This paper explores how American Exceptionalism has influenced U.S. grand strategy in maintaining its institutional hegemony. It presumes that, since World War II, the U.S. has led a global order founded on multilateral agreements, liberal values, and international institutions, sustained by its tradition of exceptionalism. The study examines how this ideology has shaped U.S. strategic culture and policy-making, reinforcing its dominance across economic, political, security, military, and institutional arenas worldwide. This paper utilizes a neoclassical realist framework to analyze the interplay between global systemic forces and domestic influences in shaping U.S. grand strategy and its institutional hegemony. By synthesizing various hegemonic theories, including realist hegemonic stability theory, liberal institutionalism, and Gramscian cultural perspectives, the study introduces the concept of "Institutional Hegemonic Resilience," emphasizing on the United States' capacity to adapt and sustain its leadership within an increasingly dynamic global landscape. The paper highlights the profound and enduring influence of the ideational features of American Exceptionalism on U.S. foreign policy, demonstrating how this ideological framework has shaped the nation’s strategic approach to maintaining its dominance across economic, political, military, and institutional dimensions. The synthesis of theories on hegemony, brings out the power elements in hegemonic dynamics (as in the Hegemonic Stability theory), the ideational importance of socio-political traditions such as the notion of American Exceptionalism (the Neo-Gramscian perspective) and the vitality of international institutions and the resilience they offer (as in Liberal Institutionalism). The analysis underscores the central role of American Exceptionalism in preserving U.S. hegemonic leadership, illustrating how it enables the United States to effectively navigate shifting international dynamics while reinforcing its global preeminence.
| Published in | Journal of Political Science and International Relations (Volume 8, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.jpsir.20250802.11 |
| Page(s) | 50-62 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group |
American Exceptionalism, Institutional Hegemony, Neoclassical Realism
| [1] | Zibakalam Mofrad, S., & Ameli, S. R. (2022). • Institutional Hegemonic Resilience: Understanding the Dynamics of American Exceptionalism in the Institutional World Order. World Sociopolitical Studies (WSPS), 6(2). 239, 249, 250 & 254. |
| [2] | Dueck, C. (2006). Ideas and Grand Strategy in U.S. Foreign Policy: Neoclassical Realism and American Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press. 16-18 & 14-15. |
| [3] | Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2018). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (9th ed.). Pearson.12. |
| [4] | Tocqueville, A. de (2000). Democracy in America (H. Reeve, Trans.). Bantam Classic. 810. |
| [5] | Hodgson, G. (2009). The Myth of American Exceptionalism. Yale University Press. 9, xiv. |
| [6] | Hadenius, A. (2015). The Magna Carta and Its Impact on Modern Democracy. Princeton University Press. 9. |
| [7] | Koh, H. H. (2005). On American Exceptionalism. Stanford Law Review, 55(5), 1479–1527. 1591. |
| [8] | Ceaser, J. W. (2012). Designing a Polity: America's Constitution in Theory and Practice. Rowman & Littlefield. 6 & 5. |
| [9] | Mitchell, T. (2011). The Politics of American Exceptionalism. Stanford University Press. 12. |
| [10] | Lipset, S. M. (1997). American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. W. W. Norton & Company. 2. |
| [11] | Wilson, Carter A. (2015). The Myth of American Exceptionalism. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association. 3. |
| [12] | Ignatieff, M. (2005). American Exceptionalism and Human Rights. Princeton University Press. 3. |
| [13] | Nayak, M. V., & Malone, C. (2017). Orientalism and American Exceptionalism: Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan. 253. |
| [14] | Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization, 42(3), 427-460. |
| [15] | Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172. |
| [16] | Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., & Taliaferro, J. W. (Eds.). (2009). Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge University Press. 7 & 4. |
| [17] | Więcławski, J. (2017). Neoclassical Realism and The Crisis of the Realist Paradigm in Contemporary International Relations. Myśl Ekonomiczna I Polityczna, (No. 2(57)), Lazarski University in Warsaw. 205. |
| [18] | Elman, C. (2007). Realism, Neoclassical. The International Studies Encyclopedia. 16-19. |
