Outside-in and inside-out: political ideology, the English School and East Asia

Author(s):  
Alice D. Ba
Author(s):  
Beverley Loke

Abstract China's rise has raised important questions about the durability of US hegemony in East Asia. Much of the debate, however, has generally been cast in fairly simplistic terms, suggesting the durability or end of US regional hegemony. Such framings nevertheless fail to fully capture regional dynamics and complexity. Advancing an English School conception of hegemony, this paper examines the politics, contestation, and renegotiation of the post–Cold War US hegemonic order in East Asia. It maps out four logics of hegemonic ordering in the existing literature, outlines their shortfalls and advances a twofold argument. First, although regional order will not disintegrate into binary “order versus disorder” or “US versus Chinese hegemony” scenarios, the politics of hegemonic ordering—the interactive discourses, processes, relations, and practices that underpin hegemony—will intensify as the United States and China continue to both cooperate and compete for power, position, and influence in East Asia. Second, I argue that the East Asian regional order will evolve in ways that resemble hybrid forms of hegemony in a complex hierarchy. Specifically, I develop a new logic—“coalitional and collaborative hegemonies in a complex hierarchy”—that is anchored in assertiveness, fluidity, and compartmentalization. It demonstrates that Washington and Beijing will not only form coalitional hegemonies, seeking legitimation from multiple and often overlapping constituencies, but also engage in a collaborative hegemony on shared interests. This better reflects evolving regional dynamics and yields theoretical insights into examining hegemonic transitions less as clearly delineated transitions from one distinct hegemonic order to the next, and more as partial and hybrid ones.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain Robertson

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to define and characterise the precise nature of these cultural systems and their resulting impact on the respective art and artists of each territory, by ascertaining the impact on those systems of their respective government and governance.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is based on three approaches to art market modelling. All three are based on political ideologies. The first, which typifies the art markets of Western Europe and the USA, is predicated on a Pluralist and Neo-Liberal ideology. The others correspond to the systems of government in China, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.FindingsIt has been shown in this paper that political systems and their accompanying ideology, born of cultural preferences, have impacted on the art markets of China, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. It has been demonstrated that all four markets are employing variants of the international norm.Research limitations/implicationsThe art that is exported from East Asia will only be accepted by East Asian national markets when East Asian art markets exercise a majority influence on emerging and transitional markets. It is not the intention of this paper to pursue this thought beyond the possibility that it may occur.Practical implicationsThe ineluctable conclusion is, therefore, that the global art market is moving towards a bipolar affair.Social implicationsThis paper also suggests the disengagement of East Asian and Chinese “culture” and art from a global (western) norm and production and consumption of national culture in East Asia by East Asians.Originality/valueThe paper looks (for the first time) at the direct (and subliminal) influence of political systems on art markets and the consequential effects of political ideology on the art markets of East Asia and China. The paper arrives at a series of precise definitions for the way that these art markets operate.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Zala

The special rights and responsibilities of the great powers have traditionally been treated as a key component – even a primary institution – of international society in the English School literature. Recent interpretivist work has focused on the meanings of special responsibilities in contemporary international society with far less scholarly attention being given to the corollary of this – special rights. This article uses an interpretivist approach to attempt to uncover what recent debates over China’s right or otherwise to a sphere of influence in East Asia tells us about understandings of great power rights in contemporary international society. The argument advanced is that if Beijing’s right to a sphere of influence is successfully rejected by the rest of international society without repudiating its status as a great power more broadly, China will indeed be a great power without historical precedent.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Holcombe
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document