Introduction

Individualised employment relations formed a key pillar of the shift to neoliberal economic policy in the 1980s, complementing other dimensions of orthodoxy deployed across governments, public administrations and central banks in the same time. In the neoliberal narrative, market forces would ‘naturally' and justly compensate labour for its contribution to productivity, like any other input to production. Consequently, redistributive institutions empowering workers to win more adequate wages and conditions (through minimum wages, Awards, unionisation, and collective bargaining) were dramatically eroded, or discarded entirely. Combined with welfare state retrenchment, this restructuring of labour market policy increased the pressure on people to sell their labour, and under terms over which workers wielded little influence. Since then, forms of insecure, non-standard work have proliferated globally, and employment relations have been increasingly individualised. Now, most workers in Anglo-Saxon market economies, and a growing proportion of workers in European and Nordic nations, rely on individual contract instruments (underpinned only by minimum wage floors typically far below living wage benchmarks) to set the terms and conditions of employment. Wages have stagnated, the share of GDP going to workers has declined, and inequality and poverty (even among employed people) has intensified. More recently, after years of this employer-friendly hegemony in workplace relations, successive crises (first the GFC and then the COVID-19 pandemic) have more obviously shattered traditional expectations of a natural linkage between economic growth and workers' living standards.After a generation of experience with this individualised model of employment relations, and with the human costs of that approach becoming ever-more obvious, there is renewed concern with reimagining policies and structures which could support improvements in job quality, stability, and compensation. Important policy dialogue and innovation is now occurring in many industrial countries, in response to the negative consequences of neoliberal labour market policies. In those conversations, institutions like collective bargaining have returned to centre stage.

MASCULINIDAD HEGEMÓNICA, ROLES DE GÉNERO Y VIOLENCIA INTRAFAMILIAR EN PUEBLA-TLAXCALA, MÉXICO

El objetivo del artículo es analizar, desde la perspectiva de género, la incidencia de la masculinidad hegemónica y los roles de género estereotipados en la armonía familiar en la Zona Metropolitana de Puebla-Tlaxcala (ZMTP), donde se reporta un incremento de violencia durante el confinamiento por Covid-19 como resultado del reparto desigual en los quehaceres domésticos y el machismo en México. Es una investigación cualitativa donde se empleó el método de encuesta telefónica y descriptivo-exploratorio. Al final del trabajo, se evidencia que las tradiciones culturales y la normalización de la dominación masculina impiden la erradicación de los abusos en el hogar.Alternate :The objective of the article is to analyze, from the gender perspective, the incidence of hegemonic masculinity and stereotyped gender roles in family harmony where it refers to an increase in violence during confinement by Covid-19 in the Metropolitan Area Puebla-Tlaxcala (ZMTP) as a result of the unequal distribution of domestic chores and sexism in Mexico. It is a qualitative investigation where the method of telephone and descriptive-exploratory survey was used. At the end of the work, it shows that cultural traditions and the normalization of male domination prevent the eradication of abuse in the home.

The Geopolitics of Anti-Asian Violence: Cold War Contradictions In the Era of "Building Back Better"

In this formulation, the US-ROK Alliance—what the State Department deems the "linchpin of peace, security, and prosperity" in the region—stands not as a form of military occupation or imperial clientelism, but one of righteous defense from regional bogeyman such as the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).3 The endemic violence of US militarism—from sexual exploitation in military "camptowns" to the extralegal status of US servicemen—is rendered a mere footnote to a program of liberal internationalism which claims to preside over what the US military euphemistically terms a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific. "4 Blinken's easy distinction between the singular act of the Atlanta shootings and the routinized violence of US imperialism speaks to the contradictions at the heart of the Biden administration's aspiration to restore both racial liberalism and global US power.5 Since the campaign trail, platitudes about restoring global US leadership have made up the core of the Biden administration's foreign policy platform. [...]Biden pitched his presidency as a means to reinstate the era of racial liberalism in order to "restore the soul of the nation" from the crude racism of the Trump era.7 Asian /Americans have been cast to perform the work of legitimation under the intersecting projects of racial liberalism and US hegemony—from the symbolic inclusion of Asian /Americans into the US national body to the incorporation of allied Asian states into a US-led orbit of militarized peace.8 On the one hand, Asian /Americans have become a performative symbol of a reascendant racial liberalism. What does it mean, then, in a region still shaped by Cold War imperialism, to proclaim that "America is back," as Kamala Harris did on her first trip to Asia as Vice President in August 2021?13 Even more, how do we make sense of the declaration of a "new" Cold War, emerging as it does from the unfinished business of an "old" Cold War that never ended?

Old Politics versus New Politics: The Dynamics of Malay Politics in the Johor State Election 2022

The Johor State Election, held on March 12, 2022, was the fourth in a series of state elections since the General Election of 2018 in Malaysia after Sabah, Melaka, and Sarawak. For Johor, its 2022 state election highlighted a new interesting development in Malay politics. Before, neo-feudalism marked Johor's political identity for a very long time based on the historical-sentimental values tied between the Johor State and the Malay-based UMNO party. Such historical sentimental values had enabled UMNO and the Barisan Nasional (BN) to forge a political hegemony such that Johor has been labeled as UMNO's 'permanent deposit ' area. However, current factors underlying the recent Johor State Election - which included dominating economic issues stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and the political crisis that has been argued to threaten national stability - are becoming significant "game changers " that may create a shifting character in Malay politics in Johor and generally in Malaysia. This study analyzes the dynamics of Malay politics in the Johor 2022 State Election through the continuity of the old politics and new politics based on the political rivalry between UMNO and alternative Malay political parties like BERSATU and PN. This study uses the qualitative case-study method utilizing primary and secondary data obtained from general and field observations, interviews, and archival research. Results show that the Johor 2022 State Election revealed shifting dynamics in Malay politics through the political narratives articulated by UMNO and BERSATU. Both parties brought up progressive issues that are more synonymous with the Pakatan Harapan (PH), the previously ruling but has since become opposition coalition - issues such as good governance, democratization, integrity, and transparency. Notwithstanding that, this study also finds old political narratives lingering to some degree, perhaps meant to satisfy the significant segment of Malay voters for these two Malay conservative parties. Among the lingering old issues were the political narratives of gratitude, development, and neo-feudalism. Finally, this study also found that the contest between UMNO and BERSATU in Malay - majority areas demonstrates the existence of an old political dynamic, which is argued to pave the way to a more competitive democracy rather than the dominance of one party.

The covid-19 crisis in the disruption of the international order:The Pandemic as hegemonic shock in the dispute between United States and China

EXTENDED The competition between powers to consolidate a hegemonic position on the international scene has been a recurrent object of study in International Relations, giving rise to numerous analyses of the evolution of the phenomenon of global hegemony. The global Covid-19 crisis has introduced a new element into the analysis of relations between states, as it has revealed the asymmetries that exist not only in managing the pandemic, but also in acquiring and/or maintaining a dominant position on the current geopolitical chessboard. This disruptive event has affected the competitive relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China, players who were engaged in a strategic competition for global hegemony.With this starting point, the direction of our research hypothesizes that the pandemic has been a determining element in the evolution and intensification of the competition for hegemony between the United States and the People's Republic of China. If up to now hegemonic disputes have been resolved through conflicts between contenders or in the context of war, in our opinion the pandemic could be a disruptive element that determines the evolution of the US-China competition and conditions which actor will be hegemonic and which model of hegemony will be implemented in the long term. With this starting point, we will elaborate a theoretical framework to understand the phenomena of the rise and fall of hegemonic powers. Starting from a theoretical approach to hegemony, we will include elements of analysis that will allow a deeper understanding of how disputes in the field of hegemony take place at present. In line with this objective, the key elements we will use will be: the theory of complex interdependence developed by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane, the importance of the post-war international system, Seva Gunitsky's conceptualization of hegemonic shocks, and the influence that the nuclear variable has on the current geopolitical chessboard.Going deeper into the theoretical realm, authors such as Wallerstein or Agnew contribute to establishing the basis for understanding hegemony at a conceptual level. However, hegemony does not take a simple definition as it is part of an adaptive process. Due to this adaptability, authors such as Kindleberger or Gilpin offer us a starting point to understand how hegemonic transitions take place and provide us with tools to understand these processes. Although the authors of reference in the field of international politics offer us a solid basis for understanding the processes of hegemony, it is necessary to bring to the discussion the current debates on this object of study. Therefore, these analyses will be complemented by current authors, where we highlight mainly two: Graham Allison and Seva Gunitsky. With regard to Allison's contribution, we will briefly analyze his theorization of the Thucydides Trap and consider whether a conventional war between powers aspiring to conquer hegemony is still inevitable today. In the case of Gunitsky, we will focus on his conceptualization of hegemonic shocks, arguing from a scientific point of view that disputes between great powers do not necessarily end in a conventional war, but these shocks are the elements that end up facilitating hegemonic transitions. Subsequently, we will analyze the influence of three elements that in our opinion are conditioning processes of hegemony and conditioning hegemonic transitions at the present time. These three elements are: the post-war international system, complex interdependence and the nuclear capability of states. These three elements limit the ability of the great powers to initiate a conventional war between the hegemon and the contenders. The international system establishes a unity of action between the United States and Europe that different countries respect or fear to challenge, while economic, political and social dependencies result in reciprocal effects in case of conventional war and the nuclear variable discourages war between nuclear powers due to Mutually Assured Destruction. These elements condition the current disputes between the United States and China, forcing both contenders to seek new strategies to advance in the consolidation of a dominant position. In addition, these limitations mean that the hegemonic shocks theorized by Gunitsky become a key element in understanding how hegemonic disputes are currently settled. After providing sufficient theoretical elements to understand the current global situation, we will move on to the empirical part by analyzing three areas in order to conclude whether the pandemic has been a determining factor between the two actors. Understanding the complexity of operationalizing concepts such as hegemony and hegemonic disputes, it is essential to provide our research with empirical elements. Therefore, the theoretical analysis will be complemented with the analysis of quantitative and qualitative variables to confirm or refute our hypothesis. To do so, we will start with a comparative analysis between the United States and China in the economic sphere to determine to what extent the pandemic has affected competition between both actors and we will analyze the evolution of the pandemic data in both countries. We will analyze various economic aspects because an intensification of economic disputes is a symptom of the hegemon's loss of power, and we will be able to observe whether its economic supremacy is threatened by China. After focusing on economic variables, it is essential to analyze the infections and deaths caused by Covid-19. This is due to the fact that the internal management of the pandemic is an element of great importance since, in addition to measuring the capacities of the health systems, it contributes to offer an image of leadership and a reference to the rest of the actors. Finally, after addressing the empirical data, we will analyze the diplomatic strategies that both actors have used in dealing with the global crisis. While measurable data may reflect certain objectifiable trends regarding the impact of Covid-19 on the U.S.-China dispute, analysis of the diplomatic strategies developed by both actors is also important. At this point, we will analyze those carried out by the United States and China, focusing mainly on Beijing's strategy because it has proved to be a more complex. For this purpose, we will analyze the coronavirus diplomacy developed by Beijing, establishing itself as a major supplier of medical supplies globally and the enhancement of its soft power following its response to the coronavirus crisis. In the case of the United States, we will focus more briefly on the communicative strategy followed by the Trump administration after the outbreak of the crisis.

