This work seeks to explore the widely held assumption that the discipline of International Relations is dominated by American scholars, approaches and institutions. It proceeds by defining 'dominance' along Gramscian lines and then identifying different ways in which such dominance could be exerted: agenda-setting, theoretically, methodologically, institutionally, gate-keeping. Turton dedicates a chapter to each of these forms of dominance in which she sets out the arguments in the literature, discusses their theoretical implications, and tests for empirical support. The work argues that the self-image of IR as an American dominated discipline does not reflect the state of affairs once a detailed sociological analysis of the production of knowledge in the discipline is undertaken. Turton argues that the discipline is actually more plural than widely recognized, challenging widely held beliefs in International Relations and it taking a successful step towards unpacking the term 'dominance'. An insightful contribution to the field, this work will be of great interest to students and scholars alike.

Since the 1970s, a 'critical' movement has been developing in the humanities and social sciences denouncing the existence of 'Western dominance' over the worldwide production and circulation of knowledge. However, thirty years after the emergence of this promising agenda in International Relations (IR), this discipline has not experienced a major shift. This volume offers a counter-intuitive and original contribution to the understanding of the global circulation of knowledge. In contrast to the literature, it argues that the internationalisation of social sciences in the designated 'Global South' is not conditioned by the existence of a presumably 'Western dominance'. Indeed, although discriminative practices such as Eurocentrism and gate-keeping exist, their existence does not lead to a unipolar structuration of IR internationalisation around ‘the West’. Based on these empirical results, this book reflexively questions the role of critique in the (re)production of the social and political order. Paradoxically, the anti-Eurocentric critical discourses reproduce the very Eurocentrism they criticise. This book offers methodological support to address this paradox by demonstrating how one can use discourse analysis and reflexivity to produce innovative results and decentre oneself from the vision of the world one has been socialised into. This work offers an insightful contribution to International Relations, Political Theory, Sociology and Qualitative Methodology. It will be useful to all students and scholars interested in critical theories, international political sociology, social sciences in Brazil and India, knowledge and discourse, Eurocentrism, as well as the future of reflexivity.

A new history explains how and why, as it prepared to enter World War II, the United States decided to lead the postwar world. For most of its history, the United States avoided making political and military commitments that would entangle it in European-style power politics. Then, suddenly, it conceived a new role for itself as the world’s armed superpower—and never looked back. In Tomorrow, the World, Stephen Wertheim traces America’s transformation to the crucible of World War II, especially in the months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. As the Nazis conquered France, the architects of the nation’s new foreign policy came to believe that the United States ought to achieve primacy in international affairs forevermore. Scholars have struggled to explain the decision to pursue global supremacy. Some deny that American elites made a willing choice, casting the United States as a reluctant power that sloughed off “isolationism” only after all potential competitors lay in ruins. Others contend that the United States had always coveted global dominance and realized its ambition at the first opportunity. Both views are wrong. As late as 1940, the small coterie of officials and experts who composed the U.S. foreign policy class either wanted British preeminence in global affairs to continue or hoped that no power would dominate. The war, however, swept away their assumptions, leading them to conclude that the United States should extend its form of law and order across the globe and back it at gunpoint. Wertheim argues that no one favored “isolationism”—a term introduced by advocates of armed supremacy in order to turn their own cause into the definition of a new “internationalism.” We now live, Wertheim warns, in the world that these men created. A sophisticated and impassioned narrative that questions the wisdom of U.S. supremacy, Tomorrow, the World reveals the intellectual path that brought us to today’s global entanglements and endless wars.

The author provides an insightful look at U.S. power in the world today. Understanding why we have succeeded, she explains, is essential to making sound choices about what to sustain and how to approach the task.

The larger issue of defining hegemony and dominance has gained a greater importance over the last dozen years. Whether addressed explicitly or implicitly, it is the issue that lies behind the many recent books on international relations. The ongoing "financial crisis" has given these issues new urgency. This book provides new and startling evidence drawn from foreign exchange markets and capital flow statistics. They demonstrate that the problem dates back to the end of 2000 and has been driven by political events as much as structural economic issues. Combined with the development of a structural energy problem, the financial problem generated a global economic crisis that has not ended. In Twilight's Last Gleaming, Edmund Clingan uses economic measurements to establish measures of political and military power. Clingan examines the changes in these measurements over the last two hundred years to establish how international power relations have been affected by changes in economic power. He considers the factors that contribute to and detract from economic power. Using these quantitative measures, he provides consistent definitions of "dominance" and "hegemony" that should become commonly used and contribute to more precise discourse in history and political science. These tools uncover the deeper issues behind the current problems of the United States.