perfidy

Mike, Thank you for coming to my rescue. 

It occurs to me that what you just described sounds a whole lot like the orthodox definition of Gramscian Hegemony. Was that intentional, you big postmodernist, you? 

That leads to the question: is cultural hegemony like empire? Putting aside the fact that Gramsci was a Marxist, I think this concept goes a long way toward describing the US's position in the world. Whereas empire means dominance achieved via military means, hegemony denotes dominance achieved via social, economic, and cultural means. 

Buckethead argues that empire is only dominance through use of force. WCM argues that there can exist derivative civilizations, not brought about by cultural imperialism (is that the same as hegemony?). I, predictably, stand in the middle and stammer like a moron. 

I think the three of us are arguing from this playbook, and we're getting lost in the thicket of distinctions. 

Is cultural hegemony like empire? By its own lights, it is not. But, if empire implies achieving dominance via force, and hegemony implies achieving dominance via way of life, what do you call it when we go kick some ass for the sake of asserting (and, some would argue, protecting) our way of life?