IR and Civil Society

The central argument that Cox makes in his article revolves around the

concept of civil society that forms the inner core of modern capitalist society. Cox

argues that civil society of powerful states serves the interests of dominant class

through educational and cultural institutions while absorbing revolutionary

tendencies. International relation, as Cox points out, is a natural expansion of the

hegemonic social order of powerful states. In other words, international relation

is not so much an exertion of military and political power as an extension of the

influence of the cultural and social institutions of capitalist states. The hegemony

of social structure in IR is seen in the all-encompassing liberal capitalist

framework that assimilates the elites from peripheral countries and potential

subversive ideas into movements that conform to the capitalist ideology. One of

the important insights Cox offers in regards to Gramsci’s notion of hegemony and

IR is that capitalism is very good at adapting to and domesticating conflicts and

crisis through “passive revolution” in which revolutionary impulses are defused

and absorbed into the social structure. Frequently, we see interest groups and

radical organizations expressing their grievance against certain government

policies or singling out certain political institutions, yet they willingly

subordinate themselves to the general principles of the market and capitalist

relation of production. Cox’s argument is particularly pertinent when seen in the

context of the resilience of the global social structure that has remained

relatively intact after the onslaught of numerous popular protests, revolutions

and environmental and economic crisis over the years. The welfare state in

particular was very effective at alleviating tensions and cloaking the inherent

contradictions of the social structure. Cox’s application of Gramsci’s concept of

hegemony to IR provides a compelling view of IR that realism and liberalism fail

to offer. Namely, the driving force of IR does not reside in the struggle for

security in a state of anarchy or benign IOs that promote peace and democracy.

Rather, it resides in the hegemonic social order whose purpose, as Marx would

say, is to create a world after its own image by continuously expanding its

ideological influence abroad and whose sturdy structure can only be broken

after “a long, laborious effort” led by the intellectuals to inculcate a new social

consciousness and a non-capitalist conception of the world into the masses.

Mearsheimer in his article makes a strong case for the primacy of realism

in IR by revealing the flaws and contradictions of alternative theories including

liberal institutionalism, collective security and critical theory. For Mearsheimer,

realism provides the most compelling explanation of IR because it is rooted in

the psychology of human nature and supported by strong empirical evidences.

Realism presents the world as it is rather than what ought to be. As Mearsheimer

argues, institutionalism emphasizes cooperation through a structure of rules but

fails to take into account the military aspect of IR and relative gain. Collective

security fails to address the issue of trust in IR and is refuted by empirical

evidences such as the failure of the League of Nations to bring about cooperation

and peace. Critical theory, though ambitious in trying to create a new world

order based on a new way of thinking, does not show how we can get there and

how realism can be replaced. Even for non-realists, Mearsheimer’s argument is

convincing as it is built on irrefutable empirical proof, utilitarian explanations

and a realistic view of human nature and the world in which naked self-interest

rules directly over trust and cooperation. The immediacy and practicality of

realism trump subjective speculation and unfounded optimism of other theories.