Jason Halkins

Social Theory and International Relations A second look at the US hegemony in International Relations Introduction The arts and social science are never meant to be broken down into the multiple disciplines that we have today. Rather, in order to accurately analyze an issue, it requires the culmination of the different disciplines in order to have a more accurate view. In terms of philosophy, if one believes that there is no such thing as an objective truth, then perhaps the more perspectives we adopt, the closer it is to truth. In this essay, I will be developing a Gramscian theory of international relations. In the first section, I focus on extracting the key points from Gramsci supplementing them with other theorist like Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens, and Ted Hopf. In the second section, I will be highlighting the applicability and significance of developing a Gramscian theory of international relations. In the third section, I use this theory in explaining the resilience of a US hegemony in international relations and also provided some suggestions in which any potential challenger may adopt, resulting in a hegemonic change, and not just the subtle changes we have been seeing. Throughout my essay, I will be using subaltern classes and the term masses interchangeably but they necessary refer to the same group of people, mainly the working class, proletariats, and peasants. Ontology In his prison notebooks, Gramsci was attempting to understand the failure of a communist revolution in Italy yet it successfully happened in Russia. Through his analysis, he came to the conclusion that the failure was mainly due to the party elites’ failure in rallying and organizing the masses in the creation of a popular support base. Gramsci has always been a fervent supporter of the co-opting of the masses into the revolutionary project even prior his imprisonment. This was illustrated in the following section in which Gramsci wrote: The existence of a cohesive and strongly disciplined Communist Party which, through its factory, trade-union and co-operative nuclei, co-ordinates and centralizes within its own executive committee all of the proletariat’s revolutionary activity, is the fundamental and indispensable condition for accepting any Soviet experiment. (1971, xl) However, the realization of a need for a “national co-ordination of the proletariat’s revolutionary activity” was however too late (Gramsci, 1971, xl). To Gramsci, the highpoint of the revolutionary spirit was the April metalworkers’ strike in Turin a response to the employers attempt to destroy the commissioni interne. This failure was not “due to the huge armed force which was concentrated in the city” (Gramsci, 1971, xli). The fault lies internal within the PSI who refused to “secure the support of the party of trade unions nationally, and to draw in workers outside Piedmont” (Gramsci, 1971, xl). This led to the isolation of the Turin strikes in which the workers were eventually defeated. All these happenings and Gramsci’s emphasis on the inclusion of the masses in the revolutionary project led to his development on the concept of mass common sense. The common sense of an individual is an “uncritical and largely unconscious way of perceiving and understanding [of] the world” (1971, 322). This common sense provides the individual with a sense of ontology which are shaped both by the superstructure and the structure (Fig. 1) (1971, 366). The former points towards the ideological basis while the latter points towards the means of productions. The position of an individual in the hierarchy of the production process does indeed shape an individual’s common sense towards the world. For example, think about the difference in common sense between an average worker and the Capitalist. The interest of the average worker could possibly be focused on getting a pay raise or more incentives from his employer while that of the Capitalist may be more focused on the accumulation of capital and other areas that have the potential for further investments and developments. The multiple positions in the production process sort individuals into different environments which generates different interests based on the material aspects which then shapes the individual’s perception of his or her social environment. The ideologies that shapes an individuals’ conception of the world can be developed from aspects of the non-material world like religion (1971, 325) For example, Buddhism’s teachings of a good life includes the sacrificing of worldly possessions in which these things are mere illusions. Such teachings when internalized by an individual can potentially affirm his position in the production process because being poor complies with the religious teachings. Alternatively, the workers could instead view the Capitalist position as sort of an ideal goal in life and hence work towards it. These examples illuminates Gramsci’s conception of a dialectic relationship between the superstructure and the structure of which is important in the development of the common sense of individuals. Fig. 1 The creation of an individual’s ontology Gramsci’s other important concept of hegemony requires the need for the understanding of the common sense of the people; their perceptions of the world. This is to say that the hegemonic class has to find ways to ‘learn’ form the masses, to understand the way they think, their problems, and the way they feel. In order to develop an opposing view of the existing ideology and for the masses to accept this newly conceived idea, the elites or the intellectuals have to understand the feelings of the masses, in order to guide them accurately. This is explicitly written by Gramsci in that: Therefore, first of all as a critique of “common sense” (after using common sense to demonstrate that “everyone” is a philosopher and that it is not a question of introducing from scratch a science into “everyone’s” individual life, but of renovating and making “critical” an already existing activity) (330-331) Without understanding the common sense of the masses, the elites will not be able to accurately point out the problems and concerns that the masses face or thinks about. Only when the elites are able to accurately understand the