The Gordian Knot of Agency—Structure in International Relations:

Abstract

The agent-structure debate has proceeded in International Relations for some time now. Within an initial `first wave' of debate, this revolved around proposing various `solutions' to the problem of how to appreciate the mutually constitutive relationship between agency and structure. The ensuing debate was then characterized by an apparent intellectual cul-de-sac. There were always `two stories to tell' about agency and structure — one an explanatory account, the other an interpretative account. More recently, a `second wave' of agent-structure debate is under way in which the stakes have been raised. Yet throughout the various waves of debate it seems that the contributions of an historicist neo-Gramscian perspective developed by Robert Cox have been overlooked. This article explores some of the issues raised by such an approach. Attention is drawn to the many issues developed by neo-Gramscian perspectives that combine accounts of agency-structure as well as modes of explanation and understanding. We remain sceptical about whether the dualism of agency-structure can be successfully transcended by combining accounts that both explain and understand the social world. As such, the problem of agency-structure may well be a Gordian knot that cannot be unravelled or solved. Yet, by starting to take seriously the approaches to agency-structure within various neo-Gramscian perspectives, we aim to propel discussion into further avenues within the second wave of the agent-structure debate.

Neoliberalism in Crisis

“…In all cases, the violence of slavery, serfdom and capital accumulation generated extreme degrees of inequality and systematic social instability. As such, all three cases offer important lessons for the structure-agency problématique and the dialectical process of structural continuity and change (Bieler and Morton 2001). The implications of this comparative analysis are therefore of broader relevance than the cases themselves.…”

Frames, Paradigms and Power: Global Health Policy-Making under Neoliberalism

“…62 Equally, neo-Gramscians would see nothing particularly radical in viewing particular "world orders" as the product of a dialectical relationship between power, politics, economics (and production) and ideas. 63 For our purposes this agent-structure debate can be bracketed off. What matters for our framework is the ways in which global health policy-making processes are structured by the "deep core".…”

The Domestication of Open Government Data Advocacy in the United Kingdom: A Neo‐Gramscian Analysis

“…Whilst the notion of hegemony is the most commonly applied of the Gramscian concepts, significant work has been undertaken in the field of neoGramscian International Political Economy (IPE) which draws on the work of Cox (1981;1983) to develop the ideas of passive revolution and trasformismo in relation to the era of neoliberal globalization (see, for example, Bieler and Morton 2001;Moore 2007;Morton 2007;Paterson 2009). In situations of hegemonic crisis, or when there has been a failure of elites to gain popular consent (that is, a minimal hegemony) these neo-Gramscian theorists argue that conditions of passive revolution can ensue.…”