The Compatibility of the Concept of Hegemony with the Assumptions of Neorealism: A Critical Evaluation of the “Progressiveness” of the Neorealist Research Programme and Its Implications for Future Development
- Institution: University of Wrocław (Poland)
- ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6993-5857
- Institution: University of Wrocław (Poland)
- ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3432-0358
- Institution: Association “Projekt Akademia” (Poland)
- ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5034-8265
- Year of publication: 2024
- Source: Show
- Pages: 191-203
- DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppsy202450
- PDF: ppsy/53-4/ppsy2024412.pdf
With the end of the Cold War research on hegemony has attracted the interest of scholars in IR. Representatives of different schools of thought, such as Neoliberalism or the English school, successfully adopted the term to the new international context. Concepts such as “legitimate” or “soft” hegemony have enriched the discourse in IR. At the same time, realists and neorealists seemed to be on the defensive, as classical and material perceptions of hegemony became outdated. Regardless, with the intensifying US-Chinese rivalry as well as the revisionist policies of the Russian Federation, the IR community seems to look at realist writings more favorably. This research focuses on one of the most prominent research programs in IR, neorealism, and its compatibility with the concept of hegemony. By adopting Imre Lakatos’ concept of Research Programmes, we prove the core ideas of neorealism do not contradict hegemony. This opens perspectives for further work on the concept we refer to as hegemonic neorealism.
REFERENCES:
- Adamczyk, M., & Rutkowska, P. (2021). The clash between China and the United States and security in the Asia-Pacific region – a security dilemma, a balance of power and the bandwagon effect. Studia Orientalne, 19(1), 57–76.
- Clark, I. (2011). Hegemony in International Relations. Oxford University Press.
- Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An essay in method. Millennium: Journal of international studies, 12(2), 162–175.
- Czaputowicz, J. (2012). Bezpieczeństwo międzynarodowe. Współczesne koncepcje. Warszawa.
- Czaputowicz, J. (2014). Mapa współczesnego realizmu: realizm klasyczny, neorealizm, realizm neoklasyczny. In E. Haliżak, & J. Czaputowicz (Eds.), Teoria realizmu w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Założenia i zastosowania badawcze (pp. 25–41). Warszawa.
- Czaputowicz, J. (2010). Teorie stosunków międzynarodowych. Warszawa.
- Dirzauskaite, G., & Ilinca, N. C. (2017). Understanding “Hegemony” in International Relations Theories. Aalborg University.
- International Society. European Journal of International Relations, 12(2), 139–170.
- Doyle, M. (2017). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Immanuel Kant. Routledge.
- Dudek, A. (2016). Użyteczność analitycznego eklektyzmu w badaniu stosunków Polski z Rosją. Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations, 2(52).
- Elman, C., & Elman, M. (Eds.). (2003). Progress in International Relations Theory. MIT Press.
- Elman, C., & Jansen, M. A. (2014). Realism Reader. Routledge.
- Feng, L., & Ruizhuang, Z. (2006). The Typologies of Realism. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 1, 109–134.
- Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.
- Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press.
- Glaser, C. L. (1994). Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help. International Security, 19(3), 50–90.
- Herbut, M., & Kunert-Milcarz, R. (2017). The Explanatory Power of Structural Realism in the 21st Century: The Eastern Partnership, Russian Expansionism and the War in Ukraine. Polish Political Science Yearbook, 46(2), 190–204.
- Herbut, M., & Polus, A. (2022). Syntezy nie osiągniesz? Holizm konfirmacyjny wobec dyskursu teoretycznego w Stosunkach Międzynarodowych. Politeja, vol. 19(1), 207–220.
- Jackson, P., & Nexon, D. (2013). International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive wagers to scientific ontologies. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 543–565.
- Jørgensen, K. E. (2018). International Relations Theory: a New Introduction. Palgrave.
- Joseph, J. (2000). A Realist Theory of Hegemony. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(2), 179–202.
- Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
- Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. (2012). Power and Interdependence. Longman.
- Kindleberger, C. P. (1973). The World in depression in 1929–1939. University of California Press.
- Kozub-Karkut, M. (2016). Teorie stosunków międzynarodowych a badanie polityki zagranicznej. Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations, 52(4), 33–50.
- Kozub-Karkut, M., Filary-Szczepani, M., The orchard of neoclassical realism – weathered tree, graft or seedling? Politeja, 2(77), 329-355.
- Kugler, J., & Organski, A. F. K. (2011). The Power Transition: A Retrospective and Prospective Evaluation. In M. I. Midlarsky (Ed.), Handbook of war studies (pp. 171–194). Taylor & Francis.
- Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press.
- Majewski, P. (2018). System hegemoniczny w ujęciu realizmu strukturalnego. Historia i Polityka, 25(32), 115–127.
- Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
- Mearsheimer, J. (2014). “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault:The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin”. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014–08–18/why-ukrainecrisis-west-s-fault.
- Mingst, K. (2006). Podstawy stosunków międzynarodowych. Warszawa.
- Modelski, G. (1987a). Exploring Long Cycles. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
- Modelski, G. (1987b). Long Cycles in World Politics. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Morgenthau, H. J. (2010). Polityka między narodami. Walka o potęgę i pokój. Warszawa.
- Organski, A. F. K. (1968). World Politics. Alfred A. Knopf.
- Quine, W. O. (1986). Granice wiedzy i inne eseje filozoficzne. Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
- Riker, W. (1964). Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Little, Brown and Company.
- Schmidt, B. C. (2018). Hegemony: A conceptual and theoretical analysis. Routledge.
- Tomczyńska, A. (2014). Realizm ofensywny Johna J. Mearsheimera a hegemonia Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki po zimnej wojnie. In E. Haliżak, & J. Czaputowicz (Eds.), Teoria realizmu w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Założenia i zastosowania badawcze (pp. 341–356). Warszawa.
- Waleczek, M. (2014). Współpraca w świetle nurtów realizmu defensywnego i realizmu ofensywnego. Przypadek współpracy turecko-irańskiej. In E. Haliżak, & J. Czaputowicz (Eds.), Teoria realizmu w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Założenia i zastosowania badawcze (pp. 309–322). Warszawa.
- Wallerstein, I. (2004). World Systems analysis: an introduction. Duke University Press.
- Waltz, K.N. (2001). Man, the state, and war. A theoretical analysis. New York.
- Waltz, K.N. (2000). Structural Realism After the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5–41.
- Waltz, K.N. (2010). Struktura teorii stosunków międzynarodowych. Scholar.
- Waltz, K.N. (1988). The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 615–628.
- Wojciuk, A. (2010). Dylemat potęgi. Praktyczna teoria stosunków międzynarodowych. Warszawa.
hegemonic neorealism Lakatos’ Research Programmes hegemony neorealism