problems and the feelings of the masses can the elites guide them into political consciousness. (Gramsci, 1971, 331). This mechanism can be applied by both the existing hegemonic class to reinforce their hegemonic class by seemingly appear to redress the concerns of the masses, or it can be applied by a counter-hegemonic force. For the former, one can immediately think about the redistributive policies that are tend to be applied by Capitalists to address the inherent unequal distribution of resources in the Capitalistic structures. Gramsci’s conception of the common sense is crucial in illustrating the ways in which the individual perceives the world and how this actually comes about. This is crucial in elevating the common sense of the masses into political consciousness and thereby translating it into action, attaining “the upper level of philosophy”. This philosophy refers to the creation of history, meaning that the masses were successful in overthrowing the hegemonic class and thereby creating history. However, certain loopholes can be derived from Gramsci’s theorization of common sense. Primarily, Gramsci does not dwell into the resilience of an individual’s common sense or how one comes about understanding an individual’s common sense. Second, Gramsci does not differentiate between subtle changes and that of a revolutionary change which he advocates. This distinction is important especially in the context of international relations because there has definitely been changes over the years since the end of World War II which are at most superficial and the world continues to be under the dominance of the US. Yet, Gramsci does not take into account the occurrence of such subtle changes. Structure, Process of Reproduction, Practice Gramsci pays a lot of attention to the common sense of individuals whereby he stated that “one cannot but start in the first place from common sense, then secondly from religion, and only at a third stage move on to the philosophical systems elaborated by traditional intellectual groups” (1971, 425). The common sense of individuals are dependent on the societies that they are in and hence “closely linked to many beliefs and prejudices, to almost all popular superstitions” (1971, 396). Thus, while Gramsci focuses on the individual, the individual does not really have much agency. The child’s consciousness is not something “individual” (still less individuated), but it reflects the sector of civil society in which the child participates, and the social relations which are formed within his family, his neighborhood, his village, etc (1971, 35). These societal structures necessarily impose restrictions on our thought or rather to channel us to think in a specific manner. Gramsci divides the superstructure into two components – political and civil society. These structures are what enforces conformity in a society. Political society points towards the coercive and repressive state apparatus such as law enforcements while civil society includes the propagation of ideologies through the establishment of institutions (Gramsci, 1971, 261). Such institutions include religious institutions, schools, and newspapers. In order for a hegemonic class to sustain its position in society, it has to dominate both political and civil society: Hegemony = Political society + Civil Society (Gramsci, 1971, 263). As the hegemonic class, they have more agency in developing and shaping the superstructure of society and thus through the control of civil institutions, they are able to spread the ideologies though these structures, channeling the thoughts of the masses in a unidirectional manner that necessarily entrenches the position of the hegemonic class. However, structures are not the only thing that constraints agency as what Gramsci argues. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus supplements that of Gramsci’s argument in that the maintenance of structures is also a result of the practices carried out by individual in a dialectic relation. The concept of habitus is defined as: “systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them. Objectively ‘regulated’ and ‘regular’ without being in any way the product of obedience to rules, they can be collectively orchestrated without being the product of the organizing action of a conductor” (Bourdieu, 1990, 53). Imagine that all structural constraints are removed in a particular society overnight, individuals will not simply cease to carrying on with their lives. They will inherently continue to carry out their practices as determined by their common sense shaped by the previous superstructures reinforced by institutional structures. Hence, the superstructure of any society is necessarily reproduced by the masses themselves through their daily practices. Practices are not only responsible in the reproduction of the structures that constraint the individuals. It also allows these individuals to have a “feel for the game”, in other words, achieving excellence in their daily practices (Bourdieu, 1991, 103). Thus, the best way in understanding in an individual’s common sense is to engage in the similar practices as the individual did. Social institutions coupled with the practices of the masses helps in reproducing the superstructures for successive generations, which necessarily socializes the new generations into a similar thought process. One may argue against these structures such there do exist differences between the different generations of z, y, and x (z consisting of people who were born in the post-World War II period, y consisting of people who were born in the 1980s and the 1990s, while z consist of people who were born after the dot com boom). While we do witness certain changes in the modes of practices, these modes are necessarily still constrained within the Capitalistic structures. For example, our parents’ generation the internet was very much not related to their work and as such the modes of labor remain that of the physical aspect. However, with the dot com boom, teenagers these days who are more tech savvy have been able to develop careers out of the usage of the internet without the need of lifting a finger of hard labor, such as the founding of Facebook. Nevertheless, these practices are mere subtle changes revolving around the