Center and Periphery: An Idea and Its Career, 1935-1987 Edward Shils The concepts of center and periphery ate very ambitious. They offer catego: ries for the study of whole societies and civilizations and much that goes on within them, They are also ambiguous. ‘They are greatly in need of further larifcation and differentiation, ‘They stand in niced of much conercte appli cation which will test their capacity to disclose aspects of society otherwise obscured, Nevertheless, some progress has been made in the latter. This is evident, moreover, from the works assembled here; their authors have ob- viously succeeded in the fruitful application of these ideas to a wide variety of particular phenomena. ‘They have shown that these eoneepls are capable of extension into the analysis of real ets of social life which were remote from my mind when 1 first came upon them, In what follows, E undertake the double task of clarifying these ideas with the aid of some of the authors who have joined me in this common effort and to describe the course through which my ideas on center and periphery have moved ever about five decades I The analysis of societies is one of the most difficult of all the tasks in the study ‘of the human sciences. Some important writers deny that there think that itisa general rubrie to cover the social context thingas society. ‘The of the actions of individuals or collectivities. That is not my’ view. Societies do exist, however elusive they are to our analytical grasp. ‘They ate the most in- clusive, bounded collectives within which relatively dense interaetions oc- cur, which possess some measure of inclusive collective self consciousness, and which are to a large extent biologically self-repraductive, Societies arc constituted by the rlations between centers and peripheries, markets, internal trative, and judicial order migration, political authority, and legal, admin over extensive, more or less bounded territory, linguistic communities and te- ligious communities, and quasi-primordial collectivities like ellie groups hily or firmly held together by the orienta and nationalities. Societies are lions and actions of centers and peripheries toward each other The orientations of centers and peripheries toward each other are subjec- tive states; the subjective states comprise cognitions, riorms, and sentiment, The orientations and aetions of eenters and peripheries are affected by the ori= entation toward objects and cond conditions do in fact usually exist rately, from their effects and from move—often at many degrees of them. In any la re society—large i the direct interactions between een sclatively are in comparison with society. Nevertheless, the perpheri action, toward the center and in all tinuously oriented, subjectively anc they are also oriented towad other ward the centers of other societies ented toward the centers of their o toward the centers of ater socitie ntermittently oriented ton ‘own societies. Sometimes, too, the sociei he center exercises authority a beliefs about things thought, by itsel cries, to be of transcendent import are things thought to be fundament bocings on earth, in life and in death ‘Center” means being the objec members of the society. Being a “e jects of attention, both by comman Being a “center” means the posses others as desirable or admirable ord being an object not only of obedien lions of the center, cited here illus sich funetions in any large society viduals different fs nv the groups 0 tions. Some of these groups of indiy some of the other funetional grou conflict with any one or the other ¢ them. Bach of these groups is often als who wish to replace them in the fnctions or who wish to influence the objectives they pursue The term “center” refers to a sectoa wide variety of cepts are capable of hich were remote from is, [undertake the ofthe authors who describe the course through ellover about five decades. ofall the tasks in the study y that there is any such fiotocoverthe social context ‘snotmy view. Societies do asp. They are the most lively dense interactions oc- {lective seconsciousness, Heproductive. Socicties are SGipheries, markets, internal istrative, and judicial order {istic communities and tivities like ethnic groups ld together by the orienta- {each other. fad cach other are subjec- 3s, norms, and sentiments fries are afected by the o ceniation toward objects and conditions believed to exist; these objects and conditions do in fact usually exist and are known, even if only very approxi sof te imately, from their effcets andl frem accounts, usually at several d nove——oflen at many degrees of remove—from those who “know” about them. In any large society—large in. number of members andl in territory— the direct interactions between centers and peripheries arc intermittent and relatively rare in comparison with the other interactions that occur within the often oriented, subjectively and in society. Nevertheless, the peripheries action, toward the center and in all sorts of ways, ‘The centers are almost con- tinuously oriented, subjectively and in their action, toward their peripheries; they are also oriented toward of er centers within their own society and te ward the centers of other societis. Although peripheries are frequently ori cented toward the centers of their own societies, they are also often oriented toward the centets of other societies. The sectors of the periphery of any so- ciety ate intermittently oriented toward other sectors of the petiphery of their ‘own societies. Sometimes, too, they are oriented to the peripheries of other The center exercises authorily and power, it also espouses and embodies ssthought, by tselfand by other eenters and by their periph= rious” thingy beliefs about cries, to be of transcendent importance, that is, “setions. to be fundamental, that is, which affect the fate of human ath, are things tho bycings on earth, in life and in de ‘Genter” means being the object of attention for many persons who are members of the society, Being a “center” means designating the proper ob- jects of attention, both by command or recommendation or by embodiment Being a “center” means the possession of knowledge which is regarded by others as desitable oradmirable ar dangerous to have. Being a “center” means being an object not only of obeience but of emulation. Each of these fume- tions of the center, cited here Iustratively, differs from the other. Each of such funetions in any large society is usually performed by a group of indi viduals different from the groups of individuals performing the other fune tions, Some of these groups of andividuals often overlap to some extent with some of the other funetional groups. Any one of these groups might be in conflict with any one or the other central groups or with most or even all of them. Each of these groups is often in conflict with other groups of individu als who wish fo replace them in their roles as the performers of these central functions or who wish to influence the way in which they perform them and the objectives they pursue The term “center” refers to a sector of society in which certain activitieswhich have special significance or functions are relatively more highly ec ccntrated oF more intensively practiced than they are in other parts of that society andl which are to a greater extent than are other parts of society the focus of attention, preoccupation, obedience, deference, or emulation, Ob: viously all actions have a spatial locations the institutions which are combined in the center and the persons who perform the diverse actions of the center and who entmeciate the words which draw attention, whicl persuade reason, which clicit emulation, which arouse devotion, and which summon obe dience have spatial location, The location of the center is not, however, a primary feature of the center, What is important is that certain social actions and functions are concentrated rather than dispersed, or that they are more intensively performed or that they are the foci ofthe attention and interest of ‘many persons in the society and nat just of those who perform or witness them firsthand. ‘The point of concentiation of those functions is a collectivity or a part of a collectivity or it isan institution or institutions around whieh a eo! lectivity is formed; the part ofthe collectivity which is around the center ist periphery or peripheries, The members of the centers conceive of themselves in those terms, a: though not usualy in the same vocabulary. Those in each seetor of the center regard themselves as having, by right, some affinity with each other. Regardless of whether they are specialized and even if they are apparently isolated from cach other or are in confliet with cach other, they regard themselves as partici pants in a center. Each thinks that it “belongs” to the center, even when the other parts of the center deny il. I thinks that it should enjoy special vespect from the other by virlue ofits being distinguished from its peripheries. (Even the leaders of revolutionary movements, hateful toward the existing society expect to be treated differently from their “rank and file” by the incumbents of the present center.) As an aspirant toward the center, it regards itslf by virtue of that aspiration, as belo nig to the center to which it aspires. The various scetions of the center recognize each other as belonging to ether. These recognitions are both vague and multifarious. They are mutu- ally admiring and mutually hostile, but the ambivalence does not contradict the notion that what they do and believe is important to the rest of society zht deplore the effects Each believes this about the others, even though it mi of what the others do, It believes too that members of their society who are at the peripheries look to it or that they should look to i Member ws qualified by what they think is the inherent centzality, that is, the “se- of literary, scholarly, and scientific centers regard themselves riousness” of their activities and achievements, ‘They think that the kind of beings i Whether simply sensiiveto The een some ete traditions with and capaci theansees. Th from afirmatie tion to altempll over the cen or they might 114s important singulaity ori without enters the the same soe pletely and harmon probably no soci measure of tension ih challenged or unl it acts there is no eh ters, “Tesser” meaning No society, then i ers, some of which an and have personal bo itintl center whiich embrace ccountercenters. Ibis homogenous. Thererelatively more highly con ey are in other parts of th ure other parts of society the ference, or emulation. Ob- itutions which are combined diverse actions of the center jon, which persuade reason, and which summon obe- ve center is not, however, a is that certain social actions ‘ersed, or that they are more the attention and interest of who perform or witness them Linetions isa collectivity or a itutions around which a col ch is around the center is the nselves in those terms, al- in cach sector ofthe center lywith each other. Regardless apparently isolated from. regard themselves as partiet= tothe center, even when the should enjoy special respe a fiom its peripheries, (Even Toward the existing society, nid file” by the incurnbents of ite, it regards itself by vittu shich it aspires tach other as belonging to- nultifatious. They are muti sivalence does not contradict portant to the rest of society hit might deplore the effects crs oftheir society who are at ktoit ic centers regard themselves teentrality, that is, the “se- They think that the kind of activities they perform entitle them to be properly counted among the inhabit ns often focused, varying in he center. They f ants of the central zone of scciet. Their attenti heir works and almost invatiably in their other activities, on ns of the society, as bei view themselves, viseievis the peripheral sect the center Members of centers are usualy deeply conscious of the difference between themselves and the peripheries, The awareness ofthe cleavage between center and periphery scems to be ane of the most universal sensibilities of human beings in practically all societies, and above all in differentiated societies, Whether they regard the cleavage as unjust or as justified and whether they simply accept it without any regard to its justice or injustice, they are always, sensitive to the distinction Fetween centers and the peripheries. Land to The center exists wherever dominion ever the peripheries i so some extent exercised: the activities of the center are often held in check by traditions within itself and within the peripheries, by insufficient resources axl capacities and by the resistance, passive or active, of the peripheries themselves. ‘The peripheries respond heterogeneously; their responses range from alfitmative or passive submission and self-maintenance through isola tion to attempted secession oF resistance and the altempt to gain dominion dover the center, Peripheries may attempt to become centers in their own right ‘or they might attempt to replace the existing center It is important to point out that the concept of center does not imply the singularity or internal unity of a center, There are probably very few societies without centers; there is probably no center without competing centers within Fhe same society. ‘There is probably no society in which the center is com= pletely and hanioniously cooperative and consensual within itself. ‘There is probably no society where the centers of the various spheres are not in some measure of tension among ‘hemselves, There is no society in which a center challenged or wnichallenged, docs not have subsidiary centers through which, it acts; there is no society which does not possess a multiplicity of lesser cen ters, “lesser” meaning a smaller radius of effectiveness than the more central centers, No society, then, has one single center; every society hasa plurality of cen= ters, some of which are closely associated with each other, support each other, nnd have personal bonds with each other. When use the term “center,” L imight be using it in this restricted sense or in the more inclusive sense of the center which embraces, in the sense just described, the cluster of centers and countercenters. It is also important to make clear that the periphery is not homogenous, There ate many concentric and overlapping peripheries. ‘Theperiphery also contains numerous subcenters, for example, the centers of families, local centers sue as local churches oF business firms, ete The center can be either a set of institutions, a group or circle of individu. als, and an ideal ora set of ideals. A group of i more or less independently of church and university, might claim to be the order which they think does not yet have an em= cllectuals, living from patronage or their own resources, representative of the idea bodiment in earthly institutions. ‘The ideal of nationality might be expounded by intellectuals, poets, novelists, publicists, clergymen, or academies, and th this ideal center both as criticism of the existing earthly center anid as an earthly center not yet realized on earth, ‘The transcendental they can set § center would not be known to mankind ifit were not expounded by its earthly counterpart which might be in concord with the earthly center of power and alternative center to replace of authority or which might present itself as correct the earthly center of power and authority Ina sense, a set of ideals isthe center in its purest form, Ieals are con: sfitutive of centers whether they ate manifested in a transcendent power, in a Civilization, in a society, or in a sct of societies institutions, ot in a circle of kes ita center, is to some extent a funetion of the power ofits incumbents over the individuals. The ascendancy of the center in a society, that is, what periphery. But since coercion and the threat of coercion, implicit in a com- mand, are alone inadequate to maintain the pattern of a society, the central institutions of the society are dependent on the acceptance oftheir legitimacy by the center itself in its various parts anid by most of the peripheral sectors of he society Legitimacy is a matter of belief in certain norms regarding what is ull nately right and just. A legitimate center is one thought to be in accordance with certain fundamental norms, inherent in the cosmos, of the order of ta ture, or decreed by an ultimately transcendental power. We may speak, there fore, of a transcendental center, a center beyond the processes and institutions of routine, earthly existence. The transcendental center exists i the realm of the ideal, but it must be made known on earth, It is made known by its ex positor or ils embodiment in the conduct of individuals who “represent” it to any periphery. The expositor or embodiment usually legitimates his own ac- tions by the transcendental source of his authority. ‘That source might be a revelation he himself has teceived of by a saered book itselFf divine origin oF inspiration or by reference to “nature” and what is “natural The transcendental center might also be expounded through an institution the chief ineumbents of which assert that the institution isthe instrument of owe dinay bring trace being im Cetin ‘might also fi and they, 100); sift vexing ‘es oforhasu sla deve soften na the oes ofa oneesiasyn divival count ‘Some tradition are many tation nents ofthe pasa tion ofthe peti sap between ent the common trait amalgamated, but some difference bl sity of traditions, T and peripheries ma help to maintain te Long-enduring past and that they nasty or a body of written or unvritte a center, their leg also besten, continuity ofall semple, the centers of up or circle of individu- their own resources, not yet have an lity might be expounded and. 3 espounded by its earthly [eauhly center of power and to replace or purest form. Ideals are con- atransendent power, ina Insitutions, or in a circle of fey thats, what makes ita ‘ofits incumbents over the fercion, implicit in a con fm ofa society, the central eplance oftheir legitimacy tofthe peripheral sectors of ims regarding what is ulti- ought to be in accordance ‘cosmos, or the order of n r We may speak, there te processes and institutions ‘enter exists in the realm of Its made known by its ex- duals who “represent” it to ally legitimates his own ace ly, That source might be a ‘0k itself of divine origin or natural nnded through an insti itution is the instrument of the transcendental power. The inslitution—a church or a sect or a religions order —is a center on earth ashich represents the transcendental center The earthly —transcenslental center—that is, the earthly institution which aims to tepresent the transcendental center may stand in a variety of rela ovement, the possessors of economic tionships to the earthly center. ‘The power, the political clite, and the institutions through whieh it works will o dlinatily claim that they, too, represent the ideal, that they are the agents for bringing and maintaining justice in the world. ‘The incumbents of the earthly transcendental center might affirm the earthly center or it might criticize it for being in disaccord with the tanscendental center. Certain institutions aside from the church, the universities, for example Imight also finetion as earthly representatives of the transcendental center nd they, too, ean affirm or censure the earthly centers ofthe polity anel econ ‘omy for their relationship to the transcendental power An existing center can legitimate itself by showing that it embodies the fea~ tures of or has unbroken cowinity with a past center, A center which presents itsclFas devoted to the mair-enance or restoration of a past charismatic event is often in a stronger position with its peripheries. ‘The historical past ean be the locus of a center. Tradition isa link with this center which in such cir ‘cumstances isa symbolic configuration without an existing institutional or in dividual counterpart ‘Some traditions are shared by both the center and peripheries. Since there to the present different parts and mo: ane many traditions in socie'y bring the past, any lage society has traditions of the center as well as tradi ofthe ments he peripheries. The growth ofa society through the natrowiny tions of gap between center and periphery is accompanied by an inereased salience of and become the common traditions. Traditions in such a society overts as there is amalgamated, but as long as peripheries exist —that is, as To some difference between centers and peripheries—there will be some diver: larity of effects here. The existence of centers tinetive traditions, and the distinctive sity of traditions. There isa ¢ anid peripheries makes for help to maintain relations between centers and peripheries. ‘ocieties believe that they were a distinctive center in the ter by virtue of that, If they can point to a dy aditions Long-enduring past and that they are now nasty or a body of ideas or a sacred book, a body « ws oF a constitution, iwrillen or unnritten, or an institution which was central in the past and is till a center, their legitimacy cr virtue is confirmed in their own minds and it tight also be strengthened iv the peripheries. The continuity is not the equal continuity of all sectors of society but is the continuity of a central fine0 Analysis of the idea of the periphery encounters as many complications as docs tl analysis of the idea of the center. In a first approach, the periphery is 4 residual category. It eannot be left in that state, Its necessary to proceed snore positively. Pethaps I might begin by saying that persons at the petiph- cries execute the commands emanating from the center, adapt conditions engendered by decisions taken by the center, and attend to propo sitions enunciated by the center and to patterns embodied by the center Just as the incumbents of the center are conseious of their centrality, so individnals at the periphery are aware that there are others who have more wealth and power than they have, who have more influence, and who are, n very general and vague terms, more “important” than they themselves are. The ideas ofthe periphery which individuals living in it possess are vague and not frequently incorrect. Furthermore, the awareness of peripherality anies in saliency from individual to individual; some are acutely and fre ‘quently aware of their peripherality; others are more intermittently or rela lively rarely aware of it. ‘Their ideas oftheir own peripherality are also not very differentiated No petiphery is hon ncous. Ils heterogencous parls are separated from, each other by type of occupation, by the possession of different amounts of wealth and the receipt of different amounts and kinds of income, by religious, beliefs, by political attitude and preferences, by ethnic affiliation, and by lan guages and linguistic usages. Many but not all the internal differences in the periphery are accompanied by various degrees of distance from the center, There are no sharp delineations separating the various peripheries from cach other. For some parts of the periphery, like some parts of the center, ate more central than are others; otlier parts of the periphery look more at other parts ofthe center. Some individuals in the peripheries are more sensitive to, more alert to, more preoccupied with the center than are other individuals Nevertheless, the idea of peripherality is integral to the “cognitive map” of their society which most individuals po ces is the counterpart, in the eo nitive map, ofthe idea ofthe cent Distances are those of sentiments and images of afmity and esteem, of de sree of community of culture andl belie, of degree or share in influence, or oF possessions and mode of life, Some sectors ofthe periphery are close to the center than others. Some seetors ofthe periphery may perform central fun tions for other peripheries; they might do so as agent ofthe center, or they do so against the center, or they might be a center of a part of the periphery which is relatively isolated from the center No center ean exe center is incapable of limits to the expansib cries and even with sistance, party beea restraints, A center center to dominatean to keep themseles ap sure of self themselses, There is individual and forthe ing degrees has to ada spectful of the deste because even if tis n ciples abolish it, itis) thin at goes on in parts oft the center, Local cor and. professions even dominion retain a yan ial; itis very difieul completely The relations betwe the relations between Within Wester cit oward ripheries. The movem the peripheries are no tion is complicated by toward equality of de life—both remaining and social rights are ps collective consciousne more prominent place The growth of civil for the entire society — and periphery. Civility the gap to the point » thought to be less sign1s many complications as approach, the periphery is Its necessary to proceed hat persons at the periph: enter, adapt then ne, and attend to propo bodied by the center selves to lous of their centrality, so xe others who have more influence, and who are rt” than they themselves ving in it possess ate vague wareness of peripherality some are acutely and fre- ore intermittently or rela ipherality are also not very 's parts are separated from on of diferent amounts of ids of income, by reli nic affiliation, and by lane internal differences in the istance from the center. various peti ries from ne parts of the eenter, are riphery look more at other eres are more sensitive to, hhan are other individuals, to the “cognitive map” of de eounterpart, in the co Finity andl esteem, of de- orshare in influence, or of periphery are closer to the ‘may perform central fune- is of the center, or they do. of a part of he periphery No center can ever render the periphery entirely subordinate to it, The center is incapable of penetrating and saturating all parts of society. ‘There are limits to the expansbility of the center. Pockets of autonomy at the periph tries and even within the centers are bound to exist, partly because of re sistance, partly becanise of technological limits and because of traditional restraints. \ center is inevitable ina sociely, but itis impossible for a single center to dominate and control all of society. There isa need in many families to keep themselves apart front other families, for institutions to wish to have govermnent and to keep knowledge of their affats to some measure of sel themselves, ‘There is in many’ societies a strong desite for the privacy of the individual and for the privacy of groups and institutions. ‘The center in vary degrees has to atlapt ilself to the desire for privacy p spectful of the desine of individuals and groups at the peripheries, and partly sire and would by its own prin: ciples abolish i itis incapable of doing so, No center ean ever ko tly because itis re becatise even iF itis not respectful of that thing that goes om in its peripheries. There ate parts of the periphery which are rek the center. Local communities, municipalities, regions, corporate bodies, ively