CONCEPTUAL ISSUES AND PERIPHERAL SCHOLARSHIP: HEGEMONY, DISCIPLINARY SOCIOLOGY AND IR IN BELARUS AND UKRAINE
type: CreativeWork
description: This work questions the conventional conceptualization(s) of hegemony within the subfield of the sociology of IR. Despite the concept’s central position within the subfield, it is not immune to a series of misinterpretations and non-critical borrowings. Those had led the subfield into a conceptual dead-end, which, in turn, heavily affected the former’s empirical research orientations. In particular, disciplinary sociology was deprived of an ability to effectively locate the patterns of disciplinary dominance, instead being preoccupied with registering mere patterns of diversity and plurality. Thus, this work aims to investigate conceptual issues associated with hegemony. In particular, it concerns tracing the concept’s evolution of usage and semantic oscillations within and outside of IR. This, in turn, might allow a more nuanced and eclectic understanding of disciplinary hegemony. For this purpose, the work starts with the historical review of hegemony and its socio-political context of usage to prepare the ground for an overall assessment of the Gramscian conceptualization of hegemony and those which are conventionally labeled as the post-Gramscian. Subsequently, it moves on to investigate the existing theoretical traditions within IR to trace the channels of possible misinterpretation of the notion of hegemony by disciplinary sociology. Finally, it comes to the problem of disciplinary hegemony to critically assess the current conceptualizations of the latter with the backdrop of the abovementioned hegemonic traditions. As a result of this conceptual analysis, three outcomes are presented. The first locates the current misinterpretation of the disciplinary hegemony in misreading Kal Holsti’s thesis regarding the nexus of national-academic and national-intellectual hegemonies. The second formulates the double self-referentiality thesis. The latter concerns the sociology of IR’s treatment of its object of research, namely the discipline of IR, in the same manner as …
abstract: This work questions the conventional conceptualization(s) of hegemony within the subfield of the sociology of IR. Despite the concept’s central position within the subfield, it is not immune to a series of misinterpretations and non-critical borrowings. Those had led the subfield into a conceptual dead-end, which, in turn, heavily affected the former’s empirical research orientations. In particular, disciplinary sociology was deprived of an ability to effectively locate the patterns of disciplinary dominance, instead being preoccupied with registering mere patterns of diversity and plurality. Thus, this work aims to investigate conceptual issues associated with hegemony. In particular, it concerns tracing the concept’s evolution of usage and semantic oscillations within and outside of IR. This, in turn, might allow a more nuanced and eclectic understanding of disciplinary hegemony. For this purpose, the work starts with the historical review of hegemony and its socio-political context of usage to prepare the ground for an overall assessment of the Gramscian conceptualization of hegemony and those which are conventionally labeled as the post-Gramscian. Subsequently, it moves on to investigate the existing theoretical traditions within IR to trace the channels of possible misinterpretation of the notion of hegemony by disciplinary sociology. Finally, it comes to the problem of disciplinary hegemony to critically assess the current conceptualizations of the latter with the backdrop of the abovementioned hegemonic traditions. As a result of this conceptual analysis, three outcomes are presented. The first locates the current misinterpretation of the disciplinary hegemony in misreading Kal Holsti’s thesis regarding the nexus of national-academic and national-intellectual hegemonies. The second formulates the double self-referentiality thesis. The latter concerns the sociology of IR’s treatment of its object of research, namely the discipline of IR, in the same manner as …
author: SIDARCHUK, ARTSIOM
language: eng
keywords: hegemony, Gramsci, sociology of IR, peripheral scholarship, disciplinary hegemony, IR in Belarus and Ukraine, Settore SPS/04 - Scienza Politica
date published: 2023-01-12
date modified: 2026-07-27T20:18:48Z
provider: Università degli Studi di Milano
publisher: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
type: WebPage
source organization: Università degli Studi di Milano

PropertyValue
property ID: Handle
value: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/945891

PropertyValue
property ID: DOI
value: 10.13130/sidarchuk-artsiom_phd2023-01-12