Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:28:53.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The meaning of materiality: reconsidering the materialism of Gramscian IR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2010

DANIEL R. MCCARTHY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gramsican approaches in International Relations (IR) have sought to outline the relationship between ideas and material forces in the construction of world order. Scholars working within this broad school have sought to emphasise that ideas are material forces, and must be considered as concrete historical structures (Cox, 1987) central to the establishment of particular historical and hegemonic blocs. This literature has primarily focused on the discursive construction of hegemony by international elites and the impact this has on political practices. While these insights are important in understanding the construction of world order, it is necessary to extend them to include the creation of actual physical structures – that is, it is vital to link the ideational aspects of hegemony with actual material processes. I will argue that a consideration of the role of technology provides an ideal vehicle for this process, building on the preliminary work of Bieler and Morton in this regard (2008). Technological structures are the product of particular cultural values and embed these cultural values within their very structure. Physical material factors thereby express ideational values constructed by specific social forces. Social practices are thus not only a function of the dominance of certain ideological formations, but also the product of the material environment itself and the manner in which the human metabolism with nature must function through these physical constructions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 1215 - 1234
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ruggie, John Gerard and Kratochwil, Friedrich, ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on the Art of the State’, International Organization, 40 (1986), pp. 753–775Google Scholar ; Keohane, Robert, ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, 32 (1988), pp. 379–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

2 Doty, Roxanne Lynn, ‘Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in International Relations Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 3 (1997), pp. 365–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Wight, Colin, ‘They Shoot Dead Horses, Don't They: Locating Agency in the Agent-Structure Problematique’, European Journal of International Relations, 5 (1999), pp. 109–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

3 This can lead to significant confusion which allows for positivist epistemology, which is explicitly not philosophically realist, to be taken as a ‘materialist’ theory in which physical power resources determine the structure of the international system. See Patomaki, Hekki and Wight, Colin, ‘After Postpositivism? The Promise of Critical Realism’, International Studies Quarterly, 44 (2000), pp. 216–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

4 Neumann, Iver B., ‘Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31 (2002), pp. 627–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar . See also Adler, Emmanuel, ‘The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO's Post-Cold War Transformation’, European Journal of International Relations, 14 (2008), pp. 195–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Hansen, Lene, Security as Practice: Discourse and the Bosnian War (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar ; Pouliot, Vincent, ‘The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities’, International Organization, 62 (2008), pp. 257–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar . Social theory has engaged with another turn, to the materiality of the non-human world, in the past 30 years via the field of science and technology studies. For a critical survey of a massive literature that cannot be summarised here, see Fuller, Steve, New Frontiers in Science and Technology Studies (Cambridge: Polity, 2007)Google Scholar . The turn of phrase is – of course – Marx's.

5 Please note that this is not an attempt to institute the physical materiality of non-human objects in a foundational position for IR theory.

6 For Marx's primary discussions of technology, see Marx, Karl, ‘Preface (to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)’ in Livingstone, Rodney (ed.), Karl Marx: Early Writings, trans. Benton, Gregor (London: Penguin Books, 1975 [1859]), pp. 424–428Google Scholar ; and Marx, Karl, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. One (London: Penguin Books 1976 [1867]), pp. 455–636Google Scholar . Marx left no clear view of the place of technology within his work – for discussion see Dyer-Whitherford, Nick, Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High-Technology Capitalism (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999), pp. 38–61Google Scholar ; and Mackenzie, Donald, ‘Marx and the Machine’, Technology and Culture, 25 (1984), pp. 473–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

7 For key works, see Cox, Robert, ‘Social Forces, states and world orders: Beyond International Relations theory’, Millennium Journal of International Studies, 10 (1981), pp. 126–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Cox, Robert, Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987)Google Scholar ; Gill, Stephen, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)Google Scholar ; Gill, Stephen, ‘Epistemology, Ontology and the “Italian School”’, in Gill, Stephen (ed.), Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 21–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Rupert, Mark, Producing Hegemony: The Politics of Mass Production and American Global Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar ; van der Pijl, Kees, Transnational Classes and International Relations (London: Routledge, 1998)Google Scholar ; Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam David, ‘The Gordian Knot of Agency-Structure in International Relations: A Neo-Gramscian Perspective’, European Journal of International Relations, 7 (2001), pp. 5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam David‘The deficits of discourse in IPE: turning base metal into gold?’, International Studies Quarterly, 52 (2008), pp. 103–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

