Talk:Hegemony

message: What is the criteria Jayantha Jayman in "Politics of International Political Economy"  that not include Spain as the more sucesfull european empire? During the time  from 1498 to 1826 Spain was by far the world's most powerful country with an empire consisting of New World territories from Nord America to Patagonia, Caribbean and Phillipines.  Signsolid (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. But it's worse than you think. Jayman actually refers to Spain as a "hegemonic pretender", although I'm not sure what he means. We should look for RSs that say Spain was a hegemony and put it in. Don't be to cruel, we do our best here. Myrvin (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Obviated the Spanish Empire

message: Just read this article and parts are either badly written, or vandalised. The article is rambling and there are too many obscure terms. What the hell is a guwaweed?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.197.220 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly written article 

message: Projection of force should be merged here. -St|eve 20:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Moved to here:
to be written: the idea of "hegemony" in Marxist theory.. 212.44.19.62 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved... 

message: I've removed pronounced he-JEH-min-ee pending decent writeup, probably at the start. 212.44.19.62 12:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed... 

message: i'm restoring he-JEH-min-ee bc it's the only pronunciation that's useful  for most of us  average readers. 
.
i dont see what  a "decent writeup" has  to do w/ it [whatever that is.]
173.61.96.10 (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  restored 

message: This article does not meet the wikipedia standards of objectivity. The assertion that common sense notions of social values can be identified as the Marxist Gramsci's theory, but cannot simply be stated at the opening of the article as if this were undisputed. A little more historical background to the ground of the concept, starting with the Athenian Hegemony, would also be usful.
It's a little hard to believe that someone hasn't included Rome as a hegemon in the history section. Is there a reason this obvious and probably most prototypical example is not included?
:The article awaits the results of your broad reading and sense of balance.--Wetman 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rome could certainly be described as a hegemon before the dissolution of the Latin League in 338 BC, but when people think of Rome they generally think of the later imperial power, so I don't think the addition would be helpful. Anarchangel23 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A little less slanted, please" 

message: removed:
::Throughout what University of Pennsylvannia business professor Roland Barthes describes as the "ninety-degree angles of davinatorial history" in his book Hegemony is from Mars, And Sexy" (1994)' 
appears to be no such book,.
That's really funny re Roland Barthes! Keep it in just for the smiles? I creased myself. 66.65.115.8 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RV Pseudo Pedantic Vandalism

message: i reverted this passage from the article:
it feels extreme POV to me, talk it out here if you feel differently. JoeSmack Talk 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just extremely POV, but massively wrong as well (and I say that as an atheist with no love for the Catholic Church).  For example, the Salem Witch Trials were carried out by Protestants (who presumably wouldn't have existed had the RCC actually managed to kill off any religion that disagreed with them).  Likewise, the 6000-year-old earth tends to be a Fundamentalist Protestant doctrine, and is rejected by the RCC.  And the First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire which - despite its name - spent much of its history in conflict (including open war) with the RCC.  And the Egyptians and Sumerians were writing propoganda thousands of years before the Church even existed.  Iapetus (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

text: The above is non-NPOV, but I think that removing it outright is a little extreme. There is a certain amount of American hegemony in the world today. SirBob42 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally agree that there is considerable American hegemony.  However, this statement is definitely very vindictive and contains almost no objective information; rewording it could not remove the POV, which is portrayed by the choice of information.  The paragraph that this one was after ("Since the end of the Cold War...") would no doubt benefit from elaboration on how America is a hegemony (or at least a pointer to the source discussing it), particularly with a solid source.  Ichibani 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Many argue that there is an American Hegemony since the end of the cold war (and even beginning since after WOII), though people may also argue that it ended at 9/11 2001.  The world is more multipolar now (EU, India, China, Brazil, Russia) and the war in Iraq damaged the appreciation of the US on the world stage considerably, to the effect that they may have lost influence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.244.192.155 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is practically fact that there is American Hegemony.  The problem is that this article isn't describing hegemony -- its meaning as well as its ongoing history -- but is trying to criticize hegemony as imperialism.  As related as the two may or may not be, the spin it's putting on the topic is in violation of Wikipedia's policy for neutral point of view.  Focusing on the US hegemony simply compounds that effect as it is synthesizing criticism of the US.  Verifiable criticisms of U.S. hegemony may at some point in the future be a constructive addition to this article, but right now they wouldn't improve it at all. Ichibani  utc 04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV addition 

