print

From hyperglobalisim to hypersovereinty:
the dialectics of ideological cycles

Pain E.A.,

Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS, Moscow, Russia, painea@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 137227 | ORCID: 0000-0002-8796-187X | RESEARCHER_ID: O-4758-2015

Article received: 2025.07.22 13:39. Accepted: 2025.09.15 13:40


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2025.06.11
EDN: ILVLUV

Rubric: Theory and methodology of political studies

For citation:

Pain E.A. From hyperglobalisim to hypersovereinty: the dialectics of ideological cycles . – Polis. Political Studies. 2025. No. 6. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.06.11. EDN: ILVLUV (In Russ.)

Abstract

In the 1990s, the world of political science (mainly in the West) was dominated by the concept of hyperglobalism, which predicted a development of globalization that would lead to the complete disappearance of the nation-state as a historical phenomenon and the transition of humanity to a post-national world. However, in the first decade of the 21st century, the opposite concept of hypersovereignty began to gain popularity, suggesting the onset of a de-globalization era and the rise of nationalist isolationism. In the article, both ideas are considered as dialectically related opposites, analyzed within the framework of a methodological approach that can be described as a dialectical interpretation of the principle of complementarity. Using this approach, the author attempts to answer three sets of questions. Firstly, about the content and causes of radical changes in political discourse related to the interpretation of various globalization trends. Secondly, about the possibility of interpreting hyperglobalism and hypersovereignty as examples of ideocracies (the dominance of imposed ideas) that can temporarily camouflage the unrealistic nature of their political content. Finally, the article focuses on refining theoretical understanding of the dynamics of political labeling of these ideologies and their relationship to liberalism and national populism.

Keywords

globalization, hyperglobalism, sovereignty, hypersovereignty, elitism, populism, ideocracy.

Berghoff, H., & Balbier, U.A. (2013). The East German economy, 1945-2010: falling behind or catching up? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139343206

Boli, J., & Thomas, G. (1997). world culture in the world polity: a century of international non-governmental organization. American Sociological Review, 62(2), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657298

Clark, Ch. (2023). Revolutionary Spring: fighting for a new world, 1848-1849. London: Croun Publishing; Penguin Random House.

James, H. (2018). Deglobalization: the rise of disembedded unilateralism. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 10, 219-237.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-110217-022625

Knight, P. (2000). Conspiracy culture. From Kennedy to X-Files. London; New York: Routledge.

Mudde, C. (2004). The populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541-563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x

Nakhimovsky, I. (2024). The holy alliance: liberalism and the politics of federation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Piekalkiewicz, J., & Penn, A.W. (1995). Politics of ideocracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Renan, E. (1990). What is a Nation? In Nation and Narration (pp. 8-22). London, New York: Routledge.

Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: democracy and the future of the world economy. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745611000231

Rodrik, D. (2018). Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of International Business Policy, 1, 12-33. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0001-4

Rodrik, D. (2019). Globalization’s wrong turn. And how it hurt America. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2019-06-11/globalizations-wrong-turn

Yablokov, I. (2018). Fortress Russia: conspiracy theories in the post-Soviet world. Cambridge: Polity.

Alekseenkova, E.S. (2022). Transformation of right-wing populism in Italy 2018-2022: from sovereignism to patriotism. Contemporary Europe, 7, 42-56. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S020170832207004X

Delannoi, G. (2018). La nation contre le nationalisme, ou la re ś istance des nations. (Russ. ed.: Delannoi, G. Ehlitarnaya natsiofobiya: pochemu rasprostranennoe v ehlitakh nepriyatie natsii nesostoyatel’no. Neprikosnovennyi zapas. Debaty o politike i kul’ture, 6, 20-31).

Krasikova, L.V. (2022). The transformation of the Euroscepticism of the National Rally Party (2017-2022). Analysis and Forecasting. IMEMO Journal, 3, 91-103. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/afij-2022-3-91-103

Lasch, Ch. (2002). The revolt of the elites: and the betrayal of democracy. (Russ. ed.: Lasch, Ch. Vosstanie elit i predatel’stvo demokratii. Moscow: Logos; Progress Publishers).

Malofeev, K.V. (2023). Imperiya. Obraz budushchego [Empire. The image of the future]. Moscow: AST. (In Russ.)

Narochnitskaya, E.A. (2018). Sovereignty” versus “globalism”: The 2017 elections through the prism of ideological and value conflict. Perspektivy. (In Russ.) https://www.perspektivy.info/history/suverenizm_protiv_globalizma_vybory_2017_g_cherez_prizmu_idejno-cennostnogo_konflikta_2018-03-12.htm

Pain, E.A., & Fediunin, S.Yu. (2019). Populism and Elitism in Contemporary Russia. Polis. Political Studies, 1, 33-48. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.01.04

Pain, E.A. (2025). “White”, “red” and “green”: the ideological diversity of modern Russian conservatism (a content analysis of Telegram channels). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 3, 40-51. (In Russ.)

Sabanskii, V.A. (2023). Analiz aktivnosti pravopopulistskikh partii v Twitter [Analysis of the activity of right- wing populist parties on Twitter]. In Molodezhnaya (onlain) diskussiya “Tsifrovoi Leviafan: transformatsiya gosudarstva, obshchestva i institutov v ehpokhu didzhitalizatsiI” [Digital Leviathan: Transformation of the state, society and institutions in the Era of digitalization]. Minsk. http://edoc.bseu.by:8080/bitstream/edoc/98737/1/ Sabanskiy_84_88.pdf

Soldatova, A.O. (2012). Freedom vs. permissiveness or democracy vs. anarchy. Value System of Modern Society, 26, 79-83.

See also: