The role of the Gramsсian turn in the international relations theory is analyzed. The purpose of the study is to clarify the theoretical meaning of the Gramsсian turn and to reveal the content of the main ideas of the neo-Gramscian approach in international relations theory. Based on the historical method, methods of analysis and comparison of theories, the ideological origins, genesis and course of development of neo-Gramscianism, as one of the theoretical approaches in the study of international relations, are revealed.
The ontological and epistemological differences between neo-Gramscianism and the dominant research directions in the study of international relations – political realism and liberal idealism are highlighted. The main attention is paid to the contribution to the development of neo-Gramscianism by such leading theoreticians as R. Cox, S. Gill, Kees van der Pijl, Mark Rupert. Neo-Gramscian’s critique of “problem-solving” theories from the standpoint of “critical” theory is analyzed. The contribution of neo-Gramscianism to the historicization of international relations studies and the peculiarities of its use of Gramscian concepts of hegemony, historical blocs for the interpretation of world politics are determined. It was found that, in contrast to the state-centred image of the international system, international relations scholars inspired by the works of A. Gramsci explain the world order by the complex interaction of social forces, institutions, and economic relations.
The conclusion was made about the positive impact of the Gramscian turn on the development of the international relations theory, which drew attention to the relationship between knowledge and politics, and also offered a new look at the nature of the world order, the mechanisms of its formation and development, the historical dynamics of processes in the international arena.
Bibliografia gramsciana. Supplement updated to 1993. (1995). Cammet, John and Righi, Maria Luisa (eds.). Roma: Fondazione Istituto Gramsci.
Cox, Robert W. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. In Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 10, 2, 126-155.https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
Cox, Robert W. (1983). Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations: An Essay in Method. In Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 12, 3, 162-175.https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298830120020701
Cox, Robert W. (1987). Production, Power and Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cox, Robert W. with Sinclair, Timothy J. (1996). Approaches to World Order. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607905
Davies, M. (1999). The International Political Economy and Mass Communication in Chile: National Intellectuals and Transnational Hegemony. New York: St. Martin’s Press. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230509368
Gill, S. (1990). American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gill, S. (1995). Globalization, Market Civilization, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism. In Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 24, 3, 399-423.https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298950240030801
Hoare, Q., Smith, G. N. (eds. and trans.). (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.
Morton, A. D. (2007). Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Political Economy. London & Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.
Murphy, C. N. (1994). International Organization and Industrial Change. Global Governance since 1850. Cambridge: Polity.
Rupert, M. (1995). Producing Hegemony: The Politics of Mass Production and American Global Power. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rupert, M. (2000). Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New World Order. London: Routledge.
van der Pijl, Kees. (1998). Transnational Classes and International Relations. London: Routledge.