The Transformation of the US's Hegemonic Paradigm: From Embedded Liberalism to Disembedded Financial Liberalism 1

Amerika'nın Íkinci Dünya Savaşı'ndan bu yana dünya çapında hakim bir güç olarak ortaya çıkışı, bazı tarihsel tecrübeler ışıǧında incelenmesi gereken bir konudur. Íkinci Dünya Savaşı'nın ardından ABD dünyanın çöken uluslararası para ve finans sistemini yeniden kurmuş, böylelikle lider pozisyonda olacaǧı uluslararası kapitalist sistemi oluşturmuştur. Gömülü liberalizm, ekonomik, politik ve kurumsal bir örgütlenme stratejisi olarak ABD hegemonyasını saǧlamlaştırarak istikrarlı bir hale getirmiş, uluslararası sistemde ABD'nin başrol oynadıǧı bir küresel ekonominin somutlaşmasının koşullarını yaratmıştır. 1970'lerin ortalarından itibaren ise-neoliberal politikalara geçişin doǧal bir sonucu olarak, dünya ekonomisinin finans kapital ile karakterize bir birikim rejimine entegrasyonunun ardından, parçalanmış finansal liberalizmin ABD hegemonyasının devamlılıǧını saǧlayacak yeni bir strateji olarak etkisini göstermeye başladıǧı anlaşılmıştır. Çalışma, ABD hegemonyasının ortaya çıkışından günümüze kadar uzanan zaman diliminde, ABD'nin hegemonik stratejisinde meydana gelen deǧişimi açıklama sorunsalından hareket etmiştir. Bu sorunsal baǧlamında, ABD hegemonik stratejisinin gömülü liberalizmden parçalanmış finansal liberalizme kayışı ve bu kayışı belirleyen temel dinamikler tarihsel perspektif ekseninde irdelenmiştir.Alternate :The emergence of the United States (US) as the worldwide dominant power is an affair that needs to be investigated in light of some historical experiences. Afterward the Second World War, the US reestablished the world's deteriorating international monetary and financial system. Embedded liberalism reinforced and stabilized the US hegemony (as the form of economic, political, and institutional organization) by generating the requirements for consolidating the global economy in which the US takes a leading role. From the mid-1970s, after integrating the world economy into an accumulation regime characterized by finance capital-as, a natural consequence of the transition to neoliberal policies-it was understood that fragmented financial liberalism began to show its effect as a new strategy that would ensure the continuity of the US hegemony. The study has departed from the problematic of elucidating the change in the hegemonic strategy of the US from its birth to the present day. In this problematic context, the shift of the US hegemonic strategy from embedded liberalism to disembedded financial liberalism and the central dynamics determining this shift is examined in the axis of historical perspective.

Understanding the Context of Global Health Policies: Their Post-Colonial

The systemic inadequacies of models of health systems propagated by the advocates of global health policies (GHPs) have fragmented health service systems, particularly in middle- and lower-income countries. GHPs are underpinned by economic interests and the need for control by the global elite, irrespective of people's health needs. The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the advocates of GHPs, leading to calls for a movement for "decolonisation” of global health. Much of this narrative on the "decolonisation” of GHPs critiques its northern knowledge base, and the power derived from it at individual, institutional and national levels. This, it argues, has led to an unequal exchange of knowledge, making it impossible to end decades of oppressive hegemony and to prevent inappropriate decision-making on GHPs. Despite these legitimate concerns, little in the literature on the decolonisation of GHPs extends beyond epistemological critiques. This article offers a radically different perspective. It is based on an understanding of the role of transnational capital in extracting wealth from the economies of low- and middle-income countries resulting in influencing and shaping public health policy and practice, including interactions between the environment and health. It mobilises historical evidence of distorted priorities underpinning GHPs and the damaging consequences for health services throughout the world.

The survival of small states in the Gulf region: COVID-19, pandemic politics and the future of niche diplomacy

The Gulf is increasingly recognized as one of the most dynamic and unstable regions in the international system. Within the region, the survival of small states can no longer be taken for granted and power relations are conflictual. The hegemonic ambitions of larger regional state actors draw small states into a contested orbit and emphasize the fluidity of pre-existing notions of the balance of power. This has led to forms of fragmentation. Small states can no longer sit comfortably under the shelter of regional and even external super-powers. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on small states like Kuwait and Qatar is a useful prism to examine the ways in which such small states attempt to project power and sovereignty through their diplomatic responses. Our argument, here, is that such discourse is framed as part of an ideational and material construct for state resilience within a regional and international system that is perceived as predatory. Yet pandemic politics reveals both the opportunities and limits of such approaches.

