Although I’ve been taking political science courses all throughout my university career this is the first year I have heard of the Hegemonic stability theory. Funny enough, this is also a common theme in my International Organizations class however it is classified as the hegemonic theory of states instead. That being said, It is an area of global politics which has really sparked my interest. The realist perspective has always attracted my attention but has seem a little dismissive of other global political theories at times. The hegemonic centred theory however ties in the realist power dynamic with some of the organizational institutions and norms which govern global anarchy. Many realists for instance would dismiss IGOs as window dressing without much real substance. I can understand that ideology behind this sort of though however as I mentioned before it seems dismissive. Contrary to this, a hegemonic based outlook of world politics would argue that these IGOs are used as tools as the hegemonic power to help organize global politics through burden sharing and deflection of blame.

This interest in hegemonic world governance has led me to focus my blog post around the article review of Keohane’s, Hegemony and After: Knowns and Unknowns in the Debate Over Decline. This article focuses around the presence of an American based hegemony but also its perceived decline. It begins on a pessimistic tone discussing the stresses and problems faced by hegemonic states. This pessimism isn’t based in current conflicts and troubles that America faces but the constant worry that all hegemonic states experience of a future decline. The article then takes a turn towards the positive as it discusses the numerous positive impacts the US has had on international relations. For instance, a number of institutions propped up as a result of American hegemony, namely, the World Bank, The UN peacekeeping force as well as NATO. The article continues to express how the US may not always have a direct impact in changing world politics but that the global sphere is constantly under the influence of American norms. Democracy and Neo-liberalism are core values of the American hegemony and are inflicted upon the rest of the world. Obviously like with any Ideology or theoretical perspective they have their short comings, nonetheless, American hegemony has led to a period of ongoing peace and stability. Democracy has seen a sharp incline with the number of democracies global wide quadrupling after the post war period.

Further criticism is made of the institutions which have blossomed under US hegemony and their potential shortcomings. For instance, peace keeping organizations such as NATO and the UN were criticized for being to indirect in their approach at time causing inefficiencies. From my perspective this is fair a criticism but must also be put into context. Peace keeping failures such as the Rwandan genocide are horrible mistakes which serve as an example for how acting to late can cause dire results. On the other hand, there are circumstances where acting too forcefully or preemptively could result in deeper conflicts. By taking a back seat at times and allowing conflicts to play their course, the US is playing it safe, attempting to constrain the possibilities of upsetting the global community. That being said, many would argue preemptive war is a necessary evil which the US has done, most often in situations directly affecting their own interests.

Most importantly perhaps, is the overarching need for a global leader to promote stability and create a international set of objectives. The point is made within the article that having a democratic nation as the world leader is more beneficial than an authoritarian regime. This is because typically democratic regimes have more checks and balances which would encourage stability and prevent rash decisions. On the other hand, this is written from an American perspective so I wouldn’t expect anything less than for an American journal to support American hegemony. In fact, China is used as an example of a regime which may be less successful at being a hegemonic world leader. This is unsurprising since China is currently seen as the US’s largest rival or threat at the moment.

At first the hegemonic global theory sounded quite pessimistic to me as it confirmed many of my fears of American dominance and a puppet master type identity. However, as I learnt more about the matter, it began to make sense on why a hegemony is not only a useful structure within global politics but also necessary for sustained growth and peace. One point I am still unclear on is how much a majority of realists accept this as a viable theory of global governance. I know the idea of Hegemony is one that realists accept as it deals with power relationship but the governance aspect where the international community is temporarily thrust out of the state of global anarchy is one that contrasts much of realists core beliefs. I also wonder at what point a global hegemony could be considered a true one world government. Although borders and opposition may remain, a truly all powerful hegemony who structures not only the institutions but also the core beliefs and values of the political world would closely resemble this possibility. Although we are not there yet, is this sort of unwavering dominance possible or will the American hegemony inevitably fall like so many before it.

BLOG #1: Power, Perspectives and Morrissey

Honestly, going into my first IR class I had little in terms of expectations and wasn’t quite sure what to expect. However, after hearing Dr. Crawford brief history on the field of IR I have mixed feelings about its current state. Although It probably would have been much easier to look at the world through a state vs state lens like was previously the case. It also does seem quite limiting when considering to the number of other actors who can influence the global sphere. On the other hand, the current field of IR as expressed, appears to be quite discombobulated (I’ve never used that word before) with no real consensus. Personally I don’t think the realist approach is that ridiculous as it seems to be a more macro approach. The newer perspectives of IR are much broader without much in terms of firm direction. It’s almost as though the field could be split into two different fields similar to micro and macro economics. Obviously this wouldn’t really work because everyone would start to want their own field and the credibility that IR and political science hold would become even more diminished.

That being said, if this is a field which is ambiguous and made up of numerous different ideologies, riding the fence isn’t going to get me anywhere. The realist perspective (which is quite pretentious name for a school of thought) does do some things which I like. Namely, it tries to cut to the core details of international relations. The whole idea that powerful states are all that matters makes sense at first, because realistically, what affect do NGO’s, IO’s and all the other proposed influencers have when push comes to shove. More than likely, the people with the big guns are going to be making the real decisions. In saying that, what buys guns? Money. I believe realism is a little outdated because avenues have become available for MNC’s and other groups to acquire enormous amounts of money, weapons and power. To be honest, I believe much of national and international politics is much more behind close doors and oligarchical than we’d care to believe so who knows what truly matters. All I know, is I’m excited to learn more new perspectives on the field and am open to having my mind changed.

On another note, based off Dr. Crawford’s recommendation which was seconded by my dad, I started listening to The Smiths and Morrissey. I actually quite like some of his new stuff, particularly “Spent the Day in Bed” but am yet to find someone who seconds this opinion. The Smiths on the other hand seem to be loved by all.