message: This article completely lacks references and presents a negative connotation POV.  Particularly seeing as the word hegemony is thrown around a lot in a editorials and international political contexts, this is not acceptable.  Most of the article needs to be rewritten with information from a reliable source. Ichibani 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's just plain incorrect, let alone biased. This isn't an article about hegemony in context - it's been crafted into rhetoric about imperialism and a theoretical analysis of negative impacts of colonialism in history. Cyril Washbrook 00:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited the introduction to the article. Discussion welcome. Cyril Washbrook 00:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: The use of the actual definition should be used in its central definition. It is also used as a political buzz word, like "racism", "fascism", "chauvinism", and "imperialism", in political diatribe involving examples that don't represent its actual meaning. The derivatives shold get their own pages, along with an explanation of the use or misuse of the word by the theorists that are expounding it. 
A true Hegemony is led by a Hegemon, a senior state that acts as the organizer or ruler of an alliance of states that may be composed of willing or coerced members. The Western NATO, SEATO, and CENTO alliances (with the U.S. as the major power) opposing the Warsaw Pact alliance (with Russia as its dominant power) during the Cold War are good examples.  Hotspur23 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'political science definition' is just a specific case of the general definition given in the article.  Does it really require addition? Rykalski (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strict Definition of Hegemony 

message: Does this article really belong in an encyclopedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hegemony is a historical phenomenon, like extinction or diplomacy; its course can be traced, as can the usage and changing concept of the term: the history of ideas is the last kind of history to be grasped. Perhaps it's a stretch for the average Wikipedian. --Wetman (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Is Not a Dictionary 

message: Is it not strange that the largest empire in history, longest surviving post-Roman empire, and creator of industrialization and almost everything in the modern world is not mentioned? That such an empire is not even mentioned on an article about hegemony yet such empires as the Dutch Empire gets a whole paragraph is why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Signsolid (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a perfect example of why this article needs overhauled - this user has not understood what is meant by hegemony at all. I mean no offence by this, but that is empire building, not hegemony, which is entirely different.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasurashai (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, and the British Empire has most of its roots in Rome and so on back to Sumeria.  There are a number of key cultures that have influenced the world, but a hegemony is more political - convincing other states to join up. The British Empire was most definitely created and ruled by force of arms, not through any kind of non-violent superiority that made people want to join the Empire.  I realise this goes against what I said above, and the more I think about it the less I think that the British Empire is a good example of military hegemony.  A military hegemony would be where a state gains such massive superiority in its military that people want to side with them, probably for protection.  Given that every colony of the British Empire demanded its independence from the Empire suggests to me that they didn't want to be there in the first place, which is a key concept in hegemony - the idea that the member states want to be part of it, and are not forced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasurashai (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no mention of the British Empire?

message: Why is it that in the introduction 'united Germany that has existed from 1871 to 1945 and from 1990 onwards.' listed without periods that it was a potential hegemon? France is listed with qualifications, and the introduction has no mention of the fact that the US is a unipolar power and is the subject of debate as to whether or not it is hegemonic or merely hegemonistic. 121.45.79.222 (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted both Napoleonic France and Prussia/Hitlerian Germany.  Although both conquered territory, I know of no credible claims that their rule was accepted by those that they dominated.  If anyone wants to put them back, they better have good citations.  To descibe any state as a "potentially hegemon" or "hegemonistic" is editors' opinion and offends WP:OR.  Unless a notable citation can be produced. --Red King (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany?

message: These are all Science Fiction examples. This should at least read "Hegemony in SCIENCE fiction". And how does this flow from the classical and neo-Marxist perspective. Really.
BTW, I'm impressed with the quality of the critique so far.
However from a practical viewpoint of someone trying to use these ideas - who themselves will be in a hegemony, I think you are all being quite prudish & harsh.
Does anyone have an issue with the articles concretisation to assist understanding of the abstract??:
"The processes by which a dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power; the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem abstract (and, therefore, not attached to any one individual); the inculcation of the populace in the ideals of the hegomonic group through education, advertising, publication, etc.; the mobilization of a police force as well as military personnel to subdue opposition."
The fact that the hegemon determine what is thought of by the subjugated as commonsense, and they automatically defend the hegemon's position is the core modern theme here. The more important fact which no commentator has discussed is why this subjugation happens. What advantage do the dominated gain to permit them to offer no resistance? A provocative example of this is the question "When is slavery a better alternative?" (Jay, 2008)
Isn't there a historical AND critical social theory aspect to be explored? Adhart81 (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hegemony in fiction" et al. 