same essence of capitalism which will merely result in the sustenance of the superstructure of the Capitalistic ideology. This will be further elaborated under the section of Change & Transformative Mechanisms. Gramsci specifically emphasized on the role of education in societies as it habituates people to a “certain collective discipline…and attitudes” (1971, 31). He argued that schools under the Capitalistic system has been corrupted in a way that has resulted in the streaming of students into different forms of education depending on their social class. The classical schools which helps students to develop the fundamental skills of critical thinking have been reserved for the hegemonic class. On the other hand, the subaltern classes are being introduced to what Gramsci calls a vocational school, in which they are to learn the more technical and industrially required skills, so as to equip them with the necessary mindset and skillset in the labor market (1971, 40). Yet, in order to rally the masses together, to initiate some form of cohesive political activity, there is need to bring these unconscious common senses to their consciousness, to make them aware of the things that they are doing, to question the existing practices. This should not be done in the form of instilling the masses with opposing ideologies to the existing hegemonic class. Rather, it has to be guided and led to discovery. Learning takes place especially through a spontaneous and autonomous effort of the pupil, with the teacher only exercising a function of a friendly guide – as happens or should happen in the university. To discover a truth oneself, without external suggestions or assistance, is to create – even if the truth is an old one. It demonstrates a mastery of the method, and indicates that in any case one has entered the phase of intellectual maturity in which one may discover new truths (Gramsci, 1971, 33) However, with the subaltern classes constantly being exposed only to vocational schools to learn the hard concrete skills that is required of the labor market, the only guide that they are receiving from these “organic intellects” of the Capitalist is so as to be able to find the sort of suitable jobs for them. These institutional structure help the Capitalist to constrain the masses, and the very idea of an institution is such that it is able to last through generational changes which helps to sustain the position of the hegemonic class through the creation of consensus from the masses. Power, Order Power is what sustains any form of order in society and this power is exerted by the hegemonic class over the other subaltern classes. The traditional Marxist belief was that the Capitalistic order was an unsustainable one in which the necessary resulting contradictions in the economic production relations will lead to a revolt by the proletariats and thereby altering the social order. However, this was not the case and yet there was only a marginal level of coerciveness applied by the hegemonic class. This is where the part on ideological power comes in. Gramsci’s concepts of hegemonic power rest on both coercive power and ideological power in which the latter helps to generate consent (1971, 263). Coercive power lies in the apparatuses of the State and dwells in the realm of the political society. Such power includes the police, law enforcers, or military forces. This aspect of power should always and only be applied on small marginal cases of deviance whereby such deviant acts necessarily contravenes with the interests of the hegemonic classes, threatening the interests of the hegemonic class. An excessive use of coercion or inappropriately could possibly elevate the existing escalation between the subaltern classes and the hegemony which may then threaten the latter’s power. This is best illustrated in the example written by Gramsci: All Giolitti, who had become PM again in June, had to do was to restrain the more hot headed employers who would liked the troops sent in – an action which might have provoked precisely the immense mass reaction which alone could have escalated the confrontation to a struggle for State power – and to wait until the workers had full realized that their leaders’ revolutionary words were empty rhetoric. (Gramsci, 1971, xliv) The hegemonic class by sacrificing some portions of their interest – without threatening their fundamental interests – they are able to appease and receive the allegiance from the subaltern classes and thereby sustain their hegemony over them. This is what Gramsci meant by consensus in which the subaltern classes agree to their domination by their hegemonic class. In this scenario, the order of society is maintained by the hegemonic class. While Gramsci’s equation of sustaining the hegemonic order contains both coercion and consensus, he is more inclined towards the latter. This was derived from his analysis through the comparison of western societies and that of Russia. In the latter, the Bolsheviks were able to carry out a successful revolution against the State, allowing them to establish a communist State. However, in western societies, such revolutions were always absent or rather it was unable to gain traction as it did in Russia. He then came to conclude that it was because Russia had a weak civil society where Capitalism had yet to sink its roots in the Russian society and the only resistance was the State’s coercive power (Gramsci, 1971, 238). In western societies however, there existed a strong advanced civil society with established institutions which helped to propagate and strengthen the Capitalistic ideals (Gramsci, 1971, 238). Gramsci concluded that in any societies with an advanced civil society, in order to attain a revolution, the war has to begin and won first at the civil society, in other words the ideological battle. This is termed the war of position. In a society, whereby civil society is weak, similar to that of Russia prior to 1917, a war of maneuver is sufficient and the revolutionary class simply has to struggle for State power with the hegemonic class (Gramsci, 1971, 229 – 238). So how does ideological power work? Ideological power deals with the psychology of the human mind in which it is able to manipulate someone to do the bidding of another unwillingly