| [19] | Sneberg, Catherine (2015). The purpose of American strategic culture A study of American exceptionalism and its implications for U.S. grand strategy and America’s global role. University of Oslo: Oslo.23. |
| [20] | Brands, H. (2015). What Good is Grand Strategy? Power and Purpose in American Statecraft from Harry S. Truman to George W. Bush. Cornell University Press. 3. |
| [21] | Quinn, A. (2010). US Foreign Policy in Context: National Ideology from the Founders to the Bush Doctrine. Routledge. |
| [22] | Dueck, C. (2004). Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand Strategy. Princeton University Press. 9-20 & 4. |
| [23] | Freise, M. (2017). Modern Political Culture: Culture and Statecraft. Routledge. |
| [24] | Goldman, E. O. (2001). Strategic Culture and American Grand Strategy: Concepts and Relevance. Security Studies, 10(2), 1–25. |
| [25] | Mead, W. R. (2001). Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World. Knopf. 6, 146 & xvii. |
| [26] | Lebow, R. N., & Kelly, R. (2001). Thucydides and Hegemony: Athens and the United States. Review of International Studies, 27(4), 593-609. 595. |
| [27] | Bongers, M. (2017). The Concept of Hegemony in International Relations. International Relations Theory Review, 3(1), 1-15. 7. |
| [28] | Tarrow, S. (2011). Why Did the Russian Revolution Fail to Spread? Social Research: An International Quarterly, 78(1), 19-45. 19. |
| [29] | Mouffe, C. (2014). Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony. In Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (pp. 201-214). Verso. 204. |
| [30] | Wallerstein, I. (1983). The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge University Press. 101. |
| [31] | Beeson, M., & Higgott, R. (2003). Hegemony, Institutionalization and US Foreign Policy: The Myth of Consensus. Political Studies, 51(2), 1175-1197. 1176. |
| [32] | Keohane, R. O. (1980). The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967-1977. In O. R. Holsti, R. M. Siverson, & A. L. George (Eds.), Change in the International System (pp. 131-162). Westview Press. 132. |
| [33] | Snidal, D. (1985). The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory. International Organization, 39(4), 579-614. 579. |
| [34] | Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press. |
| [35] | Bailin, A. (2001). From Traditional to Institutional Hegemony: Contemporary Theories of Hegemony in International Relations. International Studies Review, 3(2), 81-105. |
| [36] | Lindeque, J., & McGuire, S. M. (2007). The U.S. Trade Policy Agenda: Multilateralism and Bilateralism in a New Era. Journal of World Trade, 41(4), 723-748. 727. |
| [37] | Böhm, F. (2018). Hegemony and Legitimacy: A Gramscian Approach. XYZ Publishing. 36. & 37. |
| [38] | Kitchen, N. (2010). Neoclassical Realism and Grand Strategy. LSE IDEAS. 139 & 143. |
| [39] | Snyder, J. (1991). Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Cornell University Press. 19. |
| [40] | Krasner, S. D. (1978). Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton University Press. 346. |
| [41] | Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936-957. |
| [42] | Keohane, Robert Owen & Nye, Joseph S. (1997). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, (Little, Brown Boston). 37. |
| [43] | Cox, R. W. (1987). Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. Columbia University Press. 150. |
APA Style
Mofrad, S. Z. (2025). En Route from American Exceptionalism to Institutional Hegemony: A Theoretical Study with a Neoclassical Realistic Approach. Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 8(2), 50-62. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20250802.11
ACS Style
Mofrad, S. Z. En Route from American Exceptionalism to Institutional Hegemony: A Theoretical Study with a Neoclassical Realistic Approach. J. Polit. Sci. Int. Relat. 2025, 8(2), 50-62. doi: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20250802.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.jpsir.20250802.11,
author = {Sotoudeh Zibakalam Mofrad},
title = {En Route from American Exceptionalism to Institutional Hegemony: A Theoretical Study with a Neoclassical Realistic Approach
},
journal = {Journal of Political Science and International Relations},
volume = {8},
number = {2},
pages = {50-62},
doi = {10.11648/j.jpsir.20250802.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20250802.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jpsir.20250802.11},