autonomous vis-a-vis ann! professions even in aulocracies im which the center claims complete dominion retain a variable measure of autonomy. Yet their autonomy is par lial itis very dificult for a sector of the periphery to avoid peripherality completely The relations between centers and peripheries the relations between centers and peripheries change over time Within Western civilization, modem societies have been for several cen any from sociely to society turies moving toward a din nution of the distances between center and pe ripheries. The movement is vol identical in all societies, the various sectors of the peripheries are not uniformly engaged in this movement, and the sitwa- tion is complicated by countertenslencies to this movement. The movement toward equality of deference, the reduction of the differences in mode of life—both remaining quite large—and the spread of education and of eivil and social rights are parts of this approximation of center and periphery. ‘The collective consciousness of tie center has become more inclusive; it makes a more prominent place for the peripheries in its collective consciousness The growth of eivility—the sense of membership in and of responsibility forthe entire society —is an aspect ofthis narrowing of the gap between center and periphery. Civility is alyays, in some sense, tantamount o a narrowing of the gap to the point where the difference between cente to be less significan’ than their common identity xd periphery areThis is at the same time accompanied by the inercased predominance of the center over subsidiary centers, ‘The growth in the powers of central gov cemments over, for example, localities, families, and universities, and the ero- sion of their respective centers isa common feature of these societies in which 3 the same time most of the peripheries have come closer to the center of the entire societ Changes in the relations of centers and peripheries are consequences of changes in opportunities to acquire or control acknowledged resources, such 1s wealth, or of changes in belief which led the center or the periphery to decide that the existing distance is unsatis of the transcendental cc ges often involve he invocati (er and a reinterpretation of impera- ives ofthe transcendental center The conceptual schema of center and periphery makes no assumptions shout the deste of substantive cognitive and evaluative consensus in any pa ticular society, apart from the cansensus—always vague and never complete cgarding perception of the existence of centers and peripheries. Analysis of societies in terns of the lations between centers and peripheries does not prejudge the dese of solidarity among centers of between centers and pe- ripheris or within peripheries. The validity of the schema depends only on the existence ofthe facts of centers and peripheries in which the awareness of sociely and awareness of the existence of centers and peripheries are integral parts but are not alldeeisive It should be emphasized that there is never complete consensus between centers and peripheries, And just as there is practically never complete con sensus within the center, so there is probably not a great deal of consensus aunong the incumbents ofthe peripheral zone except about theie membership in their society, their perception of their own peripherality, and about the Ie gitimacy ofthe centers. Even on those objects on which there isa consider able degree of consensus, itis not participated in equally by al sectors of the periphery u The relations between “centers” and “peripheries” may be defined as relation ships of “proximity” and “distance.” There is a spatial overtone in all these terms. Nevertheless, center and periphery and distanee and proximity are not spatial references. Indeed, even in its geographical usage, the term “center does not refer exclusively to a spatial phenomenon. Ifthe term “center” were literally spatial in its reference, a center would have to be equidistant from the perimeter of the ter certainly not so lites The term “eenter important feature of within a limited sect particular tasks and society occu location. Furthermo rial location as such and between centers from the ignificane focused there The ecology of cer tions between them facts, that is, facts of The concept of “d tween centers and per “Distance,” inits spat is dificult to dispense because itis dificult nomena referred to Distanee, in the s assimilation into or ps into the collective ec tween center and per cestent of sharing in th imposed by the nece status ofthe individue tion in the collective of the periphery in is be much more attach a more proximate loca collective consciousne sciousness. Within th imply a matter of ter the center of sociely ¢ The distance betwe any society, and eertarereased predominance of. the powers of central gov- universities, and the ero: ‘of these societies in which zcloser to the center of the reries are consequences of nowledged resources, such center or the periph These changes often involve reinterpretation of impera y to ‘ery makes no assumptions tative consensus in any par ague and never complete— ind peripheries. Analysis of ts and peripheries does not or between centers and pe- tesehema depends only on ssin which the awareness of and peripheries are integral ‘omplete consensus between tically never complete con ot a great deal of consensus sept about their membership ipherality, and about the le= nnwhich there is a consider ‘equally by all sectors of the $* may be defined as relation: spatial overtone in all these istance and proximity are not fal usage, the term “center” oon. Ifthe term “center” were ave to be equidistant from the perimeter of the teritory in which the collectivity is located. Geographers are certainly not so literal minded The term “center” is no more spatial than the term “centralization.” ‘The important feature of “centralization” isthe concentration of certain funetions ‘within a limited sector of tae society, that is, the making of decisions about particular tasks and the periormance of cestain activites. OF course, with the critory, everything that gocs on in it has a territorial society occurring in a location, Furthermore, the territorial Location is: not insignificant. ‘Versio thal location as stich acquires a significance in the relations between centers ‘and between centers and peripheries which becomes something additional from the significance of the activities concentrated there or the attention focused there The ecology of center: tions between them, but the eenter and periphery are not simply ceological facts, that is, facts of location. ‘Phe concept of “distance” is implied in any discussion of the relations be xl periphery is important because it affeets the rela tween centers and peripheries. “Distance,” like center, lias a spatial overtone “Distance,” in is spatial overtones, is only a metaphor, [Lis a metaphor which is difficult to dispense with because it has such a strong tradition of use and hecause it is dificult to fird the right language in which to describe the phe- nomena referted to, Distance, in the sense in which am using it here, refers to a degree of issimilation into or participation in collectivity. This means being assimilated into the collective conseiusness as a qualified member. The distance be nd periphery may be assessed by standing before the Taw, the ‘extent of sharing in the decisions of authority within the rather rartow Tiits imposed by the necessities of the exercise of authority, the moral value or ‘Matus of the individual of the periphery, of the extent of inclusion and Io tion in the collective consciousness of the center, as well a the self-placemen of the petiphery in its own collective consciousness. Peripheral sectors might be much snore attached to the eenter than the center isto thems they accord 4a more proximate location to themselves in relation to the center in their own ‘collective consciousness than the center aecords to them in its collective con- Sciousness. Within the limits of membership in the society, which is not simply a matter of terttaral location, the distance between peripheries and the center of society can vary considerably The distance between center and periphery can never be reduced to zero in any society, and certainly not in a large society with a complex division oflabor and irreducible differences in the exercise of eenteal functions. Distance is complicated by the plurality and Iv Centers exist in societies in consequence of inequalities or concentra the distribution of authority, power, wealth, knowledge, creative achieve ment, religious qualification, moral dstinetion, etc., and because human be ings are preoccupied with those things and their concentration. ‘Those in whom they are concentrated think themselves set apart by virlue of being such points of concentration; those who are outside them are distinctly aware of their state of externality. It is not solely resentment and distrust or envy of those living atthe points of concentration, nor is it fear of being damaged by the incumbents of those points of concentration. Human beings want per sons, institutions, and ideals to which to attach themselves as complements, and clevations of themselves, Human beings need, above all, objects whieh embody transcendental values, values whieh transcend those pursued in the course of the routines of ordinary life. ‘The orientation toward a center helps lo satisfy this need—although the center itself sometimes frustrates, rather than satisfies, the nced fora transcendental center in which an earthly insite lion or eollectivity participates or under which th The bald fact of the power for which human be thly center is subsumed acquire is one point of origin of centers. Accumulations of power are probably inevitable in any society because the powerful ike to he powerful and because erful, but power also exists because the there are persons who wish to be po necessities of sociely demand it, Certain tasks are regarded as imperative many persons demand that they be undertaken for purposes of justice, respon: sibility, and advantages to themselves, ‘The desires of individuals for internal onder in society necessitate authority to settle disputes and to repress conflict 1 beings wish to live in order in society, and they wish t Hom have authori- tics who will guarantee that order and who are thenaselves legitimate, that is, who themselves submit to the more fundamental transcendental order. Both nt these tasks to be undertaken. There the powerful and the not so powerful w isan articulation of interest between the desite to exereise power and the de site to obtain in a practical yay’ the benefits of the use ofthe power to com- nnand and provide. ‘This articulation maintains and reinforces the existence of centers by satisfying the need for them Power by ils nature commands obedience and is a focus of attention, It fascinates many who do not seek it and who would have no prospect of aequie: ingitifthey were tosee it ako serves to focus a The focus of atten! that is, participation i center, attraction to th ently related to the con occupied, with his ow individuals consciousy which the center holds There are activites centrality. Those activ way give rise to and us and in those atthe pe fundamental powers i centrality. ‘These belie «ties which acknosled it although they do ne The acknowledgmer alficmation. lis nodet its dominion; indeed ceupation with it, Thed desire to be attached to establish a center ofan ‘avn peripheries and w Whatever the desie abasement before the ¢ and even for destroying The relationships, ripheries are not only fe within the territorial bo ever two or more socie cach other—howevers with them pronounce Rome and among the inces, and the dissolu antiquity, the relationsf central functions. Distance infers and subeenters. iualities oF concentrations in nowledge, creative achieve te, and beeause Inman be eit concentration, Those in Apart by virtue of being such them are distinc nent and distrust or envy of sit fear of being damaged by aware of mselves as complements re, above all, objects which Inscend those pursued in the tation toward a center helps sometimes frustrates, rather rin which an carthly insite \ecarthly center is subsumed. beings strive and which some lations of power are probabl setobe powerful and because power also exists because the are regarded as imperative or purposes of justice, respon: tes of individuals for intemal putes and to repress conflicts rad they wish to have authori Fhemselves | al transcendental order. Both tasks to be undertaken. ‘There timate, that is, toexercise power and the de- the use of the power to com- and reinforces the existence of nid is a focus of attention, It I have no prospect of acquit ing tif they were to seckit. The power or authority not only clicits obedience, it also serves to focus attention on the center entien on the center animates collective consciousness, The focus of a that is, participation in the consciousness of the collectivity. Interest in the center, traction to the center, and preoccupation with the center are inlher- cnily related to the connection ofthe person, so interested, attracted, and pre- ‘occupied, with his own society. The orientation of the center aninmates the individual's consciousness of his participation or membership in the society in which the eenter holds sway There are activities tat arouse in their performers a belief in their own, centrality, Those activites that affect many persons’ lives ina fundamental way give rise to