without the resort to the usage of coercive force. Imagine there are two individuals – A and B (A coming from the hegemonic class and B coming from the subaltern class) and A is trying to get B to do something for him which benefits A or that A is attempting to convince B on the existing power relations. A then paints the picture such that the overall outcome of B’s actions or the existing power relations are actually beneficial to both A and B. If B internalizes A’s explanation that the action is beneficial to him as well, then B will carry out the action even if he does not like it. As long as B continues to carry out the actions as laid out by A, it will continue to solidify the dominance of A over B, such as that of an employer over an employee. One of the famous axiom that is espoused from Capitalism is the idea that one rising tide lifts all boats, in the idea that the improvement in the economic strength of a country will be beneficial to everyone, and that the way to improving the economic strength is the implementation of the liberal market system. The analogy mentioned above tends towards that of the economic interest of both the hegemonic and subaltern classes. However, Gramsci’s definition of common sense does not merely encompass that of economic interest, rather it includes what defines as a form of good life. However, Gramsci does not really go into the specifics to the exact mechanisms as to how this non-material ideology plays out. The concept of symbolic capital by Bourdieu helps to further supplement Gramsci’s ideas. One can perceive symbolic capital as a resource for individuals which may take the form of “recognition, acknowledgement, [or] in the sense of gratitude” and “honor and prestige” (Bourdieu, 1990, 118). In other words, it means that individuals do not simply carry out actions simply based on economic, material interest but it can be for the sake of accumulating symbolic capital. Such symbolic capital in the peasantry world provides “additional labor-power…at the times of greatest need” due to the “network of affine and relationships that is held through the set of commitments and debts of honor, rights and duties accumulated over the successive generations” (Bourdieu, 1990, 116). In a Capitalistic society, the ideological power of the Capitalist lies in the fact that they get to define what these symbolic capital are, creating the fields in which such capital is recognized, laying out the mechanisms in accruing such symbolic capital that allows them to “dispense with strategies aimed expressly and directly at the domination of individuals” (Bourdieu, 1990, 131). Thus, the act of accumulating material wealth – while appearing to be purely on a material basis – is actually an act of the “accumulation of symbolic power – the power to secure recognition of power” (Bourdieu, 1990, 131). An example would be the purchasing of Veblen goods which are able to be priced at exorbitant prices. Underlying the material form of a bag lies its symbolic capital that is assigned to its material value such that the carrier attains recognition in terms of prestige. Thus, in this case, material capital is traded for symbolic capital. Nevertheless, this recognition of the individual’s social status can only be given from someone who recognizes the particular brand of bag that the individual is carrying. Bourdieu adds: Just as economic field wealth cannot function as capital except in relation to an economic filed, so cultural competence in all its forms is not constituted as cultural capital until it is inserted into the objective relations set up between the system of economic production and the system producing the producers (Bourdieu, 1990, 124). These fields are “arbitrary social constructs [and] provide themselves with agents equipped with the habitus needed to make them work” (Bourdieu, 1990, 67). The symbolic capital attached to a particular brand of bag lies in that of the social field and the people in this particular has to come from a habitus that allows them to recognize the social capital attached to that brand of bag. The ideological power of the Capitalist lies in their ability to determine the assets that allows one to gain social capital. These ideologies can be propagated in the form of advertisements – shaping a product as a need rather than a want, advocating a particular social life as the ‘high’ life which would make people happy. The marketing branch of the Capitalist are trained to conduct market studies, to understand the common sense of the masses and then tailor their products and messages to suit these common senses. As the masses continue to engage in the purchase of such products, it helps the Capitalists to achieve their objective of creating a culture of mass consumerism of which it will continue to create more business and material capital for them. The continuation of this cycle serves to sustain the power relations in society as the masses believe that their needs are being met by such products. While ideological powers are indeed powerful, in modern societies today, we tend to observe the workings of both ideological and coercive power at the same time in a dialectic relationship, in order to sustain order. For example, the labelling of a group of people as extremists or terrorists has often been painted by the State in a particular manner in which they deemed inappropriate. This labelling can be as such that these minority group of people are disrupting the peace and stability of society and as such their actions should be condemned not only be the hegemonic class but by the majority of society. Once this labelling has sunk into the common sense of masses, it gives the State the moral high ground to resort to the usage of coercive force in removing the “terrorists”. The usage of coercive force on these group of people in turn reinforces the level of delinquency of their actions and thereby keeps society in order. Change, Transformative Mechanisms In the aftermath of World War I, Italy suffered from a catastrophic economic crisis. This led to the generation of resentment amongst the peasantry class and the petite bourgeoisie class towards the bourgeoisies and the politicians. This was reflected in the 1919 general elections whereby the “PSI received almost two