 311–340. doi: 10.1080/13563460120091333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, Michael. 2004. Empire by Denial? Debating US Power. Security Dialogue 35(2): 228–236. doi: 10.1177/0967010604044981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, Robert. 1993. Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. In Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, ed. Stephen Gill, 49–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deleuze, Gilles. 1988. Foucault. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  13. Deleuze, Gilles. 1992. Postscript on the Societies of Control. October 59.Google Scholar
  14. Doyle, Michael W. 1986. Empires. Cornell Studies in Comparative History. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson, Niall. 2003. Hegemony or Empire? Foreign Affairs 82(5): 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferguson, Niall. 2004. Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  17. Ferguson, Yale H. 2008. Approaches to Defining “Empire” and Characterizing United States Influence in the Contemporary World. International Studies Perspectives 9(3): 272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foucault, Michel. 1972. Archaeology of Knowledge. (trans: A.M. Sheridan Smith). London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. (trans: Robert Hurley). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  20. Gill, Stephen. 1993. Epistemology, Ontology and the “Italian School”. In Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, ed. Stephen Gill, 21–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gill, Stephen, and James Mittelman (eds.). 2001. Innovation and Transformation in International Studies, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilpin, Robert. 1987. The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd.Google Scholar
  25. Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hopf, Ted. 2013. Common-Sense Constructivism and Hegemony in World Politics. International Organization 67(02): 317–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ikenberry, G.John, and Charles A. Kupchan. 1990. Socialization and Hegemonic Power. International Organization 44(3): 283–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jervis, Robert. 2006. The Remaking of a Unipolar World. The Washington Quarterly 29(3): 5–19. doi: 10.1162/wash.2006.29.3.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mearsheimer, John. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  30. Joseph, Jonathan. 2000. A Realist Theory of Hegemony. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 30(2): 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joseph, Jonathan. 2002. Hegemony: A Realist Analysis, 1st ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Joseph, Jonathan. 2008. Hegemony and the Structure-Agency Problem in International Relations: A Scientific Realist Contribution. Review of International Studies 34(01): 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kagan, Robert. 2003. Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Kennedy, Paul. 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500–2000. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
  35. Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kindleberger, Charles. 1973. The World in Depression, 1929–1939. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  37. Krasner, Stephen D. 1976. State Power and the Structure of International Trade. World Politics 28(3): 317–347. doi: 10.2307/2009974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krasner, Stephen D. (ed.). 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell Studies in Political Economy, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Laclau, Ernesto. 1996. Why Do Empty Signifiers Matter to Politics? In Emancipation(s), ed. Ernesto Laclau, 36–46. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  40. Laclau, Ernesto. 2000. Identity and Hegemony: The Role of Universality in the Constitution of Political Logics. In Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, ed. Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Žižek. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  41. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  42. Lebow, Richard, and Robert Kelly. 2001. Thucydides and Hegemony: Athens and the United States. Review of International Studies 27(4): 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lefebvre, Henri, and Christine Levich. 1987. The Everyday and Everydayness. Yale French Studies, 73: 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mann, Michael. 2003. Incoherent Empire. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  45. McAnulla, Stuart. 2005. Making Hay with Actualism? The Need for a Realist Concept of Structure. Politics 25(1): 31–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2005.00226.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCarthy, Daniel R. 2011. The Meaning of Materiality: Reconsidering the Materialism of Gramscian IR. Review of International Studies 37(03): 1215–1234. doi: 10.1017/S026021051000077X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Michael Ignatieff. 2003. Empire Lite. Prospect Magazine, February 20.
  48. Morgenthau, Hans J. 1965. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd ed. Alfred A: Knopf.Google Scholar
  49. Morton, Adam David. 2007. Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Political Economy. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  50. Mouzelis, Nicos P. 1991. Back to Sociological Theory: Construction of Social Orders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Patomäki, Heikki, and Colin Wight. 2000. After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism. International Studies Quarterly 44(2): 213–237. doi: 10.1111/0020-8833.00156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rapkin, David. 2005. Empire and Its Discontents. New Political Economy 10(3): 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Robinson, William. 2005. Gramsci and Globalisation. Critical Review Of International Social And Political Philosophy 8(4): 559–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saull, Richard. 2012. Rethinking Hegemony: Uneven Development, Historical Blocs, and the World Economic Crisis1. International Studies Quarterly 56(2): 323–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2012.00720.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1959. Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Worth, Owen. 2015. Rethinking Hegemony. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International RelationsUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations