Abstract
Gramsci's thought can contribute much to expanding the scope of IR research by investigating state–society relations in foreign policymaking through the concepts of hegemony, historical bloc, hegemonic project, and so on. In this article, I present an analytical method of explaining the social causes of foreign policy change, based upon the Gramscian notion of the correlations among state–society relations, hegemony, and foreign policy. Later, I apply this method to the empirical case of the radical change in South Korea's policy toward North Korea from 1998. Susan Strange’s question cui bono? [who benefits?] remains fundamental in the study of international affairs. An understanding of the hegemonic struggle found at the national level, located behind the change in foreign policy, can be instrumental in answering this question.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For example, Joseph Femia argues that Robert Cox and the neo-Gramscian school's 'internationalising the concepts of hegemony and civil society may yield insights, but it seems to rely upon a selective and misleading interpretation of Gramsci' (2005, p. 345). According to Julian Saurin, while the neo-Gramscian critique was initially received as a 'refreshing and reinvigorating approach', it eventually fell short of offering a comprehensive theoretical framework that could guide empirical research and analysis primarily because of a lack of conceptual clarity and precision. Overall, he suggests that although the neo-Gramscian approach has potential, it needs to be further developed and refined to have a meaningful contribution to the discipline of IR and IPE (2008).
Ideology can be defined as ‘any more or less coherent system of beliefs or views on politics and society’ (Leach 1996, p. 16). In modern times, bureaucrats and politicians like any other persons think in accordance with a connected set of ideas, or an ideology—in the Middle Ages, they did in accordance with a religion (Heywood 1992, p. 16). When policymakers decide on a policy, an invisible ideology works as it determines their personal, departmental, and 'national' interests. Integrating the sphere of ideology can make it more methodical the analysis of the interaction between interests and foreign policymaking.
However, not every major foreign policy change should be understood as a hegemonic project. Also, an existing hegemonic group can launch a hegemonic project to maintain its hegemony.
Recognised by Gramsci as ‘an ultra-modern form of production and of working methods’ (Gramsci 1988, p. 277), Fordism eventually modified the economic structure, ushered in the era of a welfare and interventionist state, and elevated the United States to a global hegemon. Fordism rests on the Taylorist reorganisation of the labour process. Taylorism, working from the separation of conception and execution in the labour process, produced a momentous intensification of exploitation, extensive deskilling processes, the destruction of traditional skilled workers’ power and the introduction of efficient managerial control and supervision (Braverman 1974, pp. 86–95). The Taylorist organisation of production enhanced productivity and made possible the mass production of standard and cheap consumption goods. Owing to the high wages offered by Henry Ford, workers became the mass consumers of industrial commodities. This Fordist model of production made possible a far-reaching increase and stabilisation of the profit margin and thus created the basis for prosperity for decades (Esser and Hirsh 1994, pp. 74–75).
Some scholars contend that the policy of engagement toward North Korea from 1998 to 2002 was attributable to President Kim’s personal belief in unification through talks and his confidence in the North Korean regime (for example, Park and Jeong 2010, pp. 166–190). This article assigns the position of actor to a social force or a group, instead of an individual, considering consistency in North Korea policy among the ruling liberal nationalists during the presidencies of Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in.
References
Alden, C., and A. Aran. 2016. Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches. London: Routledge.
Allison, G. T. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, Mass.: Little Brown and Co.
Apostolidis, P. 2010. Breaks in the Chain: What Immigrant Workers Can Teach America about Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bieler, A. 2000. Globalization and Enlargement of the European Union: Austrian and Swedish Social Forces in the Struggle over Membership. London: Routledge.
Bieler, A., and A.D. Morton. 2018. Global Capitalism, Global War, Global Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bieler, A., I. Bruff, and A.D. Morton. 2015. Antonio Gramsci and “the International”: Past, Present and Future. In Antonio Gramsci, ed. M. McNall, 137–155. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Braverman, H. 1974. Labour and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Budd, A. 2013. Class, States and International Relations: A critical appraisal of Robert Cox and neo-Gramscian theory. Oxford: Routledge.
Budd, A. 2007. Gramsci’s Marxism and International Relations. International Socialism, 114. https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/2007/isj2-114/budd.html. Accessed 22 May 2022.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. 2002. Domestic Politics and International Relations. International Studies Quarterly 46 (1): 1–9.
Burnham, P. 2006. Marx, Neo-Gramscianism and Globalization. In Global Restructuring, State, Capital and Labour: Contesting Neo-Gramscian Perspectives, ed. A. Bieler, W. Bonefeld, P. Burnham, and A.D. Morton, 187–195. New York: Palgrave.
Cafruny, A.W., and M. Ryner, eds. 2003. A Ruined Fortress?: Neoliberal Hegemony and Transformation in Europe. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Carnoy, M. 1984. The State and Political Theory. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Choi, Y.S. 2017. Kim Dae-jung and the Persistence of Anti-Communist Hegemony in South Korea. Asian Studies Review 41 (2): 299–316.
Choi, J.-J. 2005. Democracy after Democratization. Seoul: Humanitas. [in Korean]
Cox, R.W. 1981. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium 10 (2): 126–155.
Dong-A Ilbo. 2000. The June 15 Joint Declaration’s Hope and Concern. http://web.donga.com/pdf/pdf_viewer.php?vcid=2000061640A10100119. Accessed 21 Jul 2022 (in Korean).
Esser, J., and J. Hirsch. 1994. The Crisis of Fordism and the Dimension of a “Post-Fordist” Regional and Urban Structure. In Post-Fordism: A Reader, ed. A. Amin, 71–97. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Fearon, J.D. 1998. Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1): 289–313.
Femia, J. 2005. Gramsci, Machiavelli and International Relations. Political Quarterly 76 (3): 341–349.
Fiori, G. 1970. Antonio Gramsci, Life of a Revolutionary. London: New Left Books.
George, A. 1980. Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy: The Effective Use of Information and Advice. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Gill, S. 1991. American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gill, S., ed. 1993. Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Goldstein, J., and R.O. Keohane. 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gourevitch, P. 1978. The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics. International Organization 32 (4): 881–912.
Gramsci, A. 1971a. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Gramsci, A. 1971b. Prison Notebooks. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gramsci, A. 1975. Quadernidal carcere. Turin: Einaudi.
Gramsci, A. 1988. A Gramsci Reader. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Gwon, H.-B. 1998. Reading the Circuit Board of Anti-communism: Meaning System and Politico-Social Function of South Korean Anti-communism. Unification Research 2 (2): 20–38 ([in Korean]).
Haggard, S., W. Lim, and E. Kim. 2010. Economic Crisis and Corporate Restructuring in Korea: Reforming the Chaebol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hermann, M.G., and C.F. Hermann. 1989. Who Makes Foreign Policy Decisions and How: An Empirical Inquiry. International Studies Quarterly 33 (4): 361–387.
Heywood, A. 1992. Political Ideologies. New York: Palgrave.
Hirsch, J. 1991. Fordism and Post-Fordism: The Present Social Crisis and its Consequences. In Post-Fordism & Social Form: A Marxist Debate on the Post-Fordist State, ed. W. Bonefeld and J. Holloway, 8–34. London: Macmillan.
Hussain, Z. Z. 2011. The effect of domestic politics on foreign policy decision making, E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/07/the-effect-of-domestic-politics-on-foreign-policy-decision-making/. Accessed 21 Feb 2023.
Institute of Historical Studies. 2004. Reading Korean Modern and Contemporary History Together. Seoul: Seohyemunjip (in Korean).
Jeon, J. 2000. Reactionary Modernist Park Chung-hee. Seoul: Chaeksesang (in Korean).
Jessop, B. 1990. State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in its Place. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jessop, B., and N.-L. Sum. 2006. Beyond the Regulation Approach: Putting Capitalist Economies in Their Place. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ji, J.-H. 2011. Origin and Development of South Korea’s Neoliberalism. Seoul: Chaeksesang (in Korean).
Joll, J. 1978. Antonio Gramsci. London: Penguin.
Kim, S.-K. 2006. Formation of the North Korean System and International Politics of the Korean Peninsula. Seoul: Seoul National University Press (in Korean).
Kim, D.-C., and G. Széll. 2015. The Era of Anti-communism: South Korea and German, Politics of the Cold War. Seoul: Dolbegae (in Korean).
Koh, B. C. 2005. Historical Contexts of Inter-Korean Relations. In Discourse on Inter-Korean Relations, ed. Graduate School of North Korean Studies of Kyungnam University, 39–80. Seoul: Haneul (in Korean).
Leach, R. 1996. British Political Ideologies. London: Prentice Hall.
Lipietz, A. 1987. Mirages and miracles: Crisis in global Fordism. London: Verso.
Maeil Kyungje. 2000. Grand National Party, Joint Declaration Needs Legislative Consent. http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=100&oid=009&aid=0000020388. Accessed 7 Jun 2022 (in Korean).
Media Today. 2005. Newspaper Readership and Subscription Decrease, Chojungdong Market Share Increase. http://www.mediatoday.co.kr/?mod=news&act=articleView&idxno=33896. Accessed 9 Jun 2022 (in Korean).