and sustain the belief in centeality, both in those at the center and in those at the perisheries, Those activities occupied with contact with fundamental powers in society and in the cosmos generate a conviction of centrality. These beliefs in centrality are met by the responses of the periph: cries which acknowledge centrality, are attracted by it, and are dependent on it, although they do not always approve The acknowledgmen’ af centtality by the periphery is wot tantamount to its affirmation. Its no denial ofthe existence of the center to wish to escape from, its dominion; indeed, the desire to escape from the center confirms preac- cupation with it, ‘The desite to escape from one center may be a product of the Aesire to be attached to another center. It might also be a product of a desire to establish a center of ones own, that is, a center which will gather around itis ‘own petipheries and sshicl will be autonomous vis-a-vis the existing center Whatever the desire, whether it be for admission to the center, for self ahasement before the center, for service by the center, oF for escape from it and even for desteoying it, preoceupation with the center is incluctible V The sclationships, both closer and more distant, between centers and pe- ripheries are not only features of the intemal structures of societies, occutti within the territorial boundaries which define the limits of sovereignty. When- ever two oF more socieies mect and enter into any sort of interaction with ach other—however slight—relationships of center and periphery arise and with them pronounced tensions, ‘The relationships between Greece and Rome and among the Greek city-states, those between Rome and its prov ices, and the disolufion of the Alexandrian Empire in Graceo-Roman antiquity, the relationships between the ancient Middle Eastern empires,and of the Germanic and Celtic tribal societies on the one hand and of Medite neve Empite of the former Han dynasty and its subsequent vieissitudes, and rancan-Christian civilization on the other, he formation in the Chi the relationships of modem Westem societies to Asia, Africa, andl Latin America—these are all instances of the chb and Row of the ascendancy of centers over peripheries, The existence of a eivilization is dependent on the esistence of the enters of the societies which dominate and give character to a civilization. ‘The rela tionships of central societies and peripheral societies is constitutive of the pat- tems of civilizations and of their growth, Its through expansion from centers, within societics that civilizations are formed Civilizations are formed from societies. ‘They are formed by the expa sion—military, economic, politcal, celigious, linguistic, technological ioral, literary, and scicntific—of one society into other societies. ‘They sions from the center of some of their constituent are products of expa ‘cieties. Except possibly for China, a civilization seldom becomes a society: A civilization isa constellation of societies sharing certain features whieh are characteristically shared among the societies, but these societies which are constitutive of a civilization do not shave all of these features. Otherwise it would cease to be a civilization and would become a society. A civilization is marked by the centrality of one or several particular societies within it; there ray be a plurality of central societies within a civilization, each a center of some distinetive activities which become assimilated by each other and by the peripheral socicties. Centers tise and wane within a particular civilization, ‘The center—or centers —does not always maintain its active dominance. This docs not neces: sarily mean that it is superseded by a rival center. The loss of active domi nance might occur bec symbolic co ise the periphery has eome to accept the objectivated uations of the center to stich an extent that the consensus thereby established is no longer dependent on the original center for its cow: tinuous sustenance. For example, the expansion of knowledge of a particu: Jar language of the lang mm the center might culminate in the widespread adoption originally expanded from the center. It might be so widely accepted as the most useful or unquestionable language that expansion cul nates in consensus, The situation of Great Britain as the center from which the English language expanded into arcas or societies that were formerly Brit. any adap. tations and innovations—came to be used by so many societies as their national lang ish colonial possessions changed, once the use of English—with sor as a lingua franca. English became the acknowledged language of those sox Now Zealand, center that was recogn its correct usage. The similar, An intematio Wester Europe as ay societies within it, wh in, France, and Ger rc simply no longer t now several equally ¢ merly dominant cent no longer enjoy their the international seiet peripheries for each 0 Centers also recede tions, For many centt ation; painters and se practice their rts col tions, In the twentil through its continued Keonomic and milla nore transient than it Thus, peripheries becoming more centr lization. For example than periphe around it and violent ‘mained peripheral. It witht civilization and then i ‘major center from wh a millennium and aft terraneat civilization centuries previously for other functions, Just as the periphe passive absorbents of which were taken by « to influences from the the peripheral scicthe one hand and of ‘formation in the Chi- ‘quent vicissitudes, and sia, Afica, and Latin w of the ascendancy of existence of the centers a civilization. ‘The rela- + consltutive of the pat- ‘expansion from centers formed by the expa iguistic, technological, other societies, ‘They ne of their constituent dom becomes a societ stain features which are rese societies whiich are e features. Otherwise it society. \ civilization is societies within it; there zation, cach a center of by each other and by the zation. ‘The center—or tee. This does not neces- The loss of active domi- ‘accept the objectivated ent that the consensus iginal center for its con- knowledge of a particn- the widespread adoption f.Ie might be s0 widely \gethat expansion culm i the center from which sthat were formerly Brit- iglsh—with many adap, many societies as their ecame the acknowledged language of those societies, for example, the United States, Canada, Aus tralia, New Zealand. When that happened, Great Britain ceased to be the age and the standards of center that was recognized as providing both the lange its correct usage. ‘The international expansion of science is in certain respects similar. An intemational scientific community has been formed comprising Westen Europe as a whole and North America and Japan, but the particular societies within it, which were once the dominant centers, such as Great Brit France, and Germany, have not been displaced. ‘The European centers arc simply no longer the sole points from which expansion occurs. ‘There are row several equally expansive centers outside of Western Europe. ‘The for smerly dominant centers have not fallen to the status of peripheries, but they ger enjoy their previous nearly exclusive predominance as centers. In the international scientific community, the productive centers are centers and peripheries for each other Centers also recede from their centrality va cat center of European artistic ere tions. For many’ centuries lly was the ¢ ation painters and sculptors went there from all over Europe to study and practice their arts; collectors sought to aequite Italian works for their collec tions, In the twentieth century, itis a center of painting and sculpture only through its continued possession of ils great works of painting and sculpture: Eeonomic and military centrality within and between civilizations is even more transicnt than intellectual and artistic centrality Thus, peripheries sometimes change their position within a civilization, becoming more central and replacing or fusing with old centers within a civi lization. For example, the sccietics of ancient Palestine had never been more than periplietal within the Near Kast. ‘There was a succession of centers all around it and violent rivalry among them, but in all the flux Palestine re ‘mained peripheral. It was only through its incorporation frst into Hellenistic civilization and then into Graceo-Roman civilization that Palestine became a rajor center from which religious beliefs expanded. But after about a third of ‘a millennium and after it had expanded into the previous center of the Medi- terranean civilization, it lod its central position to Rome, which for several centuries previously had been the major center of the Graeco-Roman world for other functions. Just as the peripheries within particular societies are not merely or always passive absorbents of what comes to them from the center, so the societies ‘which were taken by other societies as peripheries were not always submissive ide of the submission to influences from the previous external centers. Alo ‘of the peripheral society to the central society, there was also a hostile preoeccupation with the extemal center, a determination to reject its influence and to reaffirm the virtues of the indigenous society and the indigenons intellec tual eulture, It should also be pointed out that even for reveptive peripheral societies there has usually been a plurality of centers. Likewise for any central icety there was a plurality of distinctive peripheries, each reacting differently to the expansion from the center These peripheral societies have never been fully assimilated into the eivi lizations formed by their centers. For such complete assimilation to oceut each of them would have to renounce completely its distinctive langiage, na- tionality, political order, legal order, and the image stored in and recalled intermittently from memory ofits own distinetive past. Such complete renin ciations do not acenr The movement of expansion of one central sociely or civilization into pe= ripheral societies or civilizations has not been wnitateral. In eertain respects, the peripheral societies have also been centers for the otherwise central so ciety. The function of Greece in the provision of philosophical instruction and literary patterns for Rome is an instance of this relationship, The expan: sion of religions from the Eastem Mediterranean periphery to the Roman center is another instance. A somewhat different patter of central reception from the periphery is illustrated by the development in Western Europe from the seventeenth and the twenticth centuries of scholarly knowledge of Asian and Aftican languages, literatures, religions, and societies vl My interest has always been in the integration of society. I was never satisied with the argument that society is integrated by “common values” or by “shared values.” The statement might turn out tobe true once we know what we mean by “common” or “shared.” Ido not think that Robert Maclver or Talcott Parsons were ever able to say just what they meant by these words, It was cither too difficult for them, or they were content to believe that their was selfevident. ted —to the extent that it Vat all, that it isa petpetual war of each against all, where a condition of apparent peace Nor could I accept the views that society is int is integrated—through the market alone or thal its not integra fulness is maintained by the occurrence or threat of cacrcion. Lalso could not accept the view, which was current in the 1930s and early 1940s, that it was entirely a product of “a common faith”; the proponents of this view never stated what the objects ofthis faith were, ‘These were the reasons why timed to the study of personal primary groups as the explanation of the integration of 264 society. (At fist, 1 delib ‘cause, although they mig and religious sets or ey society could ever becom sman beings cannot remai a semblance of an ideolo into the routines of life o Durkheim’ idea of th own preference was for enough to satisfy myself to leave the whole probler hhow collectvites become satisfactory not only fr the formation of the sup ficial —although often ext petween the ego and the s Since the 1930s, 1 was makes a large aggregate oF the classes or in the empi [think that the develo) riphery isa step in the rig) riphery” is a definitive an fruitful beginning. The ae pendent analyses, in many cry” in mind and freely in am very far from claim Thave found it unaided. ¥ my present tate of unders preceded me and moved a came upon the conee steps toward the idea of ce rection. Looking back, the idea of centers and petiphy viel communism, Germ: nnote theoretical interest it tarian ideologies —I use th View that the best organi dominated all the res of able, Such subcenters as wto reject its influence and 4 the indigenous intellee- infor receptive peripheral 5, Likewise for any central s, cach reacting differently assimilated into the civi lete asimilation to occur tsdistinctive language, na- age stored in and recalled ast, Such complete remuin- iety or civilization into pe lateral In certain respects rhe otherwise central so f philosophical instruction stelationship. ‘The expan= 1 periphery to the Roman 2attern of central reception ft in Western Europe from rolatly knowledge of Asian wocieties cociety: | was never satisied “common values” or by be true once we know what nk that Robert Maclver or sy meant by these words. It antent to believe that their grated —to the extent that it isnot integrated at all, that ondition of apparent