message: Would it be appropriate to state that (I guess that some sort of reference would be nice) the U.S. is a cultural hegemony (and by cultural hegemony, I mean in the purest sense not necessarily as in the philosophy of socialism) in the sense that T.V., film, and music of the United States is a major influence if not "the influence" in other countries? I would like to hear others opinions on this. Lighthead þ 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural hegemony? 

message: "said imperial war, speciously justified as ideologic (i.e. Communism vs. Capitalism), both superpower hegemons fought directly (propaganda) and indirectly (proxy war), each hoping to overcome and dominate the nemesis with an arms race (military superiority) and with economic aid (hearts and minds). In the event, each cold warrior forswore indirect (hegemonic) rule to ensure its direct imperium"
This reads like it was written by a young teen with only a partial understanding of the concepts, but an earnest desire to impress. I tried to rewrite the above paragraph, at least, but I don't think it is actually saying anything. Particularly the last sentence, which, if it did not seem to be semantically empty, would need a reference, anyway. As such, I am removing it. I know that it is better to fix, not to remove, but, in this case, it's hard to see that a "corrected" version of this paragraph could exist. In the event that it did, it would need to be properly sourced. THAT SAID, if anyone can find credible references supporting... whatever it says, then feel free to more adequately cover the topic. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I don't even want to touch it. It has its tangled limbs, all through the section, and, to an extent, the article, and there is a constant use of odd terms, like "Vietnamese Civil War"... the Vietnamese call it the "American War", the Americans call it the "Vietnam War", so, where are we getting the term from? "Ideologic"? Not "Ideological"? Who classifies propaganda as direct war? By that definition most dictatorships are permanently at war with the West, but, now you're just muddying the concept and making it meaningless. The superpowers in the Cold War being referred to as "Cold Warriors" does not really make sense, in the same way that the Allies and the Axis, in World War II, were not "World Warriors". The uncritical use of "imperium", to refer to the USSR and the USA, also puzzles me, and I see no reason why we need to get into contested ground, merely to explain that the USA and the USSR are hegemonies. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  turgid prose 

message: I think this article could use a lot of love.  It's sources are all from what strike me as some pretty post-modernist or socialist sources, and which run pretty contrary to a more conventional definition of the term hegemony.  I'm not confident that someone trying to better understand the use of the term in international relations literature, for example, would learn anything; they'd get lost in the density.  The article seems to imply that the establishment of hegemony is a sort of malevolent, conspiratorial, and inherently imperial action - while those things could be traits of hegemony, they are not intrinsic to it, and their inclusion here detracts from the usefulness of the article.
I don't just want to start making edits, because this page feels like it is someone's baby, but I'd really like to see it get some revision to include much more practical IR language - where in a hegemon is the most powerful state in a system, and which possesses the power projection capabilities to ensure that, by and large, things go its way.  If it is someone's baby and they're looking for someone to bring in that alternative position, let me know.  Jordanp (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Split into two sections "Hegemony as a concept in the academic discipline of International Relations" "Hegemony in Gramsci, Marxism, and other writings"? The problem isn't NPOV in the Gramsci-inspired editor's text, its two academic terms using the same word without proper differentiation. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge NPOV Problems 

message: Hegemony in ancient Greece had a very clear meaning.  It has, however over time, been used for a whole range of concepts that have little relation to each other.  The problem with this article is that it is written as if there is one thing called hegemony.  For instance the Chinese term Ba is translated as hegemon for want of a better term yet the article talks of it as if it is the same thing as a Greek hegemon.Dejvid (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is the worst article I have ever read in WP. The introduction doesn't even give a good definition of the word and would leave anyone confused. I don't want to rag on the contributor, as it is plainly obvious that this was, or comes verbatim from some essay. I think that the only way to fix this article is to clear the entire thing and start over from scratch. Just my $0.02 Mr0t1633 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: *I agree it's no good - how much "no good" I cannot measure. So why don't you help us improve it? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hegemony - a term of convenience

