There are two primary means by which dominant groups maintain their hegemonic position over subordinate groups: the threat or actual exercise of naked force, and control over ideology and the contents of “legitimate” social discourse. Of these two mechanisms, control over discourse and ideology are much to be preferred. Maintaining hegemonic control by the use of violence alone carries at least two critical dangers.

First, use of naked force can further stiffen resistance and resentment within subordinate groups. If deemed “excessive,” the use of force will only delegitimize the dominant group's right to rule in the eyes of subordinates and dominants alike. The more illegitimate the dominants' power is seen to be, the more violence dominants will be required to use, leading to even greater delegitimation and thus into an ever spiraling downward cycle. For example, France's loss of Algeria in 1962 was not actually the result of military defeat, but rather the result of the inability of certain critical segments of the French elite to morally justify further slaughter in the service of continued French hegemony Second, if the level of violence inflicted on subordinates is too severe, their psychological and economic usefulness to dominants can be severely impaired.

Rather than resort to naked force, group-based social hegemony is more efficiently and safely maintained by the exercise of power over ideology and discourse. The exercise of power over discourse has gone by different labels by different scholars.