abstract = {This paper explores how American Exceptionalism has influenced U.S. grand strategy in maintaining its institutional hegemony. It presumes that, since World War II, the U.S. has led a global order founded on multilateral agreements, liberal values, and international institutions, sustained by its tradition of exceptionalism. The study examines how this ideology has shaped U.S. strategic culture and policy-making, reinforcing its dominance across economic, political, security, military, and institutional arenas worldwide. This paper utilizes a neoclassical realist framework to analyze the interplay between global systemic forces and domestic influences in shaping U.S. grand strategy and its institutional hegemony. By synthesizing various hegemonic theories, including realist hegemonic stability theory, liberal institutionalism, and Gramscian cultural perspectives, the study introduces the concept of "Institutional Hegemonic Resilience," emphasizing on the United States' capacity to adapt and sustain its leadership within an increasingly dynamic global landscape. The paper highlights the profound and enduring influence of the ideational features of American Exceptionalism on U.S. foreign policy, demonstrating how this ideological framework has shaped the nation’s strategic approach to maintaining its dominance across economic, political, military, and institutional dimensions. The synthesis of theories on hegemony, brings out the power elements in hegemonic dynamics (as in the Hegemonic Stability theory), the ideational importance of socio-political traditions such as the notion of American Exceptionalism (the Neo-Gramscian perspective) and the vitality of international institutions and the resilience they offer (as in Liberal Institutionalism). The analysis underscores the central role of American Exceptionalism in preserving U.S. hegemonic leadership, illustrating how it enables the United States to effectively navigate shifting international dynamics while reinforcing its global preeminence.
},
year = {2025}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - En Route from American Exceptionalism to Institutional Hegemony: A Theoretical Study with a Neoclassical Realistic Approach AU - Sotoudeh Zibakalam Mofrad Y1 - 2025/04/29 PY - 2025 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20250802.11 DO - 10.11648/j.jpsir.20250802.11 T2 - Journal of Political Science and International Relations JF - Journal of Political Science and International Relations JO - Journal of Political Science and International Relations SP - 50 EP - 62 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-2785 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jpsir.20250802.11 AB - This paper explores how American Exceptionalism has influenced U.S. grand strategy in maintaining its institutional hegemony. It presumes that, since World War II, the U.S. has led a global order founded on multilateral agreements, liberal values, and international institutions, sustained by its tradition of exceptionalism. The study examines how this ideology has shaped U.S. strategic culture and policy-making, reinforcing its dominance across economic, political, security, military, and institutional arenas worldwide. This paper utilizes a neoclassical realist framework to analyze the interplay between global systemic forces and domestic influences in shaping U.S. grand strategy and its institutional hegemony. By synthesizing various hegemonic theories, including realist hegemonic stability theory, liberal institutionalism, and Gramscian cultural perspectives, the study introduces the concept of "Institutional Hegemonic Resilience," emphasizing on the United States' capacity to adapt and sustain its leadership within an increasingly dynamic global landscape. The paper highlights the profound and enduring influence of the ideational features of American Exceptionalism on U.S. foreign policy, demonstrating how this ideological framework has shaped the nation’s strategic approach to maintaining its dominance across economic, political, military, and institutional dimensions. The synthesis of theories on hegemony, brings out the power elements in hegemonic dynamics (as in the Hegemonic Stability theory), the ideational importance of socio-political traditions such as the notion of American Exceptionalism (the Neo-Gramscian perspective) and the vitality of international institutions and the resilience they offer (as in Liberal Institutionalism). The analysis underscores the central role of American Exceptionalism in preserving U.S. hegemonic leadership, illustrating how it enables the United States to effectively navigate shifting international dynamics while reinforcing its global preeminence. VL - 8 IS - 2 ER -
Department of North American Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Information