Introduction PART ONE: COGNITION Ideas and Beliefs Social Beliefs Structures and Strategies Structures of Ideologies Values Mental Models Consistency Consciousness Common Sense Knowledge and Truth Identity Social Cognition PART TWO: SOCIETY Ideology and Society Groups Group Relations Elites Dominant Ideologies? Institutions PART THREE: DISCOURSE The Relevance of Discourse Discourse Structures Context Reproduction From Cognition to Discourse Persuasion Legitimation Ideological Discourse Structures The Ideology and Discourse of Modern Racism Conclusions

Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Este articulo es, a dia de hoy, una de las piezas clasicas y fundamentales para la posibilidad de estudiar las relaciones globales de poder a partir de las herramientas conceptuales desarrolladas por Gramsci a lo largo de su obra. Cox, contribuye de esta forma a las corrientes criticas de las Relaciones Internacionales al discutir varios conceptos gramscianos y cuales serian las implicaciones para estudiar las relaciones internacionales en distintos periodos de hegemonia y contrahegemonia. De igual forma, el autor planteo la cuestion –en su momento novedosa– de la relevancia de tomar en cuenta los procesos internos de construccion de bloques historicos contrahegemonicos como aquellos que podrian tener un efecto revolucionario en las estructuras y organizaciones internacionales, asi como ruptura con la hegemonia plasmada como una clase perteneciente a un orden economico universal transnacional.  This article is a classic and fundamental for approaching global power relations with the conceptual tools developed by Gramsci. Cox contributes to critical thought in International Relations by discussing various gramscian concepts and what their implications are for the study of different historical forms of hegemony and counter-hegemony. Also, the author draws our attention –novel at the time of its publicaction– to the relevance of taking into account the construction of domestic counter-hegemonic historic blocs. He suggests that these could have a revolutionary effect on international structures and organizations, as well as rupture with the hegemony performed by the transnational economic order.

/pdf/gramsci-hegemonia-y-relaciones-internacionales-un-ensayo-4pf37zld7g.pdf

Gramsci, hegemonía y relaciones internacionales: Un ensayo sobre el método | Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method

What motivates states to follow international norms, rules, and commitments? All social systems must confront what we might call the problem of social control—that is, how to get actors to comply with society's rules—but the problem is particularly acute for international relations, because the international social system does not possess an overarching center of political power to enforce rules. Yet, taken in balance with other values, a measure of order is a valued good. Some take this absence of centralized power to mean that the international system is like a Hobbesian state of nature, where only material power matters; others see it as evidence that international rules have force only when they are in the self-interest of each state. I show that these two conclusions are premature because of their shallow reading of international society and misinterpretation of the ways in which authority works in domestic society.

/pdf/legitimacy-and-authority-in-international-politics-3o1kgb7fb3.pdf

Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics

Social scientists have sketched four distinct theories to explain a phenomenon that appears to have ramped up in recent years, the diffusion of policies across countries. Constructivists trace policy norms to expert epistemic communities and international organizations, who define economic progress and human rights. Coercion theorists point to powerful nation-states, and international financial institutions, that threaten sanctions or promise aid in return for fiscal conservatism, free trade, etc. Competition theorists argue that countries compete to attract investment and to sell exports by lowering the cost of doing business, reducing constraints on investment, or reducing tariff barriers in the hope of reciprocity. Learning theorists suggest that countries learn from their own experiences and, as well, from the policy experiments of their peers. We review the large body of research from sociologists and political scientists, as well as the growing body of work from economists and psychologists, pointing to the diverse mechanisms that are theorized and to promising avenues for distinguishing among causal mechanisms.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2281983_code2071501.pdf?abstractid=2281983&type=2

The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition or Learning?

Political scientists, sociologists, and economists have all sought to ana- lyze the spread of economic and political liberalism across countries in recent decades+ This article documents this diffusion of liberal policies and politics and proposes four distinct theories to explain how the prior choices of some countries and inter- national actors affect the subsequent behavior of others: coercion, competition, learn- ing, and emulation+ These theories are explored empirically in the symposium articles that follow+ The goal of the symposium is to bring quite different and often isolated schools of thought into contact and communication with one another, and to define common metrics by which we can judge the utility of the contending approaches to diffusion across different policy domains+

/pdf/introduction-the-international-diffusion-of-liberalism-j0407lw02p.pdf

Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism

...essential reading for all those concerned with the current debates about the nature of democracy and social change in industrial societies.'___ Political Quarterly .

Gramsci's Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process

Gramsci's Political Thought

Communism may be dead, but a quasi‐Marxist critique of liberal democracy survives in the writings of a number of thinkers ‐ most notably, David Miller and John Dryzek ‐ who deplore the self‐centered apathy of their fellow citizens and defend the radical ideal of deliberative democracy. Inspired mainly by Rousseau and Habermas, this emergent school of thought argues for a more participatory system where the public interest takes precedence over private interest, and where rational argument replaces cynical manipulation. The paper questions whether the deliberative model can cope with the incalculable complexity of modern society. Deliberative democracy, it is contended, rests on doubtful metaphysical assumptions, a blinkered approach to empirical evidence, and a common misapprehension about the nature of political argument.

Complexity and deliberative democracy

The paper begins by expressing some doubts about how Gramsci has been appropriated by the so-called 'Italian School' of International Relations/International Political Economy (IR/IPE) Particularly questionable is the attempt to 'internationalise' his concepts of 'civil society' and 'hegemony', whose respective meanings are sometimes extended beyond Gramscian usage Also dubious is the tendency to assume that his conceptual framework supports a counter-discourse within IR/IPE that contradicts the 'realist' mainstream In his political ideas, Gramsci was as much a child of Machiavelli as of Marx, and he praised the Florentine for developing a progressive or 'transformative' realism in opposition to the conventional type of realism that seeks only to 'manage' the status quo This interpretation of Gramsci as a kind of realist is defended by highlighting three 'Machiavellian' aspects of his thought: (a) his contempt for abstract ideals of justice or democracy, (b) his hostility to 'vague and purely ideological' (his words) internationalism; and (c) his surprising (for a supposed Marxist) doubts about the prospects for a non-coercive and egalitarian society In conclusion, it is pointed out that Gramsci helps us to illustrate a tension at the heart of Marxism: that between utopianism and realism Because of his admiration for Machiavelli, he eventually betrayed second thoughts about Marx's vision of a world without borders or conflict His idea of transformative realism, rather than his concept of hegemony, should perhaps be seen as his chief contribution to IR/IPE

Gramsci, Machiavelli and International Relations

The collapse of the Soviet Union would seem to sound the death knell for Marxism as a blueprint for social change. Why has this doctrine - the repository of so many hopes and dreams - failed in its grand ambition to liberate the human race from poverty and oppression? Through a critical and systematic analysis of what Marx and his disciples had to say about democracy, Joseph Femia sheds light on the reasons for this failure.

/pdf/marxism-and-democracy-317w8csjr3.pdf

Joseph V. Femia

Papers

Gramsci's Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process

Gramsci's Political Thought

Complexity and deliberative democracy

Gramsci, Machiavelli and International Relations

Marxism and democracy