Gramsci, the Relativity of the Integral State-Society, and the COVID-19 Interregnum

Gramscian scholars have engaged with Gramsci's leitmotif (‘rhythm of thought') and the stato integrale (integral state), a concept he introduced in Autumn 1930. This represents remarkable progress in the Marxist community. But what requires further attention is the interconnection between an integral state and a totalitarian one, two of the three expressions of state-society formations that Perry Anderson identified as Gramsci's antinomies. This article argues that the integral state is fragile but hegemonic if it can be sustained. Otherwise, it can degenerate into a totalitarian state. The article refigures the ‘integral state' as the ‘integral state-society'. It exists relatively, depending on whether the ‘integral momentum' or the ‘totalitarian tendency' prevails in a dynamic interaction between radical Left, Far Right, and those currents in between. Identifying this relativity helps to formulate a deeper understanding of Gramsci's thought and show how his legacy supports a class struggle perspective on the COVID-19 interregnum.

Causal Analysis of India's Response to Maritime Security Debate at the UNSC

UNSC debate on the maritime security-initiated discussion on response and reaction plan not only for particular countries and regions overall. The Eastern part of the Indian Ocean (IO) has been a boiling cauldron due to the race of maritime hegemony, maritime alliances for economic cum security dimensions and choking important points of maritime trade in crisis. The outbreak of Covid heavily restricted global supply chains. Security cooperation should focus on 'reassurance' rather than 'deterrence' to create the desired security order in which multilateral frameworks may be formed. In this scenario, security interactions would help nation-states converge their national interests and minimize a zero-sum security situation. UNSC debate on maritime security demands for cooperative security approach through a framework of likeminded states. Pakistan foresees this debate as an increasing challenge by constructing the role of the Pakistan Navy to perform and ensure its capacities for maritime security in the long run. The paper presents the response to Indian Duplicities in the wake of the Russian proposal for maritime security management at UNSC in 2021. Strategic analysis with qualitative research method and exploratory approach is adopted in this research with pertinent and feasible findings.

Struggles and discourses for the right to health in times of pandemic: a demand in motion?

The global pandemic situation of recent years has led to focus on health systems. In Colombia, before and during the health emergency, conflicts and mobilizations have been generated around the right to health and its concomitant debate on the way the General Social Security Health System was conceived. This research article situates the reader in the assessment made by the subaltern sectors of the health system, reviewing their demands and proposals. It also provides a critical perspective on the hegemonic struggle that is currently taking place in the health field. The text was constructed from an interpretative and critical epistemological perspective, and a qualitative approach. It combined techniques as participant observation, analysis of the speeches and pronouncements of activists posted on social networks, by dissimilar trade union, and community organizations, as well as conferences, lectures, and academic papers published in alternative journals or newspapers in recent years © 2023, Revista Colombiana de Sociologia.All Rights Reserved.

PERFORMING COVID-19: TRUMP'S SHIFT OF RHETORIC DURING THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS IN THE USA

The article studies American President Donald Trump's discourse within the period between January and March, 2020, when he had to respond to the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak in the USA. The material of the research was collected through continuous sampling and contains the president's tweets, interviews and White House briefing conferences. The method applied to analyze the sample is three-dimensional Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) that ensures achieving the purpose of the study, namely to explore Trump's discursive strategies employed to address the coronavirus crisis, to preserve the politician's domination in the public discourse and to react to the criticisms of his opponents and oppositional mass media that pictured the virus as a dire threat and accused the president of inefficacy and negligence. The analysis has revealed a shift in Trump's discursive strategies starting from the middle of March, 2020: while in January the president attempted to maintain the social order by presenting the coronavirus as ordinary, emphasizing US authorities' success in curbing its spread and accusing opponents of alarmism, in late March, however, Trump admitted the sweeping scope of the pandemic and even claimed his prior knowledge of its danger. Thus, the research has uncovered the president's strategies used to recontextualize his actions towards the ongoing events and to create new representations of social reality aimed at hegemonizing his opponents' discourse that conquered the US public sphere. © 2023 South-West University Publishing House, Faculty of Philology. All rights reserved.

Neurodiversity, Networks, and Narratives: Exploring Intimacy and Expressive Freedom in the Time of Covid‐19

The Narratives of Neurodiversity Network (NNN) is a neurodivergent academic, creative, and educator collective that came together with allies during the Covid‐19 pandemic to create a network centred around emerging narratives about neuro-diversity and exploring new ways of learning and socialising. The network focuses on exploring the roles of written, spoken, and visual narratives across cultural locations about neuro‐atypical experiences in generating improved agency and self‐advocacy for those who have been subject to pathologization through neuro‐normativity and intersecting oppression. During the last year, widening access to digital platforms has provided a space to explore these issues outside of traditional academic spaces. We run a monthly "Salon,” our mixed‐media "reading, listening, and watching” group, in an effort to find positive representation within contemporary culture. Discussions have moved beyond mimesis and into a consideration of how narrative and storyworlds can question the supposed naturalness of certain ways of being in and perceiving the world. This article interrogates the network's core principles of nonhierarchical co‐production, including the roles of creativity, community, identity, and emancipatory research which were animated by the new techno‐social context. We consider the cultural lives of neurodiversity in the West and beyond, including ethical and aesthetic dimensions. We share a faith in the power of storytelling to inform new social identities for neurodivergent people and to inform scientific understandings of atypical cognition. In exploring this, we speak through a porous first‐person plural narrator, to unsettle the idea that there is a hegemonic "we” speaking on behalf of all neurodivergent people.