million votes, and returned 156 deputies to parliament, out of a total of 508 seats. Party membership rose from 20,000 at the end of the war to 87,000 in 1919” (XXXVII). This was the period of the hype of revolution since the success of the Bolshieviks revolutions in Russia. However, the elites of the PSI failed to organize the masses nor did they seek for allies “for the industrial proletariat (4 million strong at this time) among the peasants or agricultural laborers (each of whom represented a further 4 million approximately) (XXXVII). Instead, the party alienated these people rather than channeling their resentment against the hegemonic class. Through this illustration, we can deduce that Gramsci posits that the best opportunity for change is where there exist a cleft in ideologies between the hegemonic class and the majority of the subaltern classes. Such cleavages can occur during periods of grave situations such as war or economic crises as shown above. However, what is more pertinent to Gramsci is that the elites have to educate the masses, and rally them. Aforementioned, Gramsci does not believe in a top down indoctrination of opposing ideologies from the elites to the masses. Rather, he sees the need for these respective classes to develop their own organic intellectuals. These organic intellectuals will then have to engage in a dialectical learning relationship with their respective classes. The purpose of the organic intellectuals is to bring forth the common sense of the masses from the unconscious to their consciousness such that they would start pondering over their existing practices and begin to question these practices. On the other hand, the organic intellectuals have to learn to understand the resentments, problems, and the concerns that the masses may have. Based on these resentments, problems, and their concerns, these organic intellectuals have to tailor them to fit with their opposing ideologies to show that this ideology will be able to alleviate these concerns. This results in a fit of common sense between the elites and the masses and is what Gramsci calls a war of position. Only once the war of position is won can the elites begin to transit into the war of maneuver, the direct seizure of the State apparatuses and power. Gramsci’s concept of change seems to adopt an elitist view whereby the responsibility of change lies largely on the actions of the elites. This is perhaps understandable given the type of societies that Italy was in during Gramsci’s time, which was an era with an absence of technologies and the peasants and workers were mostly habituated in a similar social environment. With a similar environment, there will not be significant changes to their common sense. Of course, this is my mere postulation that may or may not be representative of Gramsci. However, my point is that, since the social environment determines one’s common sense, a change of environment may have the potential of bring consciousness of one’s practices. This is where the concept of habitus as developed by Bourdieu is able to be applied again. Aforementioned, Bourdieu suggest that individuals are constrained by structures and yet these structures tend to give individuals the illusion that they are making conscious decisions. In fact, agency is limited and is rather a falsified illusion. Individuals presume that they have agency while in fact they are merely operating within these structures created by the habitus. These habitus is conceptualized as “embodied history” which shapes one’s “schemes of perception, thought and action” (Bourdieu, 1990, 73). An individual carrying out a practice may have that false impression that he or she is performing a conscious act but that is because the habitus has been “internalized as a second nature” (Bourdieu, 1990, 56). Thus, practices may appear to be autonomous relative to the existing world, when it is actually a product of historical structures. In addition, Bourdieu argues that these histories reproduce itself “by reactivation in similarly structured practices”. However, Bourdieu also mentioned that dispositions are transposable which allows for changes to occur. The habitus to Bourdieu is thereby able to “produce an infinite number of practices that are relatively unpredictable…but also limited in their diversity” (1990, 55). As Bourdieu puts it, the seemingly individuality that appears with the slight different in practices is due to the “singularity of their social trajectories” (1990, 60). The habitus “structures new experiences in accordance with the structures produced by past experiences, which are modified by the new experiences within the limits defined by their power of selection, brings about a unique integration” (Bourdieu, 1990, 60). Yet, these changes in the habitus can at most only be ‘superficial’ as the habitus “tends to ensure its own constancy and its defence against change…by rejecting information capable of calling into question its accumulated information” (Bourdieu, 1990, 60-61). Thus, the habitus similar to Gramsci’s concept of common sense can be liken to that of genetics in which the DNA of a child is an amalgamation of his or her parents DNA which may result in different traits but necessarily retains the essence from each parent cell. Unfortunately, such changes are not preferred by Gramsci. The kind of change that Gramsci seeks to achieve is to change the essence, such as the injecting of a vaccine which can amend and recode the genetic arrangement of the individual, removing the essence from the parent gene. This essence in Bourdieu’s term is called doxa which is the “pre-verbal taking-for-granted of the world that flows from practical sense” (68). In order to achieve the kind of revolutionary change that Gramsci calls for – the revolution against the ideologies of the hegemonic class – the war of position has to be waged against the doxa. So how easy is it to wage a war of position? The answer is tenacious (Fig 2). At this point, this is where Anthony Giddens’ concepts will be able to cast some light on the arduous task of transforming the common sense of individuals. Giddens coincides with Bourdieu in that our daily practices of our self-perceived reality help to reproduce societal structures in a dialectic relation. However, he takes a step further and suggest that these “taken-for-granted” conventions or practices are then concretized and appear to be robust and sturdy. This then creates “a feeling of ontological security [which] are anchored by the practical consciousness” (Giddens, 1991, 36). This practical consciousness is the individual’s perception of reality shaped by his or her daily practices, and injects certainty in an individual’s life, helping the individual to navigate in a world of uncertainty. When faced with a foreign habitus or a contravening ideology, the defence of an individual’s ontological security is activated. This is akin to the human bodies’ response to a foreign bacteria in which it automatically and reflexively triggers the body’s defense mechanisms before that bacteria is able to deal any harm to the body. When the bacteria successful overcomes the first line of defence, the individual then falls sick in which external help is then need in the form of a doctor who will then diagnose and prescribe medicine to the patient. In our daily life, the first line of defence “bracketing” helps the individual to manage discrepancies that he or she faces in the daily life (Giddens, 1991, 36). For example, when an individual observes someone sleeping on the table instead of the bed, the individual would naturally label that act as a form of deviancy and choose to ignore that particular act, rather than allow that act to affect his or her own practice. However, as Giddens argues, the ontological security of an individual can be vulnerable as well, especially in drastic cases when it is challenged to the extent that the individual begins to question his own identity (1991, 37). Such scenarios could happen when an individual faces a drastic change in his or her life – for example death in the family; exposure to cases of extreme violence or deaths (such as those who witnessed 911). When such cases happens, and the individual’s perception of reality is challenged, the external help kicks in as the second line of defence by providing help for to the individual to reconstruct his or her reality (Giddens, 1991, 38). This can be in the form of social workers, counsellors, or even parents. Such help coming from the societal habitus helps to re-socialize the individual and hence protecting the essence of the individual’s habitus. In cases where societal institutions are destroyed as well in the case of war or serious economic downturns such that the individual’s second line of defence is unable to protect the essence of his or her habitus, this is when individuals are most probable to questioning the existing hegemonic ideologies and with the guidance of the elites in developing opposing ideologies, thereby developing a fresh set of practices. The fusion of Gramsci, Bourdieu, and Giddens dwells into more depth of an individual’s common sense. All three social theorist have a similar consensus that an individual’s common sense is determined by the social environment that the individual is in, and that their practices leads to the continual reproduction of the existing hegemonic ideals, sustaining the continuation of the dominance of the hegemonic class over the subaltern classes. However, Gramsci fails to go into more details on explaining the differing actions that individuals may have since there can never be an exact replica of two person. Of course this may because of the fact that Gramsci’s focus has always been about achieving a total transformation rather than subtle changes. However, in order to achieve that, it is important to understand the difference between subtle changes and total transformations such that the appropriate strategies can be applied. Bourdieu helps to solve this riddle by showing how this is achieved through the different habitus that an individual is exposed to. Bourdieu’s concept of the doxa supports Gramsci’s war of position such that this ‘war’ has a specific target to deal with. The inclusion of Giddens into the theory showcases the difficulties and the multiple lines of defences in which the war of position has to overcome in order for a new opposing revolutionary ideology to emerge. Fig. 2 Line of defences in order to amend the doxa PART TWO: Transition Robert Cox draws out the differences between problem-solving theory and critical theory, whereby the former takes the world as it is and simply provides a superficial solution to it, the latter focuses on the progression of how an existing problem has resulted in the existing form (1981, 128-129). Gramsci’s theory on the common sense of the masses falls under the category of critical theory. The importance of the usage of a critical theory in analyzing the world today can be illustrated in the subsequent analogy. When an individual falls sick and has to seek treatment from the doctor, a problem-solving theory would accept the illness as it is and apply the appropriate medication to it to tackle the illness. This method may be effective and is definitely much swifter in easing the pain of the individual. A critical theory would require the doctor to first analyze the daily habits of the individual, the places that he goes to, the things that he eats, the things that he does, the time he sleeps etc…Such a method focuses on identifying the root cause of his illness and thereby applying both the appropriate medication to the existing illness as well as onto the root cause of it which perhaps require the individual to amend certain habits by perhaps exposing him to a different habitus such as a fitness class – if the individual lacks that aspect in life. Such a treatment is necessarily much slower as it requires more time in analyzing an individual’s habits. While a problem solving theory is fast and effective, the success in alleviating the illness is only temporal because the illness will necessarily surface again. A critical theory focuses while requires a much longer time, it seeks to identify the root cause and to eliminate it once and for all and thereby prevent any subsequent relapse of the same illness. Gramsci’s theories mainly apply to the happenings in domestic politics within a State. However, it has severe implications in the international realm as well. Ultimately, a State’s foreign policy and domestic policies are in a dialectic position as well and not simply contained in a mutually exclusive sphere. Moreover in today’s world, social forces within States do not necessarily require States as a medium in advancing their cause. The proliferation of technology facilitates more effective communication among social forces contained in different parts of the world. Thus, such a phenomenon transcends State boundaries and merely exists as an international problem. The dominance of Capitalism in today’s world has resulted in an unequal economic distribution of resources, the continual exploitation by Capitalists in peripheral countries, and poor working conditions for the workers. Yet, Capitalist continues to dominate as the overarching ideology in the international realm. Even as States adopt a social-liberal economic system as what the Scandinavian countries are doing, these would only be considered as subtle changes and not a total transformation as what Gramsci would have wanted. In order to understand the seemingly everlasting dominance of Capitalism in the international world, it is of paramount significance to understand the root cause of it and the best way to do so would be to dive into the common sense of the masses. PART THREE: The Resilience of US Hegemony With all the above fusion of the different social theorists, this section will attempt to answer the dominance of western hegemony in the world. As Gramsci has postulated, hegemony is achieved through both dominance in both political and ideological societies with an inclination towards the latter. Robert Cox produced a compelling international relations theory based on Gramsci and one of his key contributions is the dialectic relationship between material capabilities, ideas, and institutions, in which the three helps to sustain a US-dominated world (1989, 136) Cox used the example of the peaceful transfer of hegemonic power from Pax Britannica to Pax Americana after World War II to illustrate the dynamics of the above mentioned ingredients in the shaping of world order (1989, 141-146). The material dominance of the US allowed them to propel their ideologies to the rest of the world through policies such as the Marshall Plan, which helped the reconstruction of European countries. This material capabilities also allowed the US to establish more international institutions as compared to what British had set up, to entrench their ideologies in the global system. These institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) with the material power of the US offer loans to other countries in return they would open up their markets for US products. This was how many of the Third World countries got absorbed into the global capitalist system. However, certain gaps can be derived from Cox’s arguments. First, Cox focused mainly on the common senses of the elites in the sense that he focused mainly on the decisions determined by the States, without mentioning about the common sense of the masses. Second, a follow up loophole would be the fixation on international institutions and neglecting State institutions. The latter is crucial as it is the connecting arm from the hegemonic State to the masses in the global world. Third, Cox is too fixated on the economic aspects of common sense whereby he focuses purely on the “social forces engendered by the production process” (1981, 138). However, this ignores Gramsci’s argument on the common sense of the masses comprising of dialectical relationship between the superstructure and structure. The masses do not purely concern themselves about material interests. On the first weakness, Ted Hopf’s analysis of the discourse of the Russian masses illustrate how a misfit between the common sense of the masses and the elites can hamper the policies that the elites would like to carry out (2013, 348). While the Russian elites wanted to move Russia towards the western concept of liberal economy, they were unable to achieve the cooperation and unity from the mass majority of Russians (2013, 348). The pervasiveness of social media through the advancements in technology has allowed US Capitalist to create advertisements that directly permeate into a child’s growing up phase, playing a significant role in socializing the child to the US’s way of life and culture. Such an early socialization will lead to these norms being part of the essence of the individual’s common sense. On the second and third weakness, US ideologies have been reproduced through institutions such as education, mass culture, and tourism. This includes the dissemination of US culture and ways of life through content such as pop music, Hollywood movies, and social applications. In terms of education, “the United States and the core dominates the education of the rest of the world” (Hopf, 2013, 330). This particular dominance over education resonates with Gramsci’s concept on that the State has to take on an educator role in order to convince the masses of its ideology rather than from a top-down indoctrination. In addition, the increasing number of business schools that contains US Keynesian economics curriculums all over the globe - established with the support of nation States, help to reproduce the US’s ideas, culture, morals, and economic ideals. With a control over domestic educations in the form of public schools, they are able to tailor the education system to propagate the hegemony’s ideologies. Furthermore, the increasing demand of knowledge capital in the economics field in labor markets can be determined by States as well, which again channels individuals to taking up courses in these fields.The transformation of New York City into the largest business district in the world was in a way to add value to the liberal market system. This results in the masses seeking to accumulate such knowledge capital which then continues to reproduce the dominance of the hegemonic class. The outbreak of World War II created an opportunity for a transformative change to occur, since it challenges the doxa of the individual’s common sense, which it did. However, the United States who was the only major power who did not suffer much losses from World War II, decided to propagate their ideologies around the globe (whether or not it is because of the Cold War is beyond the boundaries of this paper), together with the