All Hegemons Are Not the Same: The Role(s) of Relational Structures and Modes of Control

Abstract

Abstract In this article I adopt a relational-structural approach to hegemonic order, setting out two distinct forms of consensual order, which differ in their modes of control. The central argument is that patterned structures of relational interaction determine the way in which roles are developed, and this, in turn, conditions structural power asymmetries, legitimacy, and authority. Within an elevated hegemonic order, intraperipheral ties are sparse, and a well-connected hegemon has been able to control flows of meanings and understandings. This relational domination leads to the hegemon role-making its own role and alter-casting roles onto its periphery. The resulting role-structures generate hegemonic privileges and pronounced structural power asymmetries within an order that exhibits authority but wherein legitimacy is either absent or exists in the form of “submission legitimacy,” even though consent is forthcoming. In an ensconced hegemonic order, the periphery is densely interconnected, allowing secondary actors to establish common aims and negotiate collectively with the hegemon. Here, the hegemon cannot control role-creation to a significant degree, and dynamics of role-taking predominate, both for hegemon and periphery. This plays out in reduced structural power disparities and an order based on legitimated roles and functions. This relational-structural approach moves us away from the consent-coercion dichotomy toward interpretations of subtler forms of control, blending a relational-constructivist focus on the production, reproduction, and modification of actor-roles into a schematic causal account of how and why roles matter for hierarchy. The two models are then woven into an analytical narrative that interprets forms of hegemonic order in the Western Hemisphere during the post–Cold War period.