US hegemony and Southeast Asia - The impact of, and limits to, US power and influence

The United States has exerted a major influence on Southeast Asia, especially since World War II. As both a promoter of neoliberal reform and as the key strategic actor in the wider East Asian region, the impact of U.S. power has been immense. But both the Asian economic crisis and its aftermath, and the more recent war on terror, have highlighted the contradictory impact of evolving U.S. foreign policy and intervention in the region. At both an elite and a mass level there is evidence of resentment about, and hostility toward, U.S. policy and its perceived negative effects. This article outlines how U.S. foreign policy has impacted the region in the economic, political, and security spheres, and argues that not only has it frequently not achieved its goals, but it may in fact be undermining both America's long-term hegemonic position in the region and any prospects for political liberalization.

Hegemony, Institutionalism and US Foreign Policy: theory and practice in comparative historical perspective

This paper explores the theoretical and policy implications of contemporary American hegemony. A key argument is that the development of US hegemony generally, and the distinctive turn in US foreign policy that has occurred in the wake of 11 September in particular, can best be understood by placing recent events in a comparative and historical framework. The immediate post-World War II order laid the foundations of a highly institutionalised multilateral system that provided key benefits for a number of countries while simultaneously constraining and enhancing US power. An historical reading of US hegemony suggests that its recent unilateralism is undermining the foundations of its power and influence.

The empire beats on: Oyo, Bata drums and hegemony in nineteenth-century Cuba

The Lukumí people of Cuba, currently known as Yoruba, are descendants of one of the mightiest West African kingdoms, the Oyo, Empire. The Oyo-Yoruba were important cultural contributors to certain areas of the New World such as Cuba, Brazil, Trinidad, and to some degree Haiti and the Lesser Antilles. Anthropologist William Bascom has said that “no African group has had greater influence on New World culture than the Yoruba.” ^ After the devastation of the empire around 1825, two new Oyos resuscitated. The first, New Oyo, was established about 80 miles south of the ancient site around 1830. The second Oyo was instituted on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, in the city of Havana and its surrounding towns. Much of Oyo lie, as ancient Oyo is now called, was transported to the New World, reformed and adapted according to its new surroundings, and, it preserved its reign over its “subjects” through the retention and dissemination of its cultural and religious practices. ^ Using an interdisciplinary approach, this investigation will argue that of all the African groups brought to Cuba, the Oyo-Yoruba were the most influential in shaping Afro-Cuban culture since their introduction in the nineteenth century. The existence of batá drums in Cuba and the cultural components of this musical genre will serve as one of many examples to illustrate the vitality of Oyo cultural hegemony over Afro-Cubans. It is arguable that these drums and the culture that surrounded them were very important instruments used by the Oyo to counter the acculturation of many Africans in Cuba. Likewise, this culture became acculturative in itself by imposing its religious world views on non-Oyo ethnics and their descendants. Oral histories and narratives collected among Lukumí practitioners on the island and abroad have been invaluable archives to supplement and/or complement primary and secondary sources of information. ^

Soft power as the new norm: How the Chinese-Russian strategic partnership (soft) balances American hegemony in an era of unipolarity

This study explores how great powers not allied with the United States formulate their grand strategies in a unipolar international system. Specifically, it analyzes the strategies China and Russia have developed to deal with U.S. hegemony by examining how Moscow and Beijing have responded to American intervention in Central Asia. The study argues that China and Russia have adopted a soft balancing strategy of to indirectly balance the United States at the regional level. This strategy uses normative capabilities such as soft power, alternative institutions and regionalization to offset the overwhelming material hardware of the hegemon. The theoretical and methodological approach of this dissertation is neoclassical realism. Chinese and Russian balancing efforts against the United States are based on their domestic dynamics as well as systemic constraints. Neoclassical realism provides a bridge between the internal characteristics of states and the environment which those states are situated. Because China and Russia do not have the hardware (military or economic power) to directly challenge the United States, they must resort to their software (soft power and norms) to indirectly counter American preferences and set the agenda to obtain their own interests. Neoclassical realism maintains that soft power is an extension of hard power and a reflection of the internal makeup of states. The dissertation uses the heuristic case study method to demonstrate the efficacy of soft balancing. Such case studies help to facilitate theory construction and are not necessarily the demonstrable final say on how states behave under given contexts. Nevertheless, it finds that China and Russia have increased their soft power to counterbalance the United States in certain regions of the world, Central Asia in particular. The conclusion explains how soft balancing can be integrated into the overall balance-of-power framework to explain Chinese and Russian responses to U.S. hegemony. It also suggests that an analysis of norms and soft power should be integrated into the study of grand strategy, including both foreign policy and military doctrine.

