really this links to the weakness of hegemony theory in essence though. Instead of looking at what people do, it looks at what people say and how they rationalise what they do. But in that case you're trapped in an insoluble contradiction as counter-hegemony becomes impossible. If you are a materialist and take consciousness proceeding existence or existence itself determining consciousness, then any hegemonic ideology is already ipso facto post-hoc of developments which took place in the past. I.E: it is not something consciously instituted by the ruling class but something that arises within the gradiants of social intercourse itself. So to have anti-hegemony is itself a logically incoherent statement.
It would be like me saying I want to resist the past, which is of course what all labour party melts do. We want to institute socialism in the labour party even though all historical developments have indicated the exact opposite. Worse than salafism. Salafism at least hints at a lost golden age.