关于本课程 为了解释全球化是如何重构公共政策和再塑社会行为，我们将研究不同的政治、经济行为体、研究各类——公共或私人，个体或集体——社会行为体，并着眼关注到它们之间的交流和互动作用，这些行为体正在重构着国际关系。 本课程以法国社会学和历史学视角来研究国际关系。同时也提供英语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies/)、法语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr/)和阿拉伯语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-ar/)。
霸权还是排斥？
Loading...
From the course by Sciences Po
世界空间、法国视角下的国际研究
6 ratings
Meet the Instructors
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
[MUSIC]
The main question now is to assess our globalization is excluding.
Of course, we observe in our present world.
A very strong process of exclusion but what does it mean?
How can we consider this exclusion process?
There are two competing visions.
The old and traditional vision of exclusion which is partly adapted
to this new global order and a new vision of exclusion
which is much more connected to the essence of
this new process of this new global order.
Traditional vision for
a very simple reason is that there is a real resilience of the states.
And we can't find, in our present global order,
the traditional strategy of the states and
the traditional hegemonic strategy.
Of course, as I mentioned, power is no more really powerful.
But power in our traditional order was resulting in
a hegemony which is not really over.
And many actors among the powers, and especially the superpowers,
consider that this hegemony can be now used and
practice in this new global order.
You have heard of this very famous theory
of the traditional stable hegemony.
This hegemonic's stability which was coined first
by Kindleberger, and after by Robert Gilpin.
You know that in this traditional vision,
a benign leader is considered as an accessory for
stabilizing that entire international order.
And many people, observers, and actors consider
that this is patiently true for a global order.
If the order is global, we need a benign leader for
stabilizing, and for ordering, for
ruling this global order for acting in a special manner for
keeping the global integration of the international arena.
But the real question would be, is it possible now?
Is it possible for the hegemon to keep,
to stay as such to keep its strategy and
to maintain this stable hegemony.
Heart power was currently defeated.
At power didn't work when globalization
was partly achieved in a time of Vietnam war,
and after in Afghanistan, in Iraq and
Somalia, hot power didn't work.
And now, no one is able to win a war if the evidence that hot power is less and
less working because of globalization,
because of this interdependence on which I put the finger in my previous lecture.
That's why many analysts consider that instead
of this hard power which is less and less powerful.
We have to move now to a soft power.
And a new school took place around the Canadian
social scientist Robert Cox but also the British
social scientist Susan Strange for considering soft power.
And this vision was also promoted in United States by Joseph Nye.
Cultural hegemony which is kind Gramscian hegemony that's to say
the hegemony as it was conceived by the famous Italian philosopher Gramsci.
This new cultural hegemony is supposed to play
the role of the previous hard power hegemony.
And that's true that a cultural hegemony play a very important role.
Let's consider for instance the films in the world.
You know that US is producing about 6% of films in the world.
But the US film, projection times is 50 years.
That your evidence that we are in a world
in which there is a real cultural hegemony.
And this is true that this cultural hegemony is supporting by globalization,
as of course, the global world is much more adapted for
importing films coming from the hegemony.
But, the real question is, is it sufficient.
That's to say, is a cultural hegemony able to result
on the political hegemony and this is less obvious,
a cultural hegemony can be confirmed,
can be strengthened without triggering a political hegemony.
The projection of American films, or drinking Coca Cola,
or wearing blue jeans, don't really result
in adopting the American vision of foreign policy.
So let's move to what I called the new problem of hegemony in a global world.
There is a strong inequality in the globalization
process, but very hard to identify.
First of all I would say that initially inequality is
coming from an unequal distribution of resources.
That's to say energy but
also food resources are not equally located in the world.
And the lack of energy for instance in the eastern part of Asia
is playing a very important role for promoting,
for triggering tensions conflict and
also new kinds of inter-state relations.
Inequality of resource is a geographical inequality.
And this geographical inequality in a world of interdependence results in
permanent tensions, which are explaining the real dangerous and risk,
which are run by the most powerful countries.
There's also a strong inequality of income.
If you take into account, for instance, the gross national product,
you will observe a real gap, a real discrepancy.
How can we compare US $15,000
billion was Liberia with
only $1 billion of GNP.
This discrepancy is so important at equality amongst states' questions.
And we can observe in world of interdependence how this
inequality is creating another aspect of the world tension that I mentioned.
Inequality in trade also, that's to say,
if for instance you are discovering 18% of the global trade.
If US is covering about 15%, and
Asia 18%, Africa is covering
less than 2% of the global trade.
This is another very strong inequality which explains how it could be difficult
to create, to promote this integrated world
which is necessary in context of globalization.
So economics plays a very important role in this structural inequality,
but there is also a practical aspect of this inequality.
If we take into account for instance the numerous clubs
which take place in the international arena,
by which the powerful states confiscate
capture the main function of political governance of the international order.
P5, that's to say the vital group in the Security Council of UN.
G8 which is now G7 which is including
very few members
which can be considered as a world oligarchy and
deciding on the main economic issues.
But also IMF, all the international
organization, are structured,
shaped according to enable principles
which is contradicting the UN charter.
Repeating, claiming
that the equal sovereignty of all the states around the world.
Cultural inequality is something very important.
When I mention the cultural hegemony,
I pointed all these cultures which are no more able to exist by themselves and
which have to be submitted to a kind of domination
of one of the cultures which is coming from outside and
even not really understood by those who use it.
And now, I would mention social exclusion.
If you take into account the map of human development index,
you will see the grey gap between those developed
countries which are really performing on
the level of education, level of health.
And which are far away from the level
which is reached by the lowest rung
of developing countries.
There is such a social discrepancy among the states,
that we are now facing the world which could be compared
to the European nations of the 19th century
between a working class which was quite excluded
from the richness of nations and the bourgeoisie.
The world is now led, is now run by this Western bourgeoisie,
by these Western States which are playing the role which
was previously played by bourgeoisie inside the Nation States.
And as we say that this time the working class
is moving to the status of a dangerous class.
And this is probably the main characteristic of the poorest states.
If you compare the map of human development index and the map of conflict,
you will understand that there is a real connection between the two phenomena.
[MUSIC]
Explore our Catalog
Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.
Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education,
partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.
© 2019 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.