Mouffe, C. 1981. Hegemony and Ideology in Gramsci. In Culture, Ideology and Social Process, ed. T. Bennett, G. Martin, C. Mercer, and J. Woollacott, 219–234. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
New York Times. 1998. Words of Kim Dae Jung: Call for Reconciliation. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/25/world/words-of-kim-dae-jung-call-for-reconciliation.html. Accessed 2 Mar 2022.
New York Times. 2002. Four Killed as North and South Korean Navy Vessels Trade Fire. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/29/world/four-killed-as-north-and-south-korean-navy-vessels-trade-fire.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2022.
Okereke, C. 2015. NeoGramscianism. In Edward elgar encyclopaedia for global environmental governance and politics, ed. P.H. Pattberg and F. Zelli, 127–133. Cheltenham: Edward Edgar Press.
Park, M. 2008. Democracy and Social Change. A History of South Korean Student Movements, 1980–2000. New York: Peter Lang.
Park, G.-Y. and W.-S. Jeong. 2010. Rollback of the United States' Neocons and Resistance of South Korea's Liberals. In The ROK-US Alliance in Discord: 60 Years of the ROK-US Relations, ed. Yuksabipyeong Editorial Board, 166–190. Seoul: Yuksabipeyongsa (in Korean).
Pass, J. 2018. Gramsci Meets Emergentist Materialism: Towards a Neo neo-Gramscian Perspective on World Order. Review of International Studies 44 (4): 595–618.
Poulantzas, N. 1975. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: New Left Books.
Putnam, R.D. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42 (3): 427–460.
Robinson, W.I. 1996. Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony. London: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, A. 2005. Towards an Intellectual Reformation: The Critique of Common Sense and the Forgotten Revolutionary Project of Gramscian Theory. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 8 (4): 469–481.
Rosenau, J.N., ed. 1967. The Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press.
Rosenau, J.N. 1968. National Interest. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. D. L. Sills, Vol. 1, 34–40. New York: Macmillan.
Rupert, M. 1995. Producing Hegemony. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Saurin, J. 2008. The Formation of Neo-Gramscians in International Relations and International Political Economy. In Gramsci, Political Economy, and International Relations Theory: Modern Princes and Naked Emperors, ed. A.J. Ayers, 23–43. New York: Palgrave.
Schmidt, V.A. 2008. Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 303–326.
Sheng, L. 2002. China and Taiwan: Cross-Strait Relations Under Chen Shui-bian. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Shin, G.-W. 2006. Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Shin, J.-D. 2005. Inter-Korean Relations and Domestic Politics of South Korea. In Discourse on Inter-Korean Relations, ed. Kyungnam University, University of North Korean Studies, 167–209. Seoul: Haneul. (in Korean)
Simon, R. 1991. Gramsci’s Political Thought: An Introduction. London: Lawrence & Wishart Limited.
Sinclair, T.J. 2016. Robert W. Cox’s Method of Historical Structures Redux. Globalizations 13 (5): 510–519.
Strange, S. 1988. States and Markets. London: Pinter.
van Apeldoorn, B. 2002. Transnational Capitalism and the Struggle Over European Integration. London: Routledge.
van Apeldoorn, B., B.O. Henk, and M. Ryner. 2003. Theories of European Integration: A Critique. In A Ruined Fortress?: Neoliberal Hegemony and Transformation in Europe, ed. A.W. Cafruny and M. Ryner, 17–46. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
van Der Pijl, K. 1984. The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class. London: Verso.
van Der Pijl, K. 1998. Transnational Classes and International Relations. London: Routledge.
Warnaar, M. 2012. Gramsci’s Bridges: A Dialectical Approach to International Studies. International Studies Review 14 (4): 666–686.
Woo, J.-E. 1991. Race to the Swift: State and Finance in Korean Industrialization. New York: Columbia University Press.
Woo-cumings, M., ed. 1999. The Developmental State. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Worth, O. 2008. The Poverty and Potential of Gramscian Thought in International Relations. International Politics 45: 633–649.
Worth, O. 2011. Recasting Gramsci in International Politics. Review of International Studies 37 (1): 373–392.
Yonhap News. 1997. Candidate Kim, Landslide Victory If Consider Korean Situation. http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=104&oid=001&aid=0004214820. Accessed 5 Apr 2022 (in Korean).
Funding
This article was funded by the 2021 Academic Research Grant Program of Sunmoon University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, Y.S. State–society relations and foreign policy change: suggesting a Gramscian method to link the national with the international. Int Polit (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00512-1
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00512-1