peace 2feoercion. Lalso could not and eanly 1940s, that it was sponents of this view never -xethe reasons why [tured anation of the integration of ical primary groups” be tely excluded “ideolo be adequate to explain the conduct of political society. (At first, I delibe ceause, although they mig and religious sets or even of a political sect in power, I was convinced that 10 iety could ever becone ideological for mote than a very short time. Hur rman beings cannot remain ideological for very long, atid they could persist in wmients of it 1 semblance of an ideological orientation only by accepting into the routines of life or by being hypocritical.) Durkheim idea of the conscience collective did not help me either. My own preference was for “consensus,” but L could never define it precisely enough to satisfy myself, The Freudian idea of the “superego” seemed to me to leave the whole problem of how individuals ate attached to collectivities or how collectivities become solidary in an utterly unsatisfactory slate. Itwas un= satisfactory not only for the vety problematic character of its explanation of the formation of the superego but also for its very anechanical and super: often extraordinarily complicated —aecount of the relations ficial —althe between the ego and the supe Since the 1930s, I wes trying to arsive at av a society, Nothing that I read in ible account of what ate of human beity makes a hinge aggre the elassies or in the empirical inves think th riphery isa step in the right diteetion. | do not intimate that “center and pe fons answered my questions. the development of the conceptual scheme of center and pe riphery” is a definitive answer, It is only a beginning, but 1 think that is a fruitfal beginning, ‘The achievements ofa number of eolleagues in their inde- pendent analyses, in many different situations, made with “center and petiph- ery" in mind arid freely interpreted, have encouraged me in this undertaking, Lam very far from claiming either that [have found the right solution or that have found it unaided. What follows is an account of how [ have arrived at my present state of understanding and of how much f owe to those who have preceded me and moved abreast of me Teame upon the concepts of center and periphery very indirectly. My first steps toward the idea of eenters and peripheries were rather in the reverse di rection. Looking back, the problems which gave rise some decades later to the idea of centers and peripheries were first put before me by my interest in So- viet communisin, Gertran national socialism, and Halian fascism against jon of society. All ofthese thee total ‘more theoretical interest in the integ larian ideologies —I use the word “ideology” here advisedly—represented the view that the best orgarization of society was one in which a single center dominated all the rest of society: no partially independent centers were toler able. Such subcenters as would be permitted were to be entirely subordinatedto the all-powerful center which would hold ultimate authority to command action, to determine and require right beliefs, and to suppres ny petsons oF groups who attempted to act independently and to think and believe accord ing to their own lights, Soviet communism from about 1929 put forward such att organization of society as the ideal that would prevail until the final stage when the state would wither away, men would cease to be administered, only things would be ninistered. ‘There would be no permanent bureaueracy; anyone who could read, write, and do sums could participate in the administration of things while human beings would be entitely free, Atthat stage, there would nno longer be any all-encompassing center; the members of society would be any periphery since no center of society would exist in that highest stage of human development make their own centers freely and as they saw fit, There would no lon The national socialist and fascist ideals were very litte diferent except that they were willing to allow a semblance of autonomy to the owners of privat property and that they did not hold out, as a final stage of human existence, the prospect of a society without a center. The Communist, National Socialist, and Fascist views about a completely ‘monopolistic center—quite apart from their presentation ofa very tntruthfil picture of their respective societies and their ethically utterly repugnant prac tices—was unacceptable to me on the grounds that stich an ascenaney of a single center in society coukd never be realized. Nevertheless, there were many writers in the United States nd Westen Europe who took these claims at face value. The readiness to believe in such falsification became more acute in the early years of the Second World War when the Germans were advancing in the West and Fast. It was alleged by many writers who asserted that they did not sympathize with National Socialist, Fascist, andl Communist tyrants but who explained the German military advance by the combina- tion of profound attachment to the National Socialist ideal om the pat of the Geninat soldiers and to the unity of Germany under the National Socialist leadership which not only controlled German society in an unnqulifiedly cen alized pattern but also inspired the German soldiers. ‘They argued that the National Socialist rulers of Germany enjoyed their dominance because the nian people—the periphery—swere moved preponderantly by their devo tion to the Nazi elite who embodied the ideal I thought that it was impossible for a center to establish such complete as ccondaney over an entite society even to the outermost edges of the peripher and for all of German society to be united under the dominion of the Fiihrer id his entourage. My Second World Warsup the conduct of Germar gree of solidaity of the loyalty to the smal eo fective noneommissior fittle talk about the Fi Vaterland. In short, it face relationships of pr latter to more senior 0 effective military collec This was enttely ec the willing and unwil gimes in contrast with the liberal-democraie bodies and societies an personal tes of small to the center, that i, th Twas fortified in th bach’s “Die soziolo acquainted in Die Dio ideas about primary gr also had a place in my ismatic qualities in the cially brave, skillful whole and to the count which I did not analyze American Soldier whic Anny” followed the s analysis of the Welirma the Soviet Army whicl with my wartime colle mer soldiets of the So prisoners of war and w anxl the attachment te They reinforced the p. sented the symbols of the minds of these soklate authority to command {o suppress any persons or » think and believe accord ied such an organization of final st vistered, only things would bureaucracy; anyone who se when the te fin the administration of At thats members of society would There would no longer be sist in that highest stage of rylitte different except that iy to the owners of private I stage of human existence it views about a completely nlation ofa very untruthful ally utterly repugnant prac nat such L Nevertheless, there were itope who took these claims ascendaney of a falsifications became more ar when the Germans were yy many writers who asserted list, Fascist, and Communist advance by the combina. ialst ideal on the part of the ander the National Socialist {ely in an unqualifiedly cen ed that the heir dominance because the reponderantly by their devo- > establish such complete as- most edges of the periphery «the dominion of the Fuhrer and his entourage, My own observations with the German army during the Second World War supported a very different idea, What impressed me about the conduct of German soldiers uncler conditions of eombat was the high de re sina} groups under fire, the fact that this solidarity or sive of solidarity of Jovalty to the sinall group was focused on particularly brave, skillful, and pro fective noncommissioned and junior officers and that there was relatively Tittle talk about the ihrer, National Socialism, or even Deutschland or the Vaterland. In short, it was the integration of the army through the face-to- face relationships of privates to noncommissioned and junior officers, of the latter to more senior officers, and so on, that held the Genman army as an effective military collectivity: This was entirely contrery to what had been commonly throught among the willing and unwilling admirers of the “faith” aroused by totalita times in contrast with wha they eriticized or deplored as the “lass of faith” of the liberal-democratic societies. Brom this | concluded that large corporate bodies and societics are held together in states of effectiveness and order by persona ties of sina groups which mediate the attachment ofthe inuividuats fo the center, that is, the directing authorities of the collectivity as a whole 1 was fortified in this inlerpretation by my reading of Hermann Schmalen bach’ "Die soziologische Kategorie des Bundes” swith which 1 had become sequined ity Die Diaskurer before the war and of Charles Horton Cooley’ ideas about primary groups. Max Weber's ideas about charismatic authority cated the char iso had a place in my understanding of this phenomenon; lI ieinatic qualities in the noncorumissioned and junior officers and other espe “cally brave, skillful, and protective soldiers. ‘The loyalty to the army as a Mhole and to the country asa whole was accepted by me ava residual category Which Idid not analyze further. My “re-analysis” of the data prescuted in The American Soldier which | published as “Primary Groups i the American Army” followed the same line of interpretation as 1 had developed in my 1 pushed this analysis little further in a study of analysis of the Wekrmac the Soviet Amy which I initiated in 1950 and carried out in collaboration ith my wartime colleague Henry Dicks on the basis of interviews with for- vet soldiers of the Soviet army forces who had been taken to Germany as prisoners of war andl who had escaped the repatriation the allied powers i Fosed on them. In the Soviet army, the solidarity ofthe small group of solders pend the attachment to a strong immediate superior were both important They reinforced the patriotism, attachment to Russia, and whoever repre sented the symbols of the Russian fatherland. AIL this was still prominent it the minds of these soldiers who had refused to return to the tyranny of theSoviet Union. Despite the paueily of our data—we had less than 100 inter vviews—and the fact that the events about which we were enquiring hadl ac curred more than five years earlier, it was still possible to say that attachment to the ruling center of a society was not entirely dircet but that it was rather dependent on affective attachment to immediately present equals and to visible “representatives,” that i, the subsidiary centers ofthe central authority Attachment directly to the central Soviet authority as the representative of the idea of Russia existed. The attachment was to it as the “embodiment” of the charismatie quality resident in Russian nationality rather than to any comme nistic political ideal embodied in the leaders of the Communist party. ‘The ly medi at the time of my conclusion of these studies was that attachment to a center was lat ated by atkachment to subsidiary subeenters. | think t various studies of the German, American, and Soviet armies, I emphasized the subsidiary subcenters more than the centers, This was justifiable, but it was not the whole story Inthe second half of rolably, Reflexions sur la violence, Although I had been reading Sorel for nore than two decades, | finally found the clue to what was on his mind, 1949, | re-read some of Georges Sorel’ writing, most That was his desire that the working class should form an ideological primary group, based on the small corporate bodies of the trade unions and united by the exhilaration of the ideal of the general strike into an eestatie fraternity This was another image of social integration around a transcendental ideal, this time the transcendental ideal of socialism, It entailed the rejection of the existing earthly center and the turning of thought and conduct toward an ideal having no existing institutional embodiment other than the bourses le travail Sorel praised Lenin jet Union as the which contained the ideal only in potentiality. Althou in the “Plaidoyer pour Lénine,” he did no cathly center as so many intellectuals had been doing since 1917, The “cen ler” for Sorel—he did not use the term —was an ideal without any Locus i pace. Its prormulgator was Sorel; he did not regard himself as anythin than the annunciator. He was what Max Weber called an ethical prophet; he net who put forward the ideal in his writings and in conversations. was a pre twas not attachment to himself that he sought to promote but attachment to the ideal. A sect can become an earthly transcendental center for sectarians for them, the sect is vessel of the transcendental center, Sorel had no such to become a svet around the ideal, that is, sect around him; he wanted soci the myth of the general strike Sorel’ hope lay in the small collectivities of the syndicalist movement as a constellation of centers dispersed over the national territory of France, He 6 hoped for a unifieati slitutional center but of the general strike unions and the “ger about how primary g circles, and the like= the essential features the members with eat Neither Sorel nor central charismatic pe this deficiency: That The royal eoromati «dom gave me an opp society through a rit ciety, and focused on saw in the coronation celebration of the