This thesis analyzes the concept of hegemony in the field of international relations. Commonly viewed and understood from different angles, the concept of hegemony appears to be fragmented and limited to philosophical and theoretical standpoints one has. Thus, this thesis attempted to comprehensively compare conceptualizations and understandings of the concept placed in different theories.
Three theories of international relations were chosen for a comparative method: neo-realism, neo-liberalism and neo-Gramscianism. The thesis took use of the constructive paradigm with a relativist ontology and subjective epistemology. Firstly, the chosen theories are reviewed in terms of their basic assumptions and philosophical considerations, further incorporating the concept of hegemony into review. Commonalities and varying differences of the theories are highlighted. In addition, this thesis includes empirical data collected from secondary sources to illustrate explanations of American hegemony through the different theories` standpoints.
The conception of hegemony is found to differ in two principal terms: actors who pursue hegemony and underlying conditions to establish and maintain hegemony. States are potential hegemons in neo-liberal and neo-realist theories, while neo-Gramscian state includes civil society as well. In terms of conditions for hegemony, a couple of variables dominate in theories: hard power in neo-realism, soft power in neo-liberalism and mixture of the two in neo-Gramscian theory along with social forces.