8 Cox, ‘Social Forces’; Gill, ‘Epistemology’; Rupert, Mark, ‘Alienation, capitalism and the inter-state-system: towards a Marxian/Gramscian critique’, in Gill, Stephen (ed.), Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’. For clear expositions of the philosophy of internal relations, see Ollman, Bertell, Alienation: Marx's conception of man in capitalist society, Second edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976)Google Scholar ; and Ollman, Bertell, Dialectical Investigations (London: Routledge, 1993)Google Scholar .

9 Rupert, ‘Alienation, capitalism and the states system’, p. 70; Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’, pp. 114–7. These formulations would seem to satisfy Burnham's critique of Gramscian approaches in IR. See Burnham, Peter, ‘Neo-Gramscian hegemony and the international order’, Capital & Class, 45 (1991), pp. 73–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

10 The most sustained attempt to pursue this line of thought is in the work of Bieler and Morton. See, Bieler, Andreas, ‘Questioning Cognitivism and Constructivism in IR Theory: Reflections on the Material Structure of Ideas’, Politics, 21 (2001), pp. 93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Morton, Adam David, ‘The age of absolutism: capitalism, the modern states-system and International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 31 (2005), pp. 502–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’.

11 ‘Non-human objects’, along with other interchangeable terms, is used to refer – quite simply – to physical objects that are not human such as machines, railways, roads, skyscrapers or computers.

12 Determination here is meant as constraint, not as causal determination. See Williams, Raymond, Culture and Materialism (London: Verso, 2005 [1980]), p. 34Google Scholar .

13 Bailes, Kendalle E., ‘The American Connection: Ideology and the Transfer of American Technology to the Soviet Union, 1917–1941’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 23 (1981), pp. 421–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Dyer-Whitherford, Cyber-Marx, pp. 6–7; Mark Rupert, Producing Hegemony, p. 77.

14 See Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam David, ‘A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change’, Capital & Class, 82 (2004), pp. 85–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a fine exposition of Gramscian perspectives in IR. Their focus is primarily on locating this body of scholarship in historical context, while the present discussion focuses on its intellectual context.

15 Cox, ‘Social Forces’; Cox, Robert, ‘Gramsci, hegemony, and International Relations: an essay in method’, in Cox, Robert and Sinclair, Timothy J. (eds), Approaches to World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 [1983]), pp. 124–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Cox, Production, Power and World Order; Gill, American Hegemony, pp. 11–55; Rupert, Producing Hegemony, pp. 1–15, 141.

16 Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979)Google Scholar .

17 Waltz, Theory, pp. 131, 191–4. For discussion of Waltz's view of power, see Schmidt, Brian, ‘Competing Realist Conceptions of Power’, Millennium Journal of International Studies, 33 (2005), pp. 523–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Waltz, Kenneth N., ‘Nuclear Myths and Political Realities’, The American Political Science Review, 84 (1990), pp. 731–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

19 Ibid.

20 Wendt, Alexander, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It’, International Organization, 46 (1992), pp. 391–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

21 Cox, ‘Social Forces’.

22 Cox, Robert, ‘Realism, positivism, historicism’, in Cox, Robert and Sinclair, Timothy J. (eds), Approaches to World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 [1985), p. 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Cox, ‘Social Forces’, pp. 131–2. Gill's primary target for criticism is the Realist IR of Robert Gilpin but the substance of his argument is the same as Cox's critique of Waltz – see Gill, American Hegemony, pp. 38–41.

23 Cox, ‘Realism, positivism, historicism’, pp. 52–3. Emphasis added.

24 Cox, ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations’; Cox, Production, Power and World Order, p. 1.

25 Ibid., p. 132.

26 See also Rupert, ‘Alienation, capitalism’, p. 70; Rupert, Producing Hegemony, p. 17; Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’, p. 114.