cor the country was a pro Welirmacht in the See with immedia pres ciety through disperse 1 ritual which conse stirred reminiscences ¢ nore on my mind w Smith's Lectures om th transcendental center was still vague in my t The Meaning oft time to discerning the ‘was more apparent tor entire society experier the presence of the mo of center and peripher Atabout the same time 1 part of my work on sovereignty, that i, int Indies, read a bit abotve had less than 100 inter wwe were enquiring had oc- sible to say that attachment lireet but that it was rather ly present equals and to tersofthe central authority asthe representative of the s the “embodiment” of the rather than to any commu Zommunist party. ‘The he 2 center was largely medi ink that atthe time of my viet armies, | emphasized This was justifiable, but it corges Sorel’ writing, most nad been reading Sorel for to what was on his mind ‘orm an ideological primary trade unions and united by nto an cesati fraternity rund transcendental ideal, entailed the rejection of the ind conduct toward an ideal ‘than the bourses de travail though Sorel praised Lenin rd the Soviet Union as the loingsinee 1917, The “cen: ideal without any locus in himself as anything alled an ethical prophet; he itings and in conversations. ‘promote but attachment to dental center for sectarians, Teenter. Sorel had no such sctaround the ideal, that is, esyndicalist movement as a ral territory of France. He hoped for a unification of these dispersed centers not by an authoritative in stituitional eenter but rather through participation in the transcendental “myth of the general strike.” Oddly enough, Sorel ideas about syndicalist trade tmions and the “genera. strike” bore some resemblance to Cooley’ views about how primary groups—familics, neighborhoods, workshops, friendship circles, and the like—would be antalgamated into a national society having the essential features ofthe primary group except for the absence af contact of the members with each other in face-to-face situations, Neither Sorel nor Cocley saw any focus around an institutional center ora central charismatic person as a point of concentration. | took no exception to this deficiency, ‘That was my fut, [soon hada chance to correet this omission, The roval coronation of Elizabeth IL in 1953 as queen of the United King dlom gave me an opportcnily to think about the intermittent unity of a Large sociely through a ritual, participated in, in varying degrees, by the entire so ciety, and focused on the Crown as the central institution of British society. | saw in the coronation ceremony a national communion, ‘The widespread celebration of the coromition through numerous street festivals throughout the country was a proces—not entiely different front the integration of the Wekrmacht in the Second World War—in whieh niany' small primary groups with immediately presen! centers of their own were fused into a national so- ciety through dispersed end simultancous participation in the celebration af 2 ritual which consecrated the new monarch, The sight of the coronation stirred reminiscences of Durkheim, but Robertson Smith was, in fact, much more on my mind wher F conceived that essay, Tt was also in Rob Smiths Lectures on the Karly Rel on of the Semites that I saw the idea of the transcendental center an its tclationship to the earthly center. But the idea was still vague in my mind, The Meaning of the Coronation” was the closest I had come up to that time to disceming the paltern of center and periphery. ‘The idea of the center ws more apparent to methan the idea ofthe periphery. Stll the image of the tire society experiencing more tangibly, in the days of the Coronation, the presence of the monarch was leading me nearer to the explicit observation of center and periphery together. vil Atabont the same time that I wrote the essay on the Coronation, Lalso began as part of my work on itellectuals to study intellectuals in societies without sovervignty, that i, intellectuals in “pariah societies.” [ began with the West Indies, read a bit about East Africa, and then began to try to learn about India, [saw that the presence or absence of sovereignty was not the most impor tant feature of the relationship of modem intellectuals of colonial countries ti xd culture of their foreign rulers. It was only a complicating fac~ the society tor in the more fundamental relations of what 1 was beginning to call “me from the second half of topolis” and “province.” ‘The Chinese intellectua the nineteenth century and the Japanese intellectuals beginning a litle later showed some of the orientations as the intellectuals of colonial countries The next step toward fixing in my mind the conception of a pattem com. prising the two phenomena simultaneously came when [attempted to draw together my ideas about the culture of the Indian intellectuals whom I studied al first hand in 1955 and 1956—and thereafter for periods of from several weeks to.a month cach year until about 1968, First in “The Culture of th Indian Intellectual” and then in “Metropolis and Province in lntellectual Life,” [began to become more aware of the underlying patter of the orienta: tion of modem Indian intellectuals. It was only after I wrote “Metropolis and Province” for a volume of essays in honor of the late Professor D. R, nd “periphery” recom whom | admired greatly, that the terms “center mended themselves to me, The two pairs of terms—"metropolis and prow ince” and “center and periphery”—themselves first accurted to me asa set of categories for describing the relations between the intellectuals of one society nd the intellectual works, standards, lations between Indian intellectuals and British literary and scientific eulture, 1 institutions of another society. Re sshich was the main object of my attention at that time, seemed to make more sense when they were deseribed as the relations between a periphery and a center to which the periphery was attentive and which was exemplary to the periphery. Although the two concepts were very vague and my understanding oftheir relationships was very undifferentiated, I could see that they were by zeneralily was vindicated in 1958, when I wrote The Intellectual between Tradition and Modernity. Even while 1 1s doing the interviews several years earlier, I could sce the similarities of the ‘orientation of madern Inclian intellectuals to Western intellectual things with the orientations of Russian intellectual in the nineteenth century and Western Europe intellcetual works and Western European intellectual institutions. 1 saw that both could he deseribed in a generalized way in the categories of periphery and center. Likewise the relations of American intellectuals to French, German, and British intellectual works and institutions were suscep. tible to analysis in those categories. When I went back to informa myself better about the relationships of Chinese and Japanese intellectuals to European and Ametican intellectual works and institutions, at the end of the nineteenth and then the early twentie be similarly interpret In the autumn of sentation at a meetin, Science. ‘This was thy and periphery forthe erably revised form, 1 Periphery.” I soon h formulations In the 1950, ther States a rather cusiot themes: “high culture masses were being det and working class eul ests. There were other were drawn upon as. ciety in the twentieth sion; U had read the w fur Sozialforsehung; 1 self translated Mann bruchs. I dealt sume Daydreams and Nigh partly because 1 was ¢ and historical ignoran notably Horkheimer @ nomenon itself, I was said—correctly—that Marsists who did not the working easss for they would be agents ment by socialism. Th mass society should, it ceptance of the obviow lutionary destiny of th working classes had no nists, they put the blan and on the working mass culture Caities of mass socnly was not the most impor= tuals of colonial countries to sas only a complicating fac was beginning to call “me- tals from the second half of twals beginning a little later als of colonial counties. ‘onception of a pattem com- e when [attempted to draw intellects whom I studied for periods of fom several fist in “The inl Province in Intellectual tying patter ofthe orien fer wrote “Metropolis and fe Professor D. R. Gad 2" and “periphery” recom mms—"metropolis and prov- sstoceurrel to me as ase of ccintllectuals of one society tions of another society. Re wulture of the iterary and scientific culture time, seemed to make more between a periphery and a which was exemplary to the sague and my understanding, could see that they were by Tity was vindicated in 1958, and Medernity. Even while | ruld see the similarities of the ster intellectual things with, eteenth century and Western 1m intellectual institutions. [ zed way in the categories of AF American intellectuals to and institutions were suscep back to inform myself better intellectuals to European. and heend of the nineteenth and then the early twentieth century, I was confirmed in my view that they could be simiarly interpreted, In the autumn of 1958, I wrote “The Macrosociological Problem” for pre~ sentation at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ‘This was the fist time that | set forth explicitly the ideas of center and periphery for the analysis of the internal structure of society. In a consid erably revised form, | published the substance of this paper in "Center and Periphery.” I soon had another occasion on which to try to improve my formulations. In the 1950s, there had come upon the intellectial scene inthe United Slates a rather curious agitation about “mass society.” It had a few major themes: “high culture” was in danger of degradation by “mass society"; the masses were being degeded in mass society which was replacing folk culture and working class cultures mass culture was creation of commercial inter sts, There were other tiemes but they, like those I have just mentioned, all were drawn upon as evidence of the untedeemable awlulness of bourgeois so ely in the twentieth century. Louk! not avoid being drawn into this discus sion; [ had read the writings of Horkheimer and his friends in the Zeitschrift fir Sozialforschung; | ako wad Ledeter’s The State of the Masses, U had my self translated Mannheim’s Mensch und Gesellschaft im Zeitalter des Um bruchs. (dealt surmarily with the crities of mass society in an essay entitled ‘Daydreams and Nightmares,” but 1 did not go to the heart of the mater partly because I was mote interested in diserediting the spurious a guments and historical ignorance of most of the contributors to the diseussion, most tably Horkheimer and MacDonald, than Twas in dealing with the phe- nomenon itself. | was not satisfied that [had done the right thing when 1 said—corteetly—that many of the erities of mass society were disappointed Maraists who did not blame the falsity of their own theory but instead blamed the working they would be agents of the abolition of bourgeois society and of its veplace- asses for not having conformed with the foolish expectation that ment by socialism, The censuce of the disillusioned and embittered critics of ‘mass society should, in my view, have been tured on themselves for the ae- cceptance ofthe obviously preposterous notions of the Marxists about the revo- Iutionary destiny of the industrial working class. Instead, to explain why the working classes had not become revolutionary Marxian Socialists or Comm nists, they put the blame an the bour visie for cortupting the working classes and on the working clases for having allowed themselves to be corrupted by mass culture Cities of mass society were easy game, but there was something better tobe said on “mas society.” I had an opportunity to do this in about 1960 when Roger Caillois asked me to let him have a paper for Diggéne. [chose as my topic “The Theory of Mass Society.” In that papet, I put to work my recently slated ideas of center and periphery. I contended there that a major change had occurred in Wester societies over the centers from the ancien régime to the middle of the twentieth century, This was the diminution ofthe distance between centers and peripheries. ‘This seemed to me to be a development of sncntal moral importance; at lower level it was for me a step. the most fa fonward because it showed that the simple distinction between center and pe Fiphery was susceptible of elaboration an application, Ofcourse, Tocqueville hhad made something lke this his cental theme of de la Démocratie en Ame que and L’Ancien Regime et la Rés tion. His argument about the inexo- rable, forward march of equality was in general right, and in some respect what I was saying was in agreement with Tocqueville’ proposition. Yet, it seemed to me that the forvard movement of equality did not quite say what L ‘was trying to say. ‘Tocqueville said nothing about the changes in the attitudes of the governments of the nineteenth century which were in my view of im. portance in the reduction of the size ofthe gap between center and periphery Tocqueville emphasized the resentment against inequality on the patt of the ‘mass of the population, In my terms, there was a heightened and more wide spread desire for fuller membership in cach national society. Membership is ‘more than equality of opportunity or the climination of the legally guaranteed privileges of birth or the casting down of the mighty, The motives of the cen: ter in the promotion of what ‘Tocqueville called equality by the abolition of ql haps a fanetion of the desire to gather all power into its hands and