Producing Hegemony: State/Society Relations and the Politics of Productivity in the United States

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Wiley and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Studies Quarterly. This paper argues for a historical reinterpretation of the social bases of American global hegemony in this century. The first part builds a case for three related propositions: 1) prevailing theoretical traditions in international political economy embody inadequate conceptions of states, state powers, and state/society relations and are, as a consequence, largely unable to interpret the historically concrete processes by which the socio-political basis of American global power was constructed in the twentieth century; 2) recent scholarship in historical political economy suggests potentially fruitful alternatives to prevailing understandings of state powers and the core relations of American global hegemony in this century; and 3) in light of the first two propositions a historical reinterpretation of the socio-political core of American hegemony is warranted. As a step in this direction, the second part of the paper suggests one such alternative interpretation. It is argued that the extraordinary global powers of the United States were made possible by a reconstruction of state/society relations peculiar to the U.S., simultaneously creating the social infrastructure of mass production and consumption while maintaining the formal separation between the spheres of politics and economics, public and private, which is characteristic of liberal capitalist social formations. The distinctive neoliberal quality of American hegemony may be best understood as the historical outcome of the political struggles entailed in this process of socio-political restructuring.Building upon criticisms of the two major research traditions in International Political Economy (IPE), this paper argues that the American global hegemony of this century was made possible by processes of socio-political structuring which are opaque both to neorealism and to world-system analysis by virtue of their underlying theories of the state. The reification of state/society relations by major approaches to IPE warrants undertaking a historical reinterpretation of the construction of hegemonic social relations. Understanding the social history of hegemony is an important task of the emerging literature of critical international relations scholarship, a task to

Political geography: closer encounters with the state, contemporary political economy, and social theory

“…Furthermore, any analysis of geopolitics which depends on a nonrelational, nondiscursive conception of the state (and Dalby's certainly seems to fall in this category), leaves the critical theorist with no processes to interrogate. These points are quite convincingly demonstrated in Rupert (1990), who in his analysis of the 398 post-second world war geopolitical world order argues that USA hegemony could not have occurred had it not been for the way in which state/society relations in the USA, emerging from open-ended struggles among workers, capitalists, and state managers, created a social infrastructure of mass production and consumption without impairing the formal separation between the spheres of politics and economics, public and private.…”

Leadership, Hegemony, and the International Economy: Naked Emperor or Tattered Monarch with Potential?

“…Even though they are often insightful and commonly build upon the early contributions of leadership and hegemony theory, I also exclude "interpretative" accounts of hegemony and international economic leadership (e.g., Wallerstein, 1974Wallerstein, , 1980Cox, 1987;Gill, 1990;Gill and Law, 1988;Rupert, 1990). Comparing this research program to the self-declared positivist program reviewed here would also broaden the essay beyond reasonable limits.…”

Car culture and global environmental politics

“…Mark Rupert also shows how the changes in production techniques and labour relationscollectively known as Fordism-laid the foundation for the projection of US global power in the mid-twentieth century. 40 Within a globalizing economy, the imperatives for governments to compete to attract investment is taken as the background for this concern. There is often a clear connection to normative policymaking concerns with how 'we' (nationally understood) promote 'our' car industry, as well as a concern to evaluate (and often emphasize) the role of the state under conditions of globalization.…”