Reject Kagan—efforts to reform hegemony neglect deeper political and economic issues.
Jan Nederveen Pieterse, 3 – Suzanne and Duncan Mellichamp Chair and Distinguished Professor of Global Studies and Sociology at University of California Santa Barbara. (Jan Nederveen Pieterse, “The trouble with hegemony: hegemonic destabilization theory,” Chula Digital Collections, 1-1-2003, pg. 72-81, Available Online: https://digital.car.chula.ac.th/arv/vol16/iss1/4/, Accessed: 7-5-2024)//ilake-mc
Hegemonic reform. A major preoccupation in American political science and international studies is repair and maintenance of hegemony, or "getting hegemony right" (Ikenberry, 2001, 2002), by using more "soft power" (Nye, 2002), exercising restraint so hegemony is less offensive to other powers (Luttwak, 1998; Brutents, 2000), strengthening cooperation with Europe via NATO (Kagan, 2004), or using hegemony more benevolently (Maynes, 1997). These perspectives tend to focus on power politics, are usually short on political economy and economics, and rarely question whether hegemony is in fact reparable.