Resistance is futile: the borg, the hive, and corporate hegemony

The Borg, a collective of humanoid cyborgs linked together in a hive-mind and modeled on the earthly superorganisms of ant colonies and beehives, has been the most feared alien race in the Star Trek universe. The formidable success of the Borg in assimilating their foes corresponds to the astounding success of superorganisms in our own biosphere. Yet the Borg also serves as a metaphor for another collective of biological entities known as the corporation. In the Anthropocene epoch, corporations have become the most powerful force on the planet; their influence on the social world and the environment exceeds any government and may determine the continued sustainability of human life. Corporations have been described as people and as machines, but neither metaphor accurately describes their essence or contributes to an understanding that might resist their power. This paper reframes our understanding of the corporation by examining the metaphors that are used to describe it, and by suggesting an entirely new metaphor viewing the Borg and the corporation through the lens of sociobiology. I will argue that the corporation is a new form of superorganism that has become the dominant species on the planet and that the immense, intractable power of a globalized, corporate hive-mind has become the principal obstacle to addressing the planetary emergency of climate change. Reframing our metaphoric understanding of corporations as biological entities in the planetary biosphere may enable us to imagine ways to resist their increasing dominance and create a sustainable future. 

"Europe-as-hegemony" and discourses in Turkey after 1999: Dialogue with the Europeanisation literature

It is not a prophecy to say that one of the most common concepts that those working on "Europe" would encounter at various points in different capacities would be "Europeanisation". This buzzword has also been crucial in understanding and explaining for Turkey's European orientation path, which acquired a new dimension and has been carried to a more substantive and institutional level with the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 when Turkey was granted formal candidacy status in its application to join the EU. Especially after this date, the concept of "Europeanisation" and the literature attached to it have almost automatically been employed to assess the relationship between Turkey and different aspects of European integration. For this aim, firstly, I present a tri-fold picture of the European studies. According to this categorisation, the studies dealing with the notion of „Europe‟ could be categorised into three groups: the studies which takes "Europe" as a fixed concept ("Europe-as-fixity"), those which subscribe to a notion of "Europe" solely as a construct ("Europe-as-construct") and the studies which take "Europe" as a contestation ("Europe-as-contestation"). After critically locating the Europeanisation literature within this categorisation, I argue that there is both a historical and epistemological need for the Europeanisation literature to address to the conflictual nature of the notion by focusing on how the discourses on "Europe" hegemonised the Turkish political terrain after 1999 and I introduce the notion of "Europe-as-hegemony". The overall argument is that the hegemony of "Europe" does not originate from the automaticity of the relationship between the European and domestic level as stipulated by the Europeanisation literature, but rather from the power of discourses on "Europe" and their ability to hegemonise the political realm. In this respect, this paper offers a novel approach to the Europeanisation literature with a particular focus on the Turkish context where the political is not only given and constructed but is also reflexive and open to contestation and negotiation.

My "middle way" media studies

I would argue that the problems that contemporary capitalism gives rise to are not the result of the classic exercise of power and hegemony characteristic of the monopoly phase of capitalism but of the “creative destruction” of such a phase. Schumpeter’s famous phrase is reflective of Lash and Urry’s (1987) notion of “disorganised capitalism” or of Robert Reich’s (2007) claim that large corporations have significantly less power now than three decades ago. The consequence is that there is a need to explore an economic “middle way” in debates about the narrative of the relationship between culture and economy, between the Scylla of total explanatory political economy and the Charybdis of tedium-by-case-study. This involves a Schumpeterian emphasis on entrepreneurial or enterprise economics (Cunningham, Banks, and Potts 2008). Schumpeter, in 1962, in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, argued that Marx had “no adequate theory of enterprise” and failed to “distinguish the entrepreneur from the capitalist” (quoted in McCraw 2007: 349). Schumpeter, his most recent biographer, Thomas McCraw, “told of capitalism in the way most people experience it: as consumer desires aroused by endless advertising; as forcible jolts up and down the social pecking order; as goals reached, shattered, altered, then reached once more as people try, try again.” He knew that “creative destruction fosters economic growth but also that it undercuts cherished human values” (p. 6). Schumpeter’s most recent biographer, Thomas McCraw, says that he elucidated what capitalism “really feels like” (as quoted in McCraw 2007: 349, 6).