Movement pedagogies in pandemic times: Extinction Rebellion Netherlands and (un)learning from the margins

This article is based on activist research conducted alongside Extinction Rebellion Netherlands. By taking a pedagogical approach to social movements, it posits that Extinction Rebellion Netherlands is simultaneously bound up in the reproduction of and resistance to dominant ways of knowing and being. It discusses how ‘pedagogies of urgency' reproduce the learning of hegemonic forms of life associated with modernity/coloniality. Treating the movement's margins as a privileged space of epistemological possibility, it examines how the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted who is ‘heard, seen and rendered knowing' [Motta & Esteves. (2014). Reinventing emancipation in the 21st century: The pedagogical practices of social movements. Interface, 6(1), 1–24, p. 5)]. This has facilitated the unlearning of pedagogies of urgency, and the learning of new relationships, subjectivities and knowledges that centre justice, prefiguration, and building relations across difference. Nevertheless, the pandemic also underscores some of the impossibilities for learning and dialogue inherent in the exclusions and violence at the heart of modern/colonial power relations.

La crisis del covid-19 en la alteración del orden internacional: la pandemia como shock hegemónico en la disputa entre Estados Unidos y China

Las competiciones entre potencias por consolidar una posición hegemónica en el panorama internacional han sido objeto de estudio recurrente en las relaciones internacionales, dando lugar a numerosos análisis sobre la evolución del fenómeno de la hegemonía global. La crisis global del covid-19 ha introducido un nuevo elemento a la hora de analizar las relaciones entre estados, ya que se han evidenciado las asimetrías existentes no solo a la hora de gestionar la pandemia, sino a la hora de adquirir y/o mantener una posición dominante en el tablero geopolítico actual. Este hecho disruptivo ha afectado a las relaciones de competición entre Estados Unidos y la República Popular de China, actores que estaban inmersos en una competición estratégica por la hegemonía global. Con este punto de partida, el sentido de nuestra investigación plantea la hipótesis de que la pandemia ha supuesto un elemento determinante en la evolución y la intensificación de la competencia por la hegemonía entre Estados Unidos y la República Popular de China. Si hasta ahora las disputas hegemónicas se han resuelto mediante conflictos entre los contendientes o en contextos de guerra, a nuestro juicio, la pandemia puede ser un elemento disruptivo que determine la evolución de la competición entre Estados Unidos y China y condicione que actor será hegemónico y que modelo de hegemonía se implantará en el largo plazo. Con este punto de partida, elaboraremos un marco teórico que permita comprender los fenómenos de auge y caída de las potencias hegemónicas. Partiendo del acercamiento a la hegemonía a nivel teórico, incluiremos elementos de análisis que permitan profundizar en la comprensión acerca de cómo se producen las disputas en el ámbito de la hegemonía en la actualidad. En consonancia con este objetivo, los elementos clave que utilizaremos serán la teoría de la interdependencia compleja desarrollada por Joseph Nye y Robert Keohane, la importancia del sistema internacional de postguerra, la conceptualización de los shocks hegemónicos de Seva Gunitsky y la influencia que la variable nuclear tiene en el tablero geopolítico actual. Partiendo de la complejidad existente a la hora de operacionalizar conceptos como la hegemonía y las disputas hegemónicas, es imprescindible dotar de elementos de carácter empírico a nuestra investigación. Por lo tanto, el análisis teórico se verá complementado con el análisis de variables de carácter cuantitativo y cualitativo para confirmar o refutar nuestra hipótesis. Para ello, partiremos de un análisis comparado entre Estados Unidos y China en el ámbito económico para determinar en qué medida ha afectado la pandemia a la competición entre ambos actores y analizaremos la evolución de los datos de la pandemia que han tenido en ambos países. Por último, tras abordar los datos de carácter empírico, analizaremos las estrategias diplomáticas que ambos actores han utilizado a la hora de abordar la crisis global y la efectividad que han tenido sus modelos de gestión sanitaria.Alternate abstract:The competition between powers to consolidate a hegemonic position on the international scene has been a recurrent object of study in International Relations, giving rise to numerous analyses of the evolution of the phenomenon of global hegemony. The global Covid-19 crisis has introduced a new element into the analysis of relations between states, as it has revealed the asymmetries that exist not only in managing the pandemic, but also in acquiring and/or maintaining a dominant position on the current geopolitical chessboard. This disruptive event has affected the competitive relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China, players who were engaged in a strategic competition for global hegemony. With this starting point, the direction of our research hypothesizes that the pandemic has been a determining element in the evolution and intensification of the competition for hegemony between the United States and the People's Republic of China. If up to n w hegemonic disputes have been resolved through conflicts between contenders or in the context of war, in our opinion the pandemic could be a disruptive element that determines the evolution