to abolish liberties sand privileges of the estates, guilds, and municipalities were pet areas of austonomy within the society. ‘This was probably true of the bureau racy under the Bourbon monarchy in France in the seventeenth and eigh teenth centuries. But this did not account for the desire for equality on the peripheral sectors of society. As far as the nineteenth century was part of the concemed, there was an expansion of the idea that the “fourth estate” had to be assimilated. Not less important, perhaps more important, was the deste of some parts ofthe periphery to become assimilated into thet society. It vas in cd civility of Western European societies that it further into society, not only be the lower classes mist be br ause other wise they would become menace to public order aux safety—this suscly was not a negligible consieration—but because they lived in the national ter ilory, were in most eases horn in it and fought in its wars, They were regarded 1s being entitled to citizenship om these grout, I do not wish to hat | think analys lion of the moveme ward still left the bs My thought on wrote the essay on dof the 1950s, a Center and Periph not think of casting ariaility between dency ofthe rulers Affica to be relutar population, inchudir center. ‘This, despite hhold a monopoly of populations have not keep the periphery a except through obedi ‘sav on “Charisma, ¢ Testended the meani Although I had d rently, failed, up to that the analysis of th powers belongs withi possession of eherism can be largely monop the periphery—migh (qualities in the periph that this was one in 1 was still inthe sa the early 1960s, Now centrality and the attr sions worked on prob Weber's writings on th tions ofthe phenome in the distibution of economie status" whie bution of income and had never been satisfa» do this in about 1960 when for Diogine. I chose as my ef, I put to work my recently AG there that a major cha 1s from the ancien régime to diminution of the distance me to be a development of wer level it was for me a step stion between center and pe= ition, Of course, Tocqueville { de la Democratic en Ameri- argument about the inexo- Tight, and in some respect Iueville’ proposition. Yet, it iality dd not quite say what I tthe changes in the attitudes, hich were in my view of im cetween center and periphery inequality on the part of the ‘heightened and more wide= ional society. Membership is antecd tion ofthe legally ahty. The motives of the cen Tequality by the abolition of andl municipalities were per- into its hands and to abolish, probably true of the bureau in the seventeenth and eigh- the desire for equality on the isthe nineteenth century was hat the “fourth estate” had to ceimporlant, was the desire of ced into their society, Ht was in tern European societies that ciety, nat only because other lerand safety—this surely was hey lived in the national te nits wars, They were regarded 1 do not wish to go into detail here; | have done so to this extent to show what I think analysis in terms of center and periph adds to the interpreta tion of the movement toward equality made by Tocqueville, But this step for- ward still left the basie conception in need of much clarification, My thought on this matter was still far from being systematized when 1 wrote the essay on “The Concentration and Dispersion of Chatisma” at the ced of the 1950s, a little earlier than “The Macrosociologieal Problem” and ‘Center and Periphery” but after I wrote “Metrop not think of casting my analysis in terms of. jis and Province.” I still did -enters and peripheries and the variability between them. I was using quite different terms to describe the tem dency of the rulers and bureaucrats of formerly colonial countries of Asia and Africa to be reluctant to acknowledge the qualifications of the mass of the population, including small businessmen, to share in the decisions of the center. ‘This, despite their populistic public declarations! Believing that they hold a monopoly of the eh rismatie qualifications and that the mass of the populations have none i the equivalent to the determination of the center to keep the periphery as far as possible from participation in central functions excep! through obedience. The same was true when a litte later I wrote the cessy on “Charisma, Onder and Status” for the centenary of Mas Weber, Here extended the meaning of the term “charisma” beyond Max Weber's usage Although I had developed bath these approaches more or less concur rently, [ failed, up to that point, to unify them. It now seems obvious to me that the analysis of the eoneentration and dispersion of reputedly charismate powers belongs within the conceptual scheme of center and periphery. ‘The possession of charisinatic qualities or having charismatic qualities attibuted ‘ean be largely monopolized by the center; of, alternatively, the eenter—and the periphery—might be disposed to attribute or acknowledge charismatic ‘qualities in the periphery, that is, the mass of the population. It seemed to me that this was one important tendeney in modem societies, | was still in the same situation when L wrote the essay on “Deference” in the eatly 1960s. Now it seems elear to me that there is a close link between centrality and the attibation of eharismatie qualities. I had on va sions worked on problems of social statifcation. I had long studied Max Weber writings on the reat world religions and his more general formulae tions of the phenomenon of charismatic authority. had also been interested n the distribution of “deference” or what has been called “status” or “social: {economic status” which was more than occupational distribution or the dist bution of income and wealth. ‘This phenomenon was extremely elusive, It hhad never been satisfacorily defined or described by sociologists, includingMax Weber. Lloyd Warner came closer to it, but with assumptions regarding xl objectivity of the six categories ofits distribution and the the precision extent of consensus about it; these assumptions vitiated his pioneering elfort to be realistic. ‘The study by Paul Hatt and Albert Reiss of the hierarchy of es teem of a wide range of aceupations showed that the internal stratification of society could not be understood as being exhaustively described by the dist bution of wealth, income, and power. ‘There isanother phenomenon running, alongside and through these unequal distributions; this is the distribution of the charismatic qualities that arc imputed to particular characterislies and ac tivities, The tendeney of human bei to discern charismatic qualities and to find them in cettain positions in society appeared fo me to be an important component in the steatification of any society, even those nominally highly secular. Occupations were stratified according to the charismatic properties, attributed to them and to their incumbents. ‘The stratification of a whole so- Ciety isa stratification aronmd centers believed to possess charismatic qualities, ies associated with the power fo determine the fortunes of hut that is, qual ‘man beings in their lifetime and thereafter. ‘There isa very rough, ambiguous ranking of roles, activities, and human beings with respect to the charismatic quality thought to be contained in oF associated with them, The ranking of cles according to their ostensible elarismatie properties is closely connected with the distribution of occupations and wealth and authority because they he objects that are assessed inthe light of the charismatic properties discerned in them, The attribution of charismatic properties to authority is what makes thy both thase in the center and center of society so significant to human being. those at its variously distant peripheries, This appearance of phenomena, which are conventionally called religious in the operation of nominally secu- larized political and social institutions, seemed to me to be a link in the pro cess of the establishment and enfeeblement of centers. ‘The shift in the locus of the charismatic within sociely—as seen by the members ofthat society —is one of the determinants of the gain or loss of ascendaney of a particular center and its reconstitution. Max Weber had dealt with the attenuation of the ‘charismatic in his account of the process of Verulltaglichung, but he did not dleal with its distibution and relocation in society or among societies. ‘This was the concern of the essay on “Charisma” written in the early 1960s. It dealt mote generally with the modes of atribution of charismatic qualities and the distribution in society of those qualities. My reflections on charisma ran parallel for a long time with my reflections ‘on center and periphery, but they ran in separate channels and it did not oc ccur to me that Iwas really nately related phenomena Very shortly after my re read the literature on “eeo1 ick by thei papers—American and Et ative economie powers test Arica. Lass sided in ordinary human second half ofthe 1950s ity view of economists and s¢ the educated and political ¢ granted by most observers rested in the state. It ocetn il spoken in derision, was, at] ficacy ofthe state as cont me, despite the allegedly sc nomic development, to res ciple of vox populi, vox de right of kings. In many soci lated in theological terms, « place of the doctrine of the countries of Asia and Aric the state could be interpre risma—to the center and lacking in the charismatic mocraey. What we were wi bination of a belief in the and the powerful with the bination of oligarchy with in communism and nation Thad first thou ivism” at the end of writing The Torment of See populismo russo which Le me much stimulation and p My analysis of the Indian i and the concentration of Indian society and the peatwith assumptions regarding s ofits distribution and the tiated his pioneering effort to Reiss of the hierarchy of es: tthe internal stratification of lively deseribed by the distri« yother phenomenon running, ns this is the distribution of cular characteristics and ac reharismatic qualities and to ed to me to be an important even those nominally highly (o the charismatic properties e stratification of a whole so- possess charismatic qualities, étermine the fortunes of hu feisa very rough, ambiguous ith respect to the charismatic with them. The ranking of ropertes is closely connected ind authority because they are ismatic properties discemed authority is what makes the both those in the center and appearance of phenomena, ‘operation of nominally secu tome to bea link in the pro. enters. The shift in the locus ‘emembers ofthat society —is endaney ofa particular center with the attenuation of the buthe did not iety oF among societies. ‘This tem in the easy 1960s. It dealt charismatic qualities and the ralltaglichu long time with my reflections te channels and it did not oc- cur to me that Las rally thinking in different terminologies about very inti rately related phenonena, sometimes even identical phenomena, Very shortly after ny relurn fiom my longest sojourn in India, I began te read the literature on “economic development” of the new states of Asia and Africa. I was struck by she insistence of most of the authors of these books and papers—American and European as well as indigenous authors—that ere ative economic powersrested largely in government, while no such capacities resided in ordinary human beings. This view was not unanimous, but in the second half of the 195(s it pretty well dominated the field. It was not only the view of economists ard social scientists it was the prevailing view among the educated andl political elases in their respective countries, It was taken for granted by most obsewers and participants that ercative economie powers rested in the state, It occurred fo me that the tendency of Indian intellectuals to refer to the Indian Civil Service as the “heaven-born,” although ostensibly spoken in derision, was, at botiom, more seriously intended. ‘The belie inthe efficacy of the state as contrasted with the efficacy of the citizenry seemed to imc, despite the allegedly secular and scientific shetoric of the theory of eve: omic development, to rest on a fundamental belief that rejected the prin- ciple of vox populi, wx dei, which had replaced the principle of the divine ight of kings. In many societies inthe present century, a doctrine, not artiu: ated in theological terms, of the “divine right of government” was taking the place of the doctrine of the “divine right of kings.” Especially in the poorer countries of Asia and Africa, this tendency toward the quasi-divinization of he state could be interpreted as a readiness to attribute sierality—or cha- risma—to the center and to re lacking 1d the periphery, that is, the populace, as the charismatic qualities postulated by the theory of political de moctacy. What we were witnessing in these societies was a paradoxical com bination of a belief in the superior charismatic endowment of the educated ancl the powerful with the frequent invocation of the people. It was a com bination of oligarchy vith populism; the same phenomenon was to be found inv communisin and nstional socialist, [ad frst thought seriously about “populism” when | worked on American vativisin” at the end of the 1930s, and then more claborately when L was writing The Torment of Secrecy in about 195: Professor Franco Venturis I! populismo russo which I read shortly after its appearance in about 1953 ‘me much stimulation and material for comparisons with American populist My analysis of the Indian intellectuals’ ambivalent attitude toward socialism and