Impact of globalization on educational reform and practice
Presentation edited final
1. SOCIAL FORCES, STATES AND WORLD
ORDERS: BEYOND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS THEORY
By Alvina Hoffmann and Antonio Vigil
2. Hegemony
• Gramsci: Hegemonic social order in the state
established through institutions
• Juxtaposition and reciprocal relationships of
the political, ethical and ideological spheres of
activity with the economic sphere
• On the international level: foreign policy of
Great Powers in response to domestic
interests
3. • Not to be confused with dominance or
imperialism
• However, it is based on a “universal” world
order, not exploitation, founded on a globally-conceived
civil society
“A world hegemony is thus in its beginnings an
outward expansion of the internal (national)
hegemony established by a dominant class”
4. Internationalization of a particular
system operates within 3 constrains:
• 1. Material Capabilities (technology and resources)
• 2. Ideas (two types):
A) Intersubjective meanings
B) Collective images of social order held by
different groups of people.
• 3. Institutions
• All these 3 forces are reciprocal
Thus world hegemony = internationalization of a social,
economic and political structure.
5. The mechanisms of hegemony in
International Organisations
• They embody the rules which facilitate the expansion
of hegemonic world orders
• They are themselves the product of the hegemonic
world order
• They ideologically legitimate the norms of the world
order
• They co-opt the elites from peripheral countries
• They absorb counter-hegemonic ideas
6. “Hegemony at the international level is … not merely an order
among states. It is an order within a world economy with a
dominant mode of production, which penetrates into all
countries and links into other subordinate modes of
production. It is also a complex of international social
relationships which connects the social classes of the
different countries.”
8. 1. Focus on ideas & institutions
• How the state/civil society bloc is constituted
• Civil society: massification/homogenization of
education
• Internationalization of education: creation of a
homogenised, transnational group of
intellectuals international recognition
regimes as important homogenizing
mechanisms
9. 2. Historical analysis
• 1. WWII – late 1960s: UNESCO recognized
transnational mobility of students, no
institutionalization
• 2. late 1960s – 1989: New World Information
and Communication Order (counter-hegemon,
strengthening intellectuals of the subaltern
countries)
• 5 regional conventions
10. • 1989 – 99: Lisbon Convention in 1997 including US,
strengthened sending countries
• 2000 – present: 2003 UNESCO resolution to respond to
the challenge of globalisation
• OECD&UNESCO: guidelines for quality provision in
cross-border Higher Education
• Not adopted by other regional conventions
• Flow of international students increased significantly,
2/3 going to Europe
• Asia-Pacific, Africa, Latin America not benefitting from
the convention
11. Questions
• Is it possible to develop an ahistorical theory
of international relations?
• Is there a role to be played by the military in
Cox’s world system?
• Can institutions such as the BRICS bank pose a
real alternative to the system?
Editor's Notes
For the 1st part we will be focusing on Cox’s concept of hegemony and for the second part Alvina will be introducing the case study which it will be regarding the UNESCO.
His theoretical part has been already discussed so we will be focusing on a central element of his theory, the concept of “Hegemony and Counter Hegemony”.
Cox draws on Marxist theories, particularly, historical Marxists, who were able to unravel an economic pattern from history. Cox identifies Antonio Gramsci as one of those.
Gramsci went beyond the economic base and recognized the relative autonomy of the superstructure rather than adopt a economic reductionism. Gramsci, like Cox at a later stage, was concerned with culture and identity.
Great powers have relative freedom to determine their foreign policies and that smaller powers have less autonomy. But why is that? This is so because economic life of subordinate nations is penetrated by and intertwined with that of powerful nations. From this perspective, the implications are that smaller states are not fully sovereign and that perhaps they are not even aware of it.
Cox states that a hegemon is no longer constituted as by force only but through a more subtle means. It is nowadays done through the internationalization of a particular order which is in turn accepted as a norm. Cox says that this is achieved through the instrumentalization of the state using 3 forces which interact in the structure: material capabilities, ideas and institutions. He distinguishes between 2 types of ideas, shared notions of social relations and collective images of social order. Institutionalization is “ a means of stabilizing and perpetuating a particular order”. There is a close connection between institutionalization and Gramscian understanding of hegemony. With this internationalization of the production, a
The economic and social institutions, the culture, the technology associated with this national hegemony become patterns for emulation abroad. Such an expansive hegemony impinges on the more peripheral countries as a passive revolution. These countries have not undergone the same thorough social revolution, nor have their economies developed in the same way, but they try to incorporate elements from the hegemonic model without disturbing old power structures.
Means of stabilizing and perpetuating a particular order. Institutions reflect the power relations, just like in Virginia Woolf’s “Three Guineas”. These institutions tend to encourage collective images, ideas that reinforce their power. They can become the battleground for opposing tendencies or rival institutions may reflect different tendencies. Institutions are one with ideas and material power, which can influence the development of other ideas and material capabilities.
To sum up, Cox essentially sees the process as a form of national policy adjustment to the “demands of international capitalism”. These demands are created by the hegemon through the manipulation of the 3 forces: material capabilities, ideas and institutions.
Cox expands the Gramcian notion of a hegemon to the international spheres. He rejects the notion of national interest as distinct from particular interests. He explains hegemony not as dominance centered exclusively on power as the neorealists believe especially so in terms of military power. He adds a new dimension to the international order; it must be understood not only horizontally but also vertically in what can be understood as a pyramid of power.
