The meaning of materiality: reconsidering the materiality of Gramscian IR

Gramsican approaches in International Relations (IR) have sought to outline the relationship between ideas and material forces in the construction of world order. Scholars working within this broad school have sought to emphasise that ideas are material forces, and must be considered as concrete historical structures (Cox, 1987) central to the establishment of particular historical and hegemonic blocs. This literature has primarily focused on the discursive construction of hegemony by international elites and the impact this has on political practices. While these insights are important in understanding the construction of world order, it is necessary to extend them to include the creation of actual physical structures – that is, it is vital to link the ideational aspects of hegemony with actual material processes. I will argue that a consideration of the role of technology provides an ideal vehicle for this process, building on the preliminary work of Bieler and Morton in this regard (2008). Technological structures are the product of particular cultural values and embed these cultural values within their very structure. Physical material factors thereby express ideational values constructed by specific social forces. Social practices are thus not only a function of the dominance of certain ideological formations, but also the product of the material environment itself and the manner in which the human metabolism with nature must function through these physical constructions. Daniel McCarthy is currently completing a PhD at the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, funded by the ESRC. His research, linking together science and technology studies, historical materialism, and sociological theories of power, explores the nature of information technology as a form of institutional power in international politics, through an examination of the Internet in American foreign policy. Daniel can be contacted at: {[email protected]}. The question of the ontological primacy of ideas or materiality has occupied a central role in theoretical debates in International Relations (IR) for the past 30 years. Whether in disputes over the status of ideas within research paradigms, the nature of the structure-agency problem, or any number of other controversies, * This article was first presented at the British International Studies Association (BISA) Conference, 17 December 2008. I would like to thank Ian Bruff, Lisa Denney, Matthew Fluck, Lene Hansen, Columba Peoples and James Perry for their helpful comments. 1 John Gerard Ruggie and Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on the Art of the State’, International Organization, 40 (1986), pp. 753–75; Robert Keohane, ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, 32 (1988), pp. 379–96. 2 Roxanne Lynn Doty, ‘Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in International Relations Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 3 (1997), pp. 365–92; Colin Wight, ‘They Shoot Dead Horses, Don’t They: Locating Agency in the Agent-Structure Problematique’, European Journal of International Relations, 5 (1999), pp. 109–42. Review of International Studies page 1 of 2