Education research and youth subculture theory

Recent theoretical developments (particularly those involving the work of Michel Foucault) have challenged the foundations upon which subcultural analysis is built. It is not the intention of this paper to take issue with the underpinning neo-Marxist assumptions concerning hegemony, consciousness and culture. Rather, the intention is simply to problematise the use of subculture theory in terms of its totalising, normalising and dichotomising nature.

Between flagged borders, across gendered lands : the voiceless female space in contemporary representations of Australian beach

International and national representations of the beach perpetuate normative female concepts by maintaining dominant masculine myths, such as that of the heroic lifesaver and tanned sunbaker. Female experiences on the beach are traditionally associated with rhetorics of danger and peril, contrasted to the welcomed and protective gaze of the beach male. Conventional understandings of the gaze promote male surveillance of women, and although some resistance exists, the beach primarily remains a place to observe the female form. This article attempts to explore currents of resistance at the beach through a self-reflexive examination of Schoolies. Although the event is fixed within patriarchal codes and structures, small eddies of resistance exist amongst female participants in light of increasing awareness of masculine hegemony. The Australian beach remains a contested site of multiple constructs of gender and national identity. This article reveals the changing tides of resistance.

Orchids : intersex and identity in documentary

Orchids: Intersex and Identity in Documentary explores the creative practice challenges of working with bodies with intersex in the long-form auto/biographical documentary Orchids. Just as creative practice research challenges the dominant hegemony of quantitative and qualitative research, so does my creative work position itself as a nuanced piece, pushing the boundaries of traditional cultural studies theories, documentary film practice and creative practice method, through its distinctive distillation and celebration of a new form of discursive rupturing, the intersex voice.

Literacy education in the context of globalisation

This review chapter provides an overview of English language literacy education in the contexts of cultural and economic globalisation. Drawing case study examples of India and China, the authors outline three complementary models: the development paradigm, the hegemony paradigm and the new literacies paradigm. The analysis focuses on effects of the spread of English on vernacular languages and the non-synchronous issues raised by digital production cultures. Noting the difficulties of education systems in contending with new literacies - it argues for the reframing of transnational relations, global material conditions and new communications technologies as the objects of critical literacy education.

Introduction : bringing back theory

In a report in the New York Times about a public symposium on the future of theory held at University of Chicago in 2002, staff writer Emily Eakin suggests that theory appears to have taken a back seat to more pressing current affairs – the Bush Administration, Al Qaeda, Iraq. Further, she reports that the symposium’s panel of high-profile theorists and scholars, including Homi Bhabha, Stanley Fish, Fredric Jameson, seemed reticent to offer their views on what is often touted as the demise or irrelevance of theory. The symposium and other commentaries on the topic of theory have prompted the view that the ‘Golden Age of Theory’ has passed and we are now in a ‘Post-Theory Age’. Given these pronouncements, we need to ask – Does theory matter any longer? Is it time for the obituary? Or are reports of the death of theory greatly exaggerated? The question remains whether to mourn or celebrate the demise of theory, and whether the body has in fact breathed its last. The title of this Introduction – ‘Bringing back theory’ – suggests a resurrection, or perhaps a haunting, as if the funeral has passed and, like Banquo’s ghost, theory returns to unsettle or disturb the celebration. It also suggests an entreaty, or perhaps a return performance. Rather than settle on one meaning, one interpretation, we are happy for all possibilities to coexist. The coexistence of different theories, different approaches, different interpretations also reflects the state of literary and cultural studies generally and children’s literature criticism in particular. No single theory or viewpoint predominates or vies for hegemony. Yet, one further question lingers – what is theory?