Abstract
This chapter asks the question “what does it mean to be hegemonic” in the discipline of IR? It argues that there are two common modes of being hegemonic; an IR community exercises its hegemonic position institutionally and/or intellectually. Exploring the different ways in which an IR community can be hegemonic, this chapter makes the claim that the USA dominates the discipline of IR institutionally but not intellectually. In challenging the assumption that the USA is hegemonic in intellectual terms, the chapter calls for a rereading of European IR and for European IR to be repositioned in disciplinary narratives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agathangelou, A.M., and L.H.M. Ling. 2004. The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism. International Studies Review 6 (4): 21–50.
Aydinli, E., and J. Mathews. 2008. Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory Out of Anatolia. Review of International Studies 34 (4): 693–712.
Barnett, M., and R. Duvall. 2005. Power in International Politics. International Organization 59 (4): 39–75.
Bates, T. 1975. Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony. Journal of the History of Ideas 36 (2): 351–366.
Bieler, A., and A. Morton. 2004. A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World Order and Historical Change. Capital and Class 28 (1): 85–113.
Biersteker, T. 2009. The Parochialism of Hegemony: Challenges for ‘American’ International Relations. In IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West, ed. A.B. Tickner, and O. Wæver, 308–327. Oxon: Routledge.
Bilgin, P. 2008. Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR? Third World Quarterly 29 (1): 5–23.
Bleiker, R. 2001. Forget IR Theory. In The Zen of International Relations: IR Theory from East to West, ed. S. Chan, P. Mandaville, and R. Bleiker, 37–67. New York: Palgrave.
Brown, C. 2001. Fog in the Channel: Continental International Relations Theory Isolated (or an essay on the Paradoxes of Diversity and Parochialism in IR Theory). In International Relations–Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, ed. D.S.L. Jarvis and R.M.A. Crawford, 203–219. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Burnham, P. 1991. Neo-Gramscian Hegemony and the International Order. Capital and Class 15 (3): 73–92.
Chen, C. 2011. The Absence of Non-Western International Relations Theory in Asia Reconsidered. International Relations of the Asia Pacific 11 (1): 1–23.
Cox, R.W. 1987. Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cox, M. 1994. Approaches from a Historical Materialist Approach. Mershon International Studies Review 38 (2): 366–368.
Cox, R. 1996. Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, W., and K. Nossal. 2009. The ‘Crimson World’: The Anglo Core, the Post-Imperial Non-Core, and the Hegemony of American IR. In IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Waever, 287–307. Oxon: Routledge.
Crawford, R.M.A., and D. Jarvis (eds.). 2001. International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Towards Diversity in International Thought. Albany: SUNY Press.
Friedrichs, J. 2004. European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions. London: Routledge.
Friedrichs, J., and O. Wæver. 2009. Western Europe: Structure and Strategy at the National and Regional Levels. In International Relations Scholarship Around the World: Worlding beyond the West, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Wæver, 261–286. London: Routledge.
Germain, R., and M. Kenny. 1998. Engaging Gramsci: International Relations Theory and the New Gramscians. Review of International Studies 24 (1): 3–21.
Gramsci, A. 2005. Antonio Gramsci: Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hamati-Ataya, I. 2011. Contemporary Dissidence in American IR: The New Structure of Anti-Mainstream Scholarship? International Studies Perspectives 12 (4): 362–398.
Hellmann, G. 2011. International Relations as a Field of Studies. In International Encyclopedia of Political Science, vol. 8, ed. B. Badie, D. Berg-Schlosser, and L. Morlino, 1–35. London: Sage.
Hoffmann, S. 1977. An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedalus, 106(1), 41–60.
Jackson, P.T. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge.
Jordan, R., Meliniak, D., Oakes, A., Peterson, S., and Tierney, M. 2009. One Discipline or Many? TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in Ten Countries. Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations: 1–92.
Jørgensen, K. E., and Knudsen, T. B. 2006. United Kingdom. In International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations, ed. K. E. Jørgensen and T. B. Knudsen, 149–171. Oxon: 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.
Kennedy-Pipe, C. 2007. At a Crossroads—and Other Reasons to be Cheerful: The Future of International Relations. International Relations 21 (3): 351–354.
Krippendorf, E. 1987. The Dominance of American Approaches in International Relations. Millennium 16 (2): 207–214.
Kristensen, P. M. 2015. International relations in China and Europe: the case for interregional dialogue in a hegemonic discipline. The Pacific Review 28 (2): 161–187.
Lipson, M., D. Maliniak, A. Oakes, S. Peterson, and M. Tierney. 2007. Divided Discipline? Comparing Views of US and Canadian IR Scholars. International Journal 62 (2): 327–343.
Mittleman, J. 2000. The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Morton, A.D. 2003. Social Forces in the Struggle Over Hegemony: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives on International Political Economy. Rethinking Marxism 15 (2): 153–179.
Mosely, P. 1967. International Affairs. In US Philanthropic Foundations: Their History, Structure and Management, and Record, ed. W. Weaver, 375–395. New York: Harper and Row.
Parmar, I. 2002. American Foundations and the Development of International Knowledge Networks. Global Networks 2 (1): 13–30.
Parmar, I. 2009. Foreign Policy Fusion: Liberal Internationalism, Conservative Nationalists and Neoconservatism—The New Alliance Dominating the US Foreign Policy Establishment. International Politics 46 (2–3): 177–209.
Parmar, I. 2011. American Hegemony, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rise of Academic International Relations in the United States. In The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, ed. N. Guilhot, 182–209. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rupert, M. 2009. Antonio Gramsci. In Critical Theorists and International Relations, ed. J. Edkins and N. Vaughan-Williams, 176–186. Oxon: Routledge.
Sharman, J.C. 2008. Benchmarking Australian IR: Low Impact, a Bookish Lot or a Very British Affair? Australian Journal of International Affairs 62 (4): 530–531.
Smith, S. 2000. The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science? British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2 (3): 374–402.
Smith, S. 2002. The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline. International Studies Review 4 (2): 67–85.
Tickner, A. 2003a. Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World. Millennium 32 (2): 295–324.
Tickner, A. 2003b. Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies. International Studies Perspectives 4 (4): 325–350.
Tickner, A.B. 2008. Latin American IR and the Primacy of lo práctico. International Studies Review 10 (4): 735–748.
Tickner, A.B. 2013. Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 627–646.
Tsygankov, A.P., and P.A. Tsygankov. 2007. A Sociology of Dependence in International Relations Theory: A Case of Russian Liberal IR. International Political Sociology 1 (4): 307–324.
Turton, H.L. 2016. International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline. London: Routledge.
Wæver, O. 1998. The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization 52 (4): 687–727.
Walker, T.C., and J.S. Morton. 2005. Re-Assessing the ‘Power of Power Politics’ Thesis: Is Realism Still Dominant. International Studies Review 7 (2): 341–356.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alejandro, A., Jørgensen, K., Reichwein, A., Rösch, F., Turton, H. (2017). Hegemony. In: Reappraising European IR Theoretical Traditions. Trends in European IR Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58400-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58400-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58399-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58400-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)