of the US-China competition and conditions which actor will be hegemonic and which model of hegemony will be implemented in the long term. With this starting point, we will elaborate a theoretical framework to understand the phenomena of the rise and fall of hegemonic powers. Starting from a theoretical approach to hegemony, we will include elements of analysis that will allow a deeper understanding of how disputes in the field of hegemony take place at present. In line with this objective, the key elements we will use will be: the theory of complex interdependence developed by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane, the importance of the post-war international system, Seva Gunitsky's conceptualization of hegemonic shocks, and the influence that the nuclear variable has on the current geopolitical chessboard. Going deeper into the theoretical realm, authors such as Wallerstein or Agnew contribute to establishing the basis for understanding hegemony at a conceptual level. However, hegemony does not take a simple definition as it is part of an adaptive process. Due to this adaptability, authors such as Kindleberger or Gilpin offer us a starting point to understand how hegemonic transitions take place and provide us with tools to understand these processesAlthough the authors of reference in the field of international politics offer us a solid basis for understanding the processes of hegemony, it is necessary to bring to the discussion the current debates on this object of study. Therefore, these analyses will be complemented by current authors, where we highlight mainly two: Graham Allison and Seva Gunitsky. With regard to Allison's contribution, we will briefly analyze his theorization of the Thucydides Trap and consider whether a conventional war between powers aspiring to conquer hegemony is still inevitable today. In the case of Gunitsky, we will focus on his conceptualization of hegemonic shocks, arguing from a scientific point of view that disputes between great powers do not necessarily end in a conventional war, but these shocks are the elements that end up facilitating hegemonic transitions. Subsequently, we will analyze the influence of three elements that in our opinion are conditioning processes of hegemony and conditioning hegemonic transitions at the present time. These three elements are: the post-war international system, complex interdependence and the nuclear capability of states.These three elements limit the ability of the great powers to initiate a conventional war between the hegemon and the contenders.The international system establishes a unity of action between the United States and Europe that different countries respect or fear to challenge, while economic, political and social dependencies result in reciprocal effects in case of conventional war and the nuclear variable discourages war between nuclear powers due to Mutually Assured Destruction. These elements condition the current disputes between the United States and China, forcing both contenders to seek new strategies to advance in the consolidation of a dominant position. In addition, these limitations mean that the hegemonic shocks theorized by Gunitsky become a key element in understanding how hegemonic disputes are currently settled. After providing sufficient theoretical elements to understand the current global situation, we will move on to the empirical part by analyzing three areas in order to conclude whether the pandemic has been a determining factor between the two actors. Understanding the complexity of operationalizing concepts such as hegemony and hegemonic disputes, it is essential to provide our research with empirical elements.Therefore, the theoretical analysis will be complemented with the analysis of quantitative and qualitative variables to confirm or refute our hypothesis. To do so, we will start with a comparative analysis between the Unite States and China in the economic sphere to determine to what extent the pandemic has affected competition between both actors and we will analyze the evolution of the pandemic data in both countries.We will analyze various economic aspects because an intensification of economic disputes is a symptom of the hegemon's loss of power, and we will be able to observe whether its economic supremacy is threatened by China.After focusing on economic variables, it is essential to analyze the infections and deaths caused by Covid-19. This is due to the fact that the internal management of the pandemic is an element of great importance since, in addition to measuring the capacities of the health systems, it contributes to offer an image of leadership and a reference to the rest of the actors. Finally, after addressing the empirical data, we will analyze the diplomatic strategies that both actors have used in dealing with the global crisis. While measurable data may reflect certain objectifiable trends regarding the impact of Covid-19 on the U.S.-China dispute, analysis of the diplomatic strategies developed by both actors is also important. At this point, we will analyze those carried out by the United States and China, focusing mainly on Beijing's strategy because it has proved to be a more complex. For this purpose, we will analyze the coronavirus diplomacy developed by Beijing, establishing itself as a major supplier of medical supplies globally and the enhancement of its soft power following its response to the coronavirus crisis. In the case of the United States, we will focus more briefly on the communicative strategy followed by the Trump administration after the outbreak of the crisis.

El rol de los intelectuales en tiempos de pandemia: comprendiendo el activismo político de Noam Chomsky

Este artículo busca analizar el rol de algunos intelectuales durante los primeros meses de la pandemia de la covid-19, entendiendo en qué sentido su discurso se asume como un contrapeso a la hegemonía de los expertos en el tema de la salud. Tomamos como objeto de estudio varios enunciados ejemplares de Noam Chomsky, lingüista y activista político estadounidense, que se produjeron desde principios de marzo hasta mayo de 2020 en relación con la covid-19. Intentamos comprender los puntos principales que marcan el discurso de Chomsky relacionándolos con el ethos discursivo (Maingueneau, 2020) de un "compromiso intelectual" (Bourdieu, 2003). Queremos entender cómo se construye la trayectoria de la imagen pública de Chomsky como activista político, a partir de su definición como uno de los mayores intelectuales vivos del mundo, y cómo él y ciertos medios de comunicación utilizan ese tipo de credencial para erigirse en una figura poderosa, siempre demandada para hablar de cualquier tema de actualidad, incluso una pandemia. Nos sustentamos sobre la hipótesis de que, para Chomsky, la explicación de los hechos históricos se hace siempre con una visión holística, conectando la pandemia de la covid-19 con otros problemas mayores y otras amenazas para la humanidad. En otras palabras, Chomsky se asume a sí mismo como portavoz de la humanidad, preocupado por problemas mayores: una pandemia no puede ser subestimada, pero el calentamiento global y la crisis económica creada por la debacle del neoliberalismo, así como las posibilidades de guerra nuclear, son amenazas mucho mayores para la supervivencia de la especie humana y el mantenimiento del planeta.También aportamos una visión general de tres importantes intelectuales que igualmente actuaron y contribuyeron con sus reflexiones sobre la pandemia de la covid-19 durante sus meses iniciales: se trata de Judith Butler, Giorgio Agamben y Byung-Chul Han. El propósito de traer estas distintas visiones es, en una primera instancia, comparar hasta qué punto pueden asemejarse al discurso chomskyano, pero sobre todo cómo se construye el discurso intelectual en tiempos de pandemia global frente a los discursos de los expertos o especialistas en salud que ocupan los espacios de autoridad discursivos en los medios de comunicación durante una crisis sanitaria.Alternate abstract:This article aims to analyze the role of intellectuals in times of a global pandemic, whereby their discourse is assumed as a counterbalance to the hegemony of experts. It takes as a case study several exemplar speeches by Noam Chomsky, linguist and political activist, which were produced since the beginning of March 2020 regarding Covid-l9.We w'll try to show that what marks Chomsky's discourse is related to the ethos (Maingueneau 2020) of an "intellectual engagement" (Bourdieu 2003).Within the universe of possibilities for choosing intellectuals' speeches, who are not necessarily convergent on topics affecting the world, and who, in general, don't talk about the same things, we chose to circumscribe our research on a specific intellectual: Noam Chomsky. In our view, he is an actual example of "intellectual action", representing properly "the relations between intellectuals and power" (Bobbio l997).Therefore, it is necessary to understand the statements of intellectuals like Chomsky in moments of global uncertainty, and as a discourse of a different nature that stands against the experts' power in major media corporations or in government technocracy. Thus, far from wanting to exhaust the possibilities of interpreting the role of the wider category of intellectuals during the pandemic, our proposal is to outline the main points of how an intellectual like Chomsky has been developing and taking the same political positions since the beginning of his activism, in the 1960s, which refers to a type of intellectual engagement similar to that taken since the Dreyfus Affair. In the Dreyfus Affair we have an "inaugural archetype" of the concept of an "engaged intellectual" (Bourdieu 2003, p. 73-74), from which the one who has social capital as an erudite, a scientist or a writer, comes out publicly criticizing the established powers and denounces crimes committed by "the reasons of State" (Chomsky 1973). Therefore, we understand that Chomsky comes from a lineage whose representatives are inserted into a form of intellectual activism;a lineage that became known as "the century of intellectuals" (Winock 2000), the intellectual conceived as the one who "tells the truth", as Chomsky (1996, p. 55) himself define the "intellectual's responsibility": "At one level, the answer is too easy: the intellectual responsibility of the writer, or any decent person, is to tell the truth." On the one hand, there is a patent argument of authority behind the experts, based on a "scientific discourse", but, on the other hand, there is a kind of "moral commitment to the truth" behind the intellectuals' discourse that becomes a "deeper criticism". That is, a holistic view to ponder, in the case of Covid-19, the humanitarian problems created due to the pandemic, but also to think about relating this crisis to previous and further geopolitical reasons, from a freer position, not committed to companies and States. This position of the intellectual engagement is idealized in opposition to the "normal science discourse": the genre of the scientific discourse is produced under official means;it is plastered, blunted, does not allow the spokespeople of science to speak beyond what their research allows. In other words, the scientific experts are inscribed in discursive structures of "scenes of enunciation" (Maingueneau, 2006) that don't permit them to surpass the barriers of "objectiveness" and enter the field of moral judgment. Seeking to understand how Chomsky acts as an engaged intellectual during the pandemic, we searched his political network and the media in which he is involved. From that, we chose our corpus of analysis, selected from Noam Chomsky's innumerous speeches to a left-wing or clearly progressive press during the first months of Covid-19 pandemic in the form of interviews from March to June: an interview to Michael Brooks (2020), at the Jacobin Magazine (Brooks, M. 2020);an interview with his longtime interviewer, David Barsamian (2020), an Armenian-American journalist and political activist, published on the website Literary Hub;an interview with the British socialist newspaper Morning Star (2020);two interviews he gave to Amy Goodman (2020a, 2020b) for the American journal Democracy Now;an interview with the Croatian philosopher Srecko Horvat (2020), from which we will use only the parts of the transcript that we found published by Al Jazeera and not the video;an interview to the writer Chris Brooks to the magazine Labor Notes, channel for the proletarian movement;an interview to Cristina Magdaleno (2020) for the Euroactiv, a non-profit organization for democracy in European Union, as well as an interview Chomsky and Robert Pollin gave to C. J. Polychroniou (2020).We believe that through this corpus it is possible to cover the vast majority of Chomsky's speeches on the Covid-19 pandemic, centered on media where Chomsky usually features and that name themselves as having a more progressive bias.We assume that what gives Chomsky's speech authority to talk about the pandemic, to be invited multiple times to do so, is not his expertise in the subject;it is not his background in epidemiology studies, which he lacks, neither his linguistics theories, that do not relate to the topic, but his image as a great surviving intellectual. It's to say, what authorizes Chomsky to speak and, therefore, to make his contribution to the studies of this pandemic situation, is not what interests the State, or what would lead the actions of government officials, as they are in general centered on the discourse of experts. Instead, it is his trajectory as a critic without corporate scruples, engaged in telling another kind of "truth", as one that can discuss and propose a different future for humanity. So, with this article we intended to p oduce a discussion about the following problem: the type of discourse raised by Chomsky is not that of government experts, men of science who must anchor themselves in statistical studies on disease proliferation curves, researchers who need to give prevention guidelines or economists who provide "get out of the crisis" scenarios. In other words, differently from a biologist, a disease proliferation specialist or a market administrator, Chomsky conceives the pandemic beyond Covid-19, as a long-term crisis, which will cover economic, social and environmental aspects of much greater proportions. In short, with this article we seek to understand how Chomsky assumes himself as a spokesman for all of humanity and how he constructs this position discursively. He is concerned with "bigger problems", not diminishing the dangers of the Covid-19 pandemic, but insisting on the fact that global warming and the economic crisis created by the debacle of neoliberalism, as well as nuclear war menaces, are much greater threats to human species survival and the maintenance of the planet. We also bring an overview of three important intellectuals who also acted and contributed their reflections on the Covid-19 pandemic during its inception. They are Judith Butler, Giorgio Agamben, and Byung-Chul Han. The purpose of incorporating these distinct views is, in the first instance, to compare to what extent they may resemble the Chomskyan discourse, but also to show how intellectual discourse is constructed in times of a global pandemic in the face of the discourses of health experts orspecialists who occupy the spaces of intellectual speech authority.

