ABSTRACT This article proposes rhetorical hegemony as a new materialist intervention into the production of alternative political economic futures. It problematizes contemporary theories of hegemony that assert affect as beyond rhetorical engagement, suggesting that these accounts fail to produce viable political economic alternatives because they use, but do not reinvent, the prevailing affective relations. Turning to and extending Foucault's middle and late work to forge a different model, the article discusses rhetorical hegemony as the entangled relationships between materiality and power. (...) In conversation with other contemporary theories, it argues for a practice of rhetorical hegemony that materially recapacitates energetic potential and, consequently, the milieu. The article ends by outlining the rhetorical, political, and intellectual implications of this shift. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the position of consent in prevailing models of hegemony. It is argued that the commonly invoked consent assumption is a weakness in the hegemony construct that demands review. Consent is purportedly a crucial element of the hegemony dynamic, yet is often overlooked in favour of dominance and resistance. To illustrate this, the paper provides a genealogical account of the consent premise as it is formulated in notable models of political hegemony. This reveals a declining interest in (...) the purportedly crucial consent element of the hegemony construct, accompanied by a reductive view of language and discourse. Next, the paper contrasts the collective consent premise with modern notions of individual sexual consent. This highlights the connection between the consent assumption and hegemonic masculinity. It is observed that if hegemony is based on modes of control and the lack of meaningful choice, it is not founded on consensus. Rather, it is postulated that such conditions might aptly be described as a form of tolerance. This concept is outlined here as a means of departure towards theorizing how hegemonic domination might be actualized discursively without the requirement of consent. In this respect, the paper responds to proponents of post-hegemony by arguing that it is not the concept of hegemony that is outmoded, but rather how it is secured. (shrink)