message: Merriam-Webster's has this:
Does this therefore justify the article? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gramsci "justifies" the article.  The meaning of what you're saying is obscure, could you rephrase what you're trying to say? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregard this. It applied to the opening sentence of world domination (disambiguation) - where "hegemony" is listed in the DAB. But problem there is now solved. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Domination]] v. [[World domination]] 

message: I'm not sure how that got to be there or why it is still there, but the idea that France exercises cultural hegemony over Great Britain, Germany, or even Italy, is ridiculous.  This needs to be removed as soon as possible.  Maybe I'll do it now and hope that it isn't reverted immediately by someone who is trying to impose their fantasies of French hegemony on readers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.81.152 (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  France is the hegemon of the EU?!?!?! 

message: This statement is one of the most patently absurd things I have ever read on Wikipedia. Would anyone be upset if i removed it 'nailed it to a frisbee, and flung it over a rainbow'? This statement doesnt need a citation, it needs to be buried in an unmarked grave and never spoken of again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullys (talk • contribs) 05:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It requires the consent of the majority to keep the dominant group's leader in power." 

message: I intend to expand this section with the material from the lead. It is too detailed for the lead and belongs in the Sociological section. Some part must remain behind in the lead. More to do. Myrvin (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociology 

message: I think this whole section should be removed. The whole paragraph beginning "In the ancient world" is not in Lefebvre. Some of it is about hydraulic despotism, but nobody says this is the same as hegemonism, including the relevant article. The rest seems to be trying to suggest there is something significant about the way hegemonies have moved around the world. Also, the L book does not use the word 'trialectical'. I think it is mostly OR. I can't even see where L says "human geography is constituted by mental space, social space, and physical space." Myrvin (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: The rise of China is evident and people fight over the idea whether China will be the new leading hegemony. I think it is important to have a competing argument to whether U.S continues to be a hegemon since the end of the Cold War.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcghjk (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is China the 21st century's new hegemon? 

message: The "21st century" section mentions that Ostrovsky compared the Roman and Qin empires, and states that "China overcame all crises and preserved its ancient unity until today."  This seems like a dubious statement, given that the Qin dynasty only lasted 5 years and between that time and the present day the region now known as China experienced several changes of rule including a complete conquest by the Mongols (see Yuan dynasty). 2601:644:101:9616:6508:1FC7:CAA7:24F6 (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's "ancient unity" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hegemony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100328072123/http://milexdata.sipri.org:80/ to http://milexdata.sipri.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hegemony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328104327/http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/15majorspenders to http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/15majorspenders
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hegemony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140914012708/http://people.uwec.edu/mdorsher/ica2001/hegemony_online.htm to http://people.uwec.edu/mdorsher/ica2001/hegemony_online.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One of the most confusing elements in the research on hegemony is the distinction from empire. The mess is greater because many works use the two terms synonymously. A passage on distinctions between hegemony and empire would be helpful. I tried this:
Hegemony is distinct from empire as informal rule versus formal, Joseph Nye, "American Hegemony or American Primacy?" Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, March 11, 2015, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/american-hegemony-or-american-primacy indirect versus direct,Robert Gilpin, War and Change in War Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981, p 29-36.Robert Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, 1984, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p 40.,  influencing versus controlling domestic affairs of other states,Adam Watson, The Evolution of International Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis, London & New York: Routledge, 1992, 15-16)“Hegemony,” Oxford Bibliographies, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0122.xmlMichael W. Doyle attributes this distinction to Thucydides. Empires, Ithaka: Cornell University Press, 1986, pp 12-13. avoiding versus exercising territorial controlKori Schake, Safe Passage: The Transition from British to American Hegemony, London: Harvard University Press, 2017, p 32. and collecting irregular contributions versus regular taxation.Andrew Lintott, Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration, London: Routledge, 1993, p 35.Perry Cooper Sands, The Client Princes under the Republic, New York: Arno Press, 1975, p 107, 127-128, 135, 152-155.
This was deleted as NPOV.
NPOV??? --Maxaxa  (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction from empire