entrenchment of global institutions and other institutions to promote their own culture and way of life. In a period where the masses have had their common senses destroyed by the World War, the US was able to reconstruct the genetic essence of the common sense of the masses with the help of State institutions. Over generations, the new generation continue to be socialize with the same ideologies. Furthermore, the pervasiveness of technology has allowed online content to become a primary source of socialization together with or family and schools. In addition, the increasing specialization of schools which deviates from Gramsci’s idea of a classical education, helps to encapsulate the masses in the same mode of unidirectional thinking. All these culminates in the continuation of dominance of the US in international relations. In a summary, the dominance of the US can be summed up in the diagram below (Fig 3). Material capabilities and ideologies are able to directly affect the common sense of the masses with the usage of technology (internet, social media platforms, and smart phones). Similarly, it can lead to the establishment of both global and state institutions for espouse its ideologies. The global and state institutions of a revolutionary State can affect the existing hegemony’s material capabilities and ideologies and also affect the common sense of the masses. The common sense of the masses depending on their doxa (the genetic essence), will be able to affect both the institutions as well as the existing hegemony’s position. Fig. 3 US Hegemony in International Relations PART FOUR: Possibilities for Change and Conclusion While China could possibly a potential rival to the United States in challenging the latter’s hegemonic status, it seems unlikely that this transition of power would take place anytime soon in the near future. In order for China to achieve hegemony or for country to replace the US, there are a few steps that she needs to do. First, the revolutionary State needs to possess a similar economic and military capabilities to the US. Second, she has to develop an opposing hegemonic ideology, and this entails not only economically but also culturally and politically. However, even China is buying into the Capitalistic ideology, which by doing so strengthens the hegemony of the US. Third, the revolutionary State has to establish its own network of institutions both internationally and within States. This institutions cannot be purely on the economic basis. In the case of China, we do see the workings of China in trying to establish itself in the international realm. This can be inferred from the creation of regional institutions like that of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and regional policies like the One Belt One Road. However, these institutions revolve around the economy which actually espouse the same ideologies as that of the liberal market system. Thus, China needs to make itself more distinctive from the US in terms of her economic ideologies. Fourth, the revolutionary State needs to be able to understand the common sense of the world masses. This cannot be simply that of a “discourse analysis [which] is only a second-best strategy for recovering common sense (Hopf, 2013, 350). The best strategy would be to engage in the same practices as the masses, so as to develop a “field for the game”. This could perhaps come in the form of sending more students abroad to a wider range of countries specifically to gather intelligence on the common sense of the masses. Fifth, assuming that the revolutionary State is able to discern the common sense of the masses, the line of defences of the doxa would only allow for subtle changes to occur. The challenge is to actually be able to amend the doxa of the common sense of the world masses. For example, the State could probably try to assert itself first as a regional power, targeting countries whereby the US ideologies are yet to be entrenched in the doxa of the common sense of the people. Such countries may include Third world countries, or perhaps BRICS. The State will then have to gradually gather allies and friends that support its ideologies. In conclusion, Gramsci’s famous concepts of hegemony and mass common sense are interlinked, as he was attempting to understand the reasons behind the dominance of Fascism in Italy, of which he realized that it was due to the mass common sense resonating with Fascist ideologies. The common sense cannot simply entail the material ideologies but also that of other ideologies such as religion, and culture. In order to achieve hegemony in a State, it is important to first win over the civil society ideologically before resorting to material power to struggle for State power. Gramsci’s fundamental basis in writing the Prison Notebooks in my opinion was more towards the explanation of the lack of change or rather the failure of change in Italy. As such, I deemed in relevant to my case of study which is the dominance of US hegemony in international relations. US hegemony cannot simply be reduced to a case of material power as postulated by Gramsci. True enough, based on the articles written by Cox, the US has done plenty of work to entrench their ideology in the international world. This ideology is not merely an economic one in the form of the liberal market system but also includes their way of life. However, Gramsci’s common sense does not dwell deeper into the significance of these non-material ideologies and as such I deemed it pertinent to substantiate Gramsci with Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic capital. In order to explain the dominance of US hegemony, it is insufficient to look at it from the macro-level of things. It is also important to zoom in into the micro-mechanisms that are preventing change from occurring. Hence, it is important to investigate the common sense of the masses. The confirmation of US’s dominance or a hegemony can only be known through empirical findings which is beyond the scope of the paper. However, what we know is that, presumably that the US have managed to not only shaped the common sense of the masses but also that of the doxa – the essence of an individual’s common sense – then it will be extremely difficult to achieve a revolutionary change.