Theories of hegemony, whether they directly refer to Antonio Gramsci or start from the post-Gramscian approach of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, provide possibilities of thinking about the connections between political rule and the constitution of (political) subjectivity. Yet, they explicitly do not seek to provide a theory of leadership based on the liberal model of an autonomous, rational subject claiming political authority, but their interest is directed towards identifying the active involvement of subordinated people in the dominant regime and its forms of ruling. This includes pointing out how dominant forces depend on the (often unintentional or habitual) cooperation of those who lack the power to overtly define and design social and political institutions. Relations of domination cannot be explained solely by looking at repression, disciplinary control and violence. Rather, one needs to take into account how agreement to political rule develops; an agreement that at times can conflict with one’s own interests. One must also examine how relations of domination, be they in social relationships, civic society or in political rule, come to be seen as acceptable or even as unavoidable. Hegemony, in the end, depends on consensus production (Laclau and Mouffe 1985; Smith 1998).