Contemporary world order exhibits interdependence without a single state able to impose ordering principles unilaterally and without the hegemonic war often presumed to clear the slate. Scholarship conflates dominant power with the order it sponsors, so criticism of the liberal international order (LIO) is read as an attack on primacy. This article theorises hegemony, in Gramscian terms, as a relational ordering structure that fuses coercion, political economy, and ideas, and that endures through absorption and co-option of dissent. Challenges are incorporated through selective concessions and institutional redesign, diluting their transformative content while reiterating core principles. Our argument decouples power transition from order transition, moving debate beyond collapse versus persistence by advancing an analytically tractable account of adaptive endurance that shows how hegemonic orders renew themselves through the managed incorporation of critique into institutional reform.