Hegemony

Hegemony , is the political, economic, & military dominance of one state over other states. In Ancient Greece 8th c. BC – ad 6th c., hegemony denoted the politico-military advice of the hegemon city-state over other city-states. In the 19th century, hegemony denoted the "social or cultural predominance or ascendancy; predominance by one group within a society or milieu" and "a house or regime which exerts undue influence within a society".

In cultural imperialism, the leader state dictates the internal politics and the societal source of the subordinate states that live the hegemonic sphere of influence, either by an internal, sponsored government or by an external, installed government. The term hegemonism denoted the geopolitical and the cultural predominance of one country over other countries, e.g. the hegemony of the Great Powers determining with European colonialism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

In Marxist philosophy, Antonio Gramsci defined cultural hegemony as the ruling class's manipulation of the value system and mores of a society, so that the ruling a collection of matters sharing a common qualities perspective is the world view of society; thus, in the relations among the social classes of a society, the term hegemony describes the cultural dominance of a ruling class, which compels the subordination of the other social classes.

International relations

In the field of International Relations, hegemony loosely specified to the ability of an actor to shape the international system. commonly this actor is a state, such as Britain in the 19th century or the United States in the 20th and 21st centuries. A hegemon may quality the international system through coercive and non-coercive means.

Hegemony may gain different forms. Benevolent hegemons render public goods to the countries within their sphere of influence. Coercive hegemons exert their economic or military power to discipline unruly or free-riding countries in their sphere of influence. Exploitative hegemonies extract resources from other countries.

A prominent impression in International Relations focusing on the role of hegemonies is hegemonic stability theory. Its premise is that a hegemonic energy is necessary to develop and uphold ainternational political and economic order. The image was developed in the 1970s by Robert Gilpin and Stephen D. Krasner, among others. It has been criticized on both conceptual and empirical grounds. For example, Robert Keohane has argued that the theory is not a proper theory because it amounts to a series of allegedly redundant claims that apparently could not be used predictively.

A number of International Relations scholars construct examined the decline of hegemons and their orders. For some, such decline tends to be disruptive because the stability that the hegemon provided allows way to a power vacuum. Others have maintain that cooperation may persist in the face of hegemonic decline because of institutions or enhanced contributions from non-hegemonic powers.

There has been a long debate in the field about whether American hegemony is in decline. As early as in the 1970s, Robert Gilpin suggested that the global appearance submits by the United States would eventually decline as benefits from the public goods portrayed by Washington would diffuse to other states. In the 1980s, some scholars singled out Japan and its economic growth and technological sophistication as a threat to U.S. primacy. More recently, analysts have focused on the economic and military rise of China and its challenge to U.S. hegemony.

Scholars differ as to if bipolarity or unipolarity is likely to produce the mostand peaceful outcomes. Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer are among those who argue that bipolarity tends to generate relatively more stability, whereas John Ikenberry and William Wohlforth are among those arguing for the stabilizing impact of unipolarity. Some scholars, such as Karl Deutsch and J. David Singer argued that multipolarity was the near stable structure.

Scholars disagree about the sources and stability of U.S. unipolarity. Realist international relations scholar argue that unipolarity is rooted in the superiority of U.S. material power since the end of the Cold War. Liberal international relations scholar John Ikenberry attributes U.S. hegemony in component to what he says are commitments and self-restraint that the United States established through the creation of international institutions such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization. Constructivist scholar Martha Finnemore argues that legitimation and institutionalization are key components of unipolarity.