Crisis of capitalism and cycles of right-wing populism in contemporary Turkey: The making and unmaking of Erdoğanist hegemony

This paper analyses the right-wing populist rule of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP) in Turkey, focusing on the crisis of capitalism, emerging discontent in the rural populations, and opportunities for and obstacles to a successful left-wing populist mobilisation. We put forward three arguments. First, through an examination of the historical evolution, class-based and social-demographic foundations of the ruling right-wing populist alliance between the AKP and the Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi (MHP), we argue that the MHP is a more classical case of far-right populism, whereas the AKP is a "heterodox” case that borrows several elements from the left. These "heterodox” features of the AKP, together with the interlinked crisis of the 1990s, played a significant part in the support the AKP received from the subordinate majority. Second, we argue that the success of the AKP's hegemonic right-wing populism from 2002 to 2013 was linked to an unusually favourable macro-political-economic climate that helped the AKP counterbalance its neoliberal policies with pragmatic social assistance programmes. However, together with the disappearance of this macro-political-economic climate in the second decade of its rule (2013-present), the disastrous consequences of the AKP's neoliberal policies became more explicit, and the AKP's populism moved from a hegemonic to an authoritarian right-wing populist type. Third, we claim that today, due to the deepening of the current economic crisis (further exacerbated by the Covid19 pandemic), the AKP's cross-class alliance began to break down, and the rural movements in the Turkish countryside have been playing a major role in unmaking the AKP's hegemony. However, in the absence of a strong left-wing populist movement with a stronghold in the Turkish countryside, emergent possibilities for a radical progressive transformation are not utilised. Instead, the groundwork is being laid for another wave of right-wing populism. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Agrarian Change published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Just because it don't look heavy, don't mean it ain't: An intersectional analysis of Black women's labor as faculty during COVID

The purpose of our scholarly personal narrative was to examine how COVID‐19 and an increased awareness of anti‐Blackness in the United States have exacerbated our labor as Black women faculty, with particular focus on teaching and service responsibilities. Dill and Zambrana's (2009) four theoretical interventions of intersectionality guided our study, and we situated our composite narratives within structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, and interpersonal power domains. Our four composite narratives included (1) Interest convergence, there is no real true investment in change;(2) Institutional intent versus impact, I don't know how it will be incorporated;(3) Perpetuation of Black women's labor, just because it don't look heavy, don't mean it ain't;and (4) Reclaiming my time, and it's not because I don't like them, but it's because I love me. Implications for practice and policy are discussed.

Racism and Resilience: Counter-Narratives of Asian International College Students in the Age of COVID-19

Using Asian Critical Race Theory and Resilience Theory, this qualitative study explores how Asian international college students experienced racism before and after the eruption of the COVID-19 pandemic and how they developed and used resilience to counteract that racism. Eleven Asian participants shared their counter-narratives through semi-structured interviews. Results reveal that, before the pandemic, participants were regularly subjected to racist acts and attitudes grounded in a deficit view of Asians that treated them as inscrutable foreigners, blamed them as individuals for perceived shortcomings in their home countries, dismissed their expertise outside of technical STEM fields, and failed to recognize their abilities in creative and leadership roles. During the pandemic, the racist acts and attitudes experienced by Asian international college students greatly exacerbated the unprecedented challenges of isolation, limited access to university space and resources, and financial and physical insecurity caused by the pandemic. Results also indicate that Asian international students developed resilience grounded on their life experiences and community assets to counteract racism.

In Search of Regional Stability in the Age of Hyper-Uncertainty: The US-China Strategic Competition and the Redesign of Regional Order in East Asia

The US-China strategic competition, combined with other structural changes such as the global spread of COVID-19, climate change, and competition for technological innovation has dramatically increased uncertainty in Asia. Against this backdrop, the strategic competition between the US and China in the 21st century shows profound differences from the hegemonic competition in the past. The systemic consequences of hyper-uncertainty, as we are witnessing, are protectionism, nationalism, and the proliferation of conflicts and disputes between states. A collection of four papers in this special issue systematically examine the way in which the US-China strategic competition combined with other factors amplify the instability of the regional order, and explain the dual dynamics of competition and cooperation that Asian countries demonstrate in responding to US-China strategic competition and redesigning the regional order. The US-China strategic competition further amplified the uncertainty of the world order. Strategic competition has limited their capabilities and willingness to provide the leadership needed to organize transnational cooperation though transnational cooperation is essential to effectively respond to transnational threats.