Hegemony is a key concept in political theory that encapsulates diverse and complex phenomena in a wide range of fields, including politics, culture, and international relations, and is an important element in the dominant paradigm of critical thinking.
This book examines various perspectives on hegemony from a genealogical and critical perspective, making it easier to understand, ranging from Gramsci's theory of hegemony as a revolutionary strategy, to Marxist theories of the state, politics, and culture, to the post-Marxist project of radical democracy, to international relations and the global political economy.


Beyond theory, this book explores the utility and role of hegemony through a series of political situations and global orderings based on consensus, from "Thatcherism" to recent "populism," how capitalism is understood as a political and cultural construct, and how people become implicated in the ruling structure. It also examines its context and debates.
This book is not only academically significant as the first to focus on hegemony, but also provides general readers with an understanding of the mechanisms of power and domination.

But why did Gramsci pursue a theory of consent while under physical coercion? Wasn't his imprisonment a clear demonstration that physical force is the ultimate means of social control? Gramsci's core argument was that even authoritarian regimes like fascism, which ruled Italy for two decades, required voluntary support from certain segments of society.
He argued that while modern nations increasingly desire "intellectual and moral leadership" over their people, they also need a corresponding amount of physical force.
--- p.28~29

A representative example is physical force and consent, where the boundaries remain ambiguous.
Gramsci sometimes equated consent alone with hegemony.
But hegemonic politics also entails a 'balance' of physical force and consent.
So at what point does consent entail physical force? And how can this be justified? Is coercion even necessary in civil society? How much violence is permissible to prevent consent from being used as a smokescreen to conceal systemic harassment and intimidation—as in fascism?
--- p.59~60

Williams and Hall each addressed the question of how people make sense of their experiences and engage in play and leisure, and thereby 'negotiate' their experiences of social dependence in places like school, work, and public institutions, in different ways.
The emergence of a mass of 'teenagers', the expansion of leisure time brought about by full employment, along with increased literacy, and the ability to spend money on clothing styles, household goods, music, and other symbolic objects that signaled taste and distinction—all these began to question the accepted class and elite-based distinctions of taste, defined as 'high' and 'low' in the late 1950s.

--- p.89

Thus, the left, which had enjoyed cultural dominance in the 1960s and 1970s, eventually became politically fragmented and suffered crushing election defeats in the United States and Britain in the mid-1980s.
As mentioned earlier, the New Right has taken the lead, which shows that the social democratic welfare state is no longer automatic or enjoys widespread popular consent.
For Western European socialists, the Soviet Union had long since lost its status as a beacon of anti-capitalism, however flawed.

--- p.110

How does the concept of hegemony apply within this larger framework? Because it assumes international anarchy, distinguishing between coercion/consent and domination/hegemony is more challenging than at the national level.
Order is often associated with the 'hegemony' of one (or more) powerful states, or 'hegemons', in a particular region or on a global scale.
However, the general status of the hegemonic order remains ambiguous.
This is because it is often treated as equivalent to the domination of other nations by one great power or the acquisition of agreed leadership in a broad inter-state alliance.

--- p.143

The overall orientation of this position underpins a liberatory ethic grounded in numerous demands for 'social justice', particularly among the powerless, marginalized and indigenous peoples across both the global South and the global North.
Typical examples include the Occupy movement in the United States, the Zapatista community in Mexico, and the European Social Forum and other initiatives aimed at fostering dialogue on alternatives to neoliberal globalization.
These activities usually unfold as a very diverse movement with distinct interests and different methods in the form of resistance.

--- p.170~171

In terms of strategy, this point is also important for those who adopt the ontology of abundance and its related analyses.
Without paying attention to the strategic nature of power, it is difficult to see domination as anything other than complete submission.
Furthermore, they fail to see resistance to power as anything more than a mutually ineffective confrontation and a spontaneous, temporary 'experiment'.
One danger of the 'anti-neoliberal' discourse, which constantly repeats the rampant inequalities inherent in modern capitalism, is that it is a ruthless, totalizing force that can only be confronted as a whole.

--- p.203