27 Cox, ‘Social Forces’, p. 136.

28 Cox, Robert, ‘Production and Security’, in Cox, Robert and Sinclair, Timothy J. (eds), Approaches to World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 [1993]), pp. 276–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

29 Cox, ‘Production and Security’, p. 280; Cox, Production, Power and World Order, p. 313.

30 Brenner, Robert, ‘The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism’, New Left Review, 1 (1977), pp. 25–92Google Scholar ; Brenner, Robert, ‘The social basis of economic development’, in Roemer, John (ed.), Analytical Marxism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 23–53Google Scholar ; Wood, Ellen Meiksins, Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

31 Cox, Production, Power and World Order, pp. 309–18; Rupert, Producing Hegemony. See, Gramsci, Antonio, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, trans. Hoare, Quintin and Smith, Geoffrey N. (eds), (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971), pp. 277–318Google Scholar .

32 Cox, Production, Power and World Order, p. 316; see also Noble, David, America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979)Google Scholar ; Noble, David, Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar .

33 Cox, Production, Power and World Order, pp. 21, 315.

34 Rupert, Producing Hegemony, pp. 51–7, 76–78; Gill, Stephen, Power and Resistance in the New World Order (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003), pp. 181–210Google Scholar .

35 Adas, Michael, Dominance by Design: Technological Imperatives in America's Civilizing Mission (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Foley, Michael, American Credo: The Place of Ideas in US Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

36 Adas, Dominance, pp. 74–5.

37 Carlson, W. Bernard, ‘Artifacts and Frames of Meaning: Thomas A. Edison, His Managers, and the Cultural Construction of Motion Pictures’, in Bijker, Wiebe E. and Law, John (eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1992), p. 188Google Scholar .

38 Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), pp. 69, 75–76Google Scholar ; Foley, American Credo, p. 47; Urry, John, ‘Inhabiting the Car’, The Sociological Review, 54 (2006), pp. 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

39 Edwards, Paul, The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America (London: The MIT Press, 1996), p. 53Google Scholar ; see also Mackenzie, Donald, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Boston: The MIT Press, 1990)Google Scholar ; Peoples, Columba, Justifying Ballistic Missile Defence: Technology, Security and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

40 There has been a separate debate by some Gramscian or ‘quasi-Marxist’ scholars to engage with the perceived problems of idealist scholarship on the terrain of the philosophy of science which, while related to this discussion, remains separate. For examples, see Joseph, Jonathan, Hegemony: A Realist Analysis (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar ; Wight, Colin, Agents, Structures and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; and Wight, ‘They Shoot Horses’.

41 Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’, p. 105; Bieler, ‘Questioning Cognitivism’; Morton, ‘The age of absolutism’, pp. 502–6; Morton, Adam David, ‘The “grimly comic” riddle of Hegemony in IPE: where is class struggle?’, Politics, 26 (2006), pp. 62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

42 Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’, pp. 106–8.

43 Ibid., pp. 109–10.

44 de Goode, Marieke, ‘Beyond economism in international political economy’, Review of International Studies, 29 (2003), pp. 79–97Google Scholar .

45 Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’, p. 113. Perry Anderson provides a strong critique of the post-structuralist authors on whom discourse centric IR draws – see, Anderson, Perry, In the Tracks of Historical Materialism (London: Verso, 1983), pp. 32–55Google Scholar .

46 Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’, p. 116.

47 Antonio Gramsci, Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, quoted in Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’, p. 118; Bieler, ‘Questioning Cognitivism’, p. 98.

48 Adam David Morton, ‘The “grimly comic’ riddle”’, p. 68; Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’, p. 118; Scott, James C., Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven: Yale University, 1994), pp. 59–63Google Scholar . Harvey, David, Paris, Capital of Modernity (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar , passim.

49 Gramsci, Further Selections, quoted in Bieler and Morton, ‘The deficits of discourse’, p. 118.

50 Scott, Seeing Like a State, p. 61; Harvey, Paris, p. 12.

51 Harvey, Paris, pp. 175–6, 180, 200–2, 225, 296, 305–8.

52 Ibid., p. 59–61.

53 This is the foundation of Marx's claim to turn Hegel on his head, and is, perhaps, the centrepiece of Marxist thought. The locus classicus for Marx's transition from Young Hegelian to historical materialist is Marx, Karl, ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, in Early Writings, pp. 421–423Google Scholar . Gramsci also asserted the centrality of practice to Marxism – see the discussion in Haug, Wolfgang Fritz, ‘From Marx to Gramsci, from Gramsci to Marx: Historical Materialism and the Philosophy of Praxis’, Rethinking Marxism, 13 (2001), pp. 69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

54 Gramsci, Antonio, Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, trans. Boothman, Derek (ed.) (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1995), pp. 293–306Google Scholar .

55 Gramsci, Selections, p. 420.

56 Fuller, New Directions, pp. 1–26.

57 Bijker, Wiebe E., Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1995)Google Scholar .

58 Bijker, ibid.; Bijker, Wiebe E. (ed.), Hughes, Thomas P., and Pinch, Trevor (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1987)Google Scholar .

59 Latour, Bruno, We have never been modern (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993)Google Scholar ; Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar .

60 Klien, Hans K. and Klienmann, Daniel Lee, ‘The Social Construction of Technology: Structural Considerations’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 27 (2002), pp. 28–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Feenberg, Andrew, ‘Modernity Theory and Technology Studies: Bridging the Gap’, in Misa, Thomas J., Brey, Philip and Feenberg, Andrew (eds), Modernity and Technology (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004), pp. 73–104Google Scholar .

61 Latour, We have never been modern, pp. 15–48.

62 Sismondi, Siergio, ‘Science and Technology Studies and an Engaged Program’, in Hackett, Edward J. et al. (eds), The handbook of science and technology studies, third edition (London: The MIT Press, 2008), pp. 13–31Google Scholar ; Thorpe, Charles, ‘Political Theory in Science and Technology Studies’, in Hackett, Edward J. et al. (eds), The handbook of science and technology studies, third edition (London: The MIT Press, 2008), pp. 63–82Google Scholar .

63 Gill, Stephen and Law, David, ‘Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital’, International Studies Quarterly, 33 (1989), pp. 475–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Gill, Stephen, Power and Resistance in the New World Order (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 116–132, 161Google Scholar .

64 Feenberg, Andrew, Critical Theory of Technology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 131Google Scholar . See also Feenberg, Andrew, Questioning Technology (London: Routledge, 1999)Google Scholar ; Feenberg, Andrew and Hannay, Alastair (eds), Technology and the Politics of Knowledge (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995)Google Scholar .

65 Feenberg, Questioning Technology, p. 84.

66 Morton, Adam David, Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and passive revolution in the global economy (London: Pluto Press, 2007), p. 135Google Scholar .

67 Feenberg, Critical Theory, p. 130.

68 Bush, Vannevar, Modern Arms and Free Men: a discussion of the role of science in preserving democracy (London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1950), pp. 186–187, 225–226Google Scholar ; Lafeber, Walter, ‘Technology and US Foreign Relations’, Diplomatic History, 24 (2000), pp. 12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Westad, Odd Arne, ‘The New International History of the Cold War: Three (Possible) Paradigms’, Diplomatic History, 24 (2000), pp. 558–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

69 On uneven and combined development see Morton, Unravelling Gramsci, pp. 137–70; Rosenberg, Justin, ‘Anarchy in the Mirror of “Uneven and Combined Development”: An Open Letter to Kenneth Waltz’, International Politics, 47 (forthcoming in 2010)Google Scholar .

70 Germain, Randall, ‘“Critical” Political Economy, Historical Materialism and Adam Morton’, Politics, 27 (2007), pp. 129–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

71 Peoples, Justifying Ballistic Missile Defense; Jones, Richard Wyn, Security, Strategy and Critical Theory (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1999)Google Scholar .

72 Winner, Langdon, Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1977), p. 12Google Scholar .