the concentration of authority on the one hand and toward traditional Indian society and the peasantry that carried it—fortunately for India therewere some intellectuals who were rather free from both sides ofthis ambivalent pattern of attachient—taised difficult questions [still have not resolved. Nevertheless, my reinterpretation of Max Weber ideas about ¢ qualities moved my thought further toward the interpretation of the atti bution of superior wisdom and virtue to the mass of the population as a phe rnomenon of the closing of the gap between center and periphery. Populism in its more extreme form is in fact an effort, or a pretense of an effort, to bring the periphery eloser to centrality ‘The simultaneous eagemess on the part of the educated and the political clases to extend the jurisdition of the center, and the readiness of the periphery to agree to this extension and even to de mand it, presents a complex problem for analysis which is not confined to countries which were recently heterocephalous colonies. (I wrote about this in“The Intellectuals andl Their Discontents” about a decade ago; there {dealt with the United States, but the observations may easily be extended to other societies.) My work on “tradition was another approach to the analysis of the center, Teas b gun a little before [ came upon the ideas of metropolis and province and the concentration arid dispersion of charisma. For many years, it allel to these interests. Pethaps more ratiocinative exertion would have en= abled me to sce the points where these plienomena came together. It took me too long to see that the past can be a locus of the center as an ideal to be realized and to be reenacted Attachment to symbols of “pastness” is one of elements in the refusal to seek new ways of doing things. ‘The great tenacity of certain pattems of culture in society is not wholly explicable by reference to this “power of the past nonetheless, attachment to the pastis a weighty factor. The ascendancy of the from its acknowledged embodi- J eustodianship of the symbols of certain “charismatic” events which are thought to have occurred in the past. The continuity of a government with, macy on i great figures and obligatory its “founding events” confers le constitutional documents are among these “charismatic events Although the explicit adduction of the concept of center and petiphery has nol always occurred in my weitings even when my analyses were relatively casily translatable into those texms, the relations between centers and periph ties have almost without exception been the unxlerlyin T cite, for example, my several papers on privacy. I can now see a fairly clearly continning line from my study of freedom in teaching and research in the social sciences which I did in 1938 cunning through my interest in polit cal and religious toleration in England in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen: turies (on which I have snainly in The Bulletin of ‘ment of Seerey), ay form ‘my numerous papers on tions (to be published int sy papers on privaey. Th the autonomy of individua of society and within then “Privacy: Its Constitutic devoted to this theme. ‘Tl pansion of the center into power of the state has grow nitive expansion,” [saw th amalgamation of informat siow of the capacities ofth reach into the spheres inte that they have done in re center into the periphery | cognitive expansion. The with a heightening ofthe the center. Hence the opt ripheral and rival centers liamentary and governme The same observation and intellectual traditions tuals to other parts of the lions with respect to the intellectual and the Power lions between sectors ofth cearthly—political, econo! lesiastical powers. I eon traditions of the transcend ter, Lalso touched there ot tion as the correct exponet the most elevated sort and vay, seek primacy of con “They seck its ultimate lay snore vital than what othe) retains anid depictions «both sides ofthis ambivalent I till have not resolved. sets ideas about charismatic interpretation of the attri- of the population as a phe- and periphery. Populism in lense of an effort, to bring ous eagerness on the part of 1e jurisdiction of the center, s extension and even to de- js which is not confined to colonies. (I wrote about this uta decade ago; there I dealt cesily be extended to other to the analysis of the center. sof metropolis annd province ( Formany years, it ran par ve exertion would have ene va came together. It took me the center as an ideal to be of elements in the refusal to of eriain patterns of culture to this “power of the pa actor. The ascendancy of the mits acknowledged embodi- 1 charismatic” events which, itinuity of a reat figures and obligatory tc events wvernment with of center and periphery has s were «clatively between centers anc! periph derlying theme ivacy. eats now see a fairly nin teaching and research in tough my interest in polit: eenteenth and eighteenth cen- luries (on which 1 have never published anything), through my writings (onainly in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and culminating in The Tor ment of Secrecy), my formulation of the idea of the scientific community, and my manerous papets on universities and other scholarly and scientific institt tions (to be published in the fourth volume of my selected papers), and into ny papers on privacy. The same theme constantly reemerged. ‘The theme is nfrontation with the centers the autonomy of individuals and institutions in e of society and within them. Privacy: Ils Constitution and Vicissitudes” and "Privacy and Power" were devoted to this theme. ‘They traced in very general lines the continuous ex pansion of the center ialo the zones of privacy over the past century, as the power of the state has gown and with it belief in the rightfulness ofits “ei nitive expansion.” [saw the new technology of observation —of recording and amalgamation of information into data banks—as a very considerable exten: sion of the capacities of the center, especially of government and the press, to reach into the spheres into which they had not hitherto intruded to the extent that they live done in recent years, At the same Lime, the expansion of the center into the periphery has heightened the resistance of the periphery to the cognitive expansion. ‘The expansion of the center has also been concurrent with a heightening of the demand of the periphery uot to be excluded from the center. Hence the apposition to governmental secreey on the part of pe- ripheral and rival centers in society and their demand for the epenuess of pa liamicntary and governmental proceedings to eyes at the periphery The same observation may also be made of my writings on intellectuals aud intelectual traditions. In these have dealt with the relation of intellec twas to other parts of te center and with the autonomy of intelletual tad tions with respect to the demands of the center on intellectuals. In “The Intellectual and the Powers,” Ideal, in outline form, primarily with the rea tions betveen sectors ofthe center, atnely, the intellectuals in relationship to cetthly—political, economic, and military powers—and to spittual and ec- lesiastical powers. [conceived of intellectual a the cartiers of autonomous trations of the transcendental ecnter in ther relations with the earthly een- ter. [also touched there on the competition of various contenders for recogni tion as the correct expaments of the transcendental center. The intellectuals of the most elevated sort, and their lesser fellow-intellectuals in a more derivative way; seck i primacy of eonneetion with the transcendental center of existence They scck its ultimate laws. They attempt to disclose those things which are more vital than what olhers have scen; they claim primacy for their own inter pretations and depictions of vality—earthly and transcendental. In doing sothey come into conflict with these other sectors of the center which need Ie gitimacy, that i, the affirmation of their own primary relationships with ulti= imate laws, riorms, and slandards of judgment. ‘These are the reasons for the perpetual secking by intellectuals of the company of the earthly center and also for their frequent derogation of the claims of those other sectors of the center, These too are among the grounds for their alliances with the pe ices have never been as far-flung as they have become in riphery, These al radical, democratic, national, and nationalist movements of the past two centuries As [have said carlier, the terms “center” and “periphery” arose in my mind in the course of my work on Indian intellectuals. That in its tum had come cut ofthe prior interest in intellectuals in societies without sovereignty. It was therefore not unfitting that the contemplation of Indian intellectuals led me to a more comprchensive study of the societies in which those intellectuals were living, Again, the main theme could not he suppressed: the problems of the formation ofa center of a civil society out of numerous societies, relatively autonomons andl possessing parochial traditions as strong if not stronger than the traditions of the political center of the society Although Asia still semained in the forefront of my interests, | extended my attention to Africa, Although I neyer did intensive ficldwork in any African country, stich as I ad done in India, numerous sojourns in those countries and much reading of the literature whieh originated in Africa or which bore fn it made me sce that the theme of center and periphery had the power to illuminate the efforts made by the new elites ofthe formerly colonial and now independent states of Asia and Africa to “modernize” their societies. 1 saw those efforts as attempts, among other things, to establish relatively unified societies, with a unified national economy, with a clear and acknowled center and a common culture, from a heterogeneous assemblage of previously and still strong traditional, more or less tribal societies. ‘The problems entailed in the creation of a unified “modem” society by a newly arrived elite, from these disparate and divetse parochial peripheries, recaleitrant to the aspirant rulers, were illuminated for me when I viewed them as a drive to form centers and from these incipient centers to dominate their peripheries and to assimi- late thems into a common culture of the center In these past years, I have been engaged in an effort to bring together my ideas about center and periphery to enable me to deal with two tasks. ‘The frst of these tasks is the understanding of the constitution of society. ‘The second is the movement within and between societies and between civilizations of main kinds of knowledge—the knowledge of transcendental things, scientific knowledge, humanistic know knowledge of society, selkno piental knowledge, that is, wi Co achievements of a better unde ness, to go beyond Durkheim of the collective self while ad of methodological individual lective consciousness” sciousness in a large modem ideas of center and periphery. My study of the movement of learning such as Chinese b the history of science and sch cern times in the Oceident and the study of science policy ane «sted for many decades I to acquite new subjects and to Inowledgeis center and periphery 1 arm not by any published on thes the expansion ff A.D. Gorwal, am other papers on 8 have written and re lectures on “The Distbution University of Belfast pesuade feuitul solution Ivis clear that the tages that are the theme of this wo «quence, There have been ma ing back, Lam struck by two th U have studied many particla ny analysis of many very diffe sp the post social —of intellectuals, first Chinese, Japanese, and Affic grasp of the practhe center which need le tary relationships with ulti- tese are the reasons for the ‘of the eatthly center and F those other sectors of the acir alliances withthe pe ingas they have become in rovements of the past two criphery” arose in my mind That in its turn had come without sovereignty. It was Indian intellectuals led me which those intellectuals suppressed: the problems of merous societies, relatively strong iF not stronger than my interests, I extended my ve fieldwork in any African sojoums in those countries ted in Afvica or which bore periphery had the power to #formerly colonial and now mize” their societies. 1 saw + establish relatively unified ta clear and acknowledged aus assemblage of previously ates. The problems entailed ‘a newly artived elite, from ant recaleitrant to the asp asa drive to form ce i peripheries and to assimi 1 effort to bring together my {eal with two tasks, The first ition of society. ‘The second ind between civilizations of \scendental things, scientific knowledge, humanistic knowledge, practical-technological knowledge, the knowledge of society, sel-knowledge, the knowledge of other persons and sa- piental knowledge, that is, wisdom. Collective consciousiess” is essential to the conslitution of society: ‘The achievements of a better understanding of the nature of collective conscious ness, to go beyoned Durklieim by gaining a cleare of the collective self while adhering, within practicable limits of the postulate of methodological individualism, to make the conception of collective con asp of the phenomenon sciousness in large medern society realistic, is test of the powers of the ideas of cente My study of the movements of knowledge has carried ime ‘of learning such as Chinese history, th the history of science and scholarship in antiquity, the middle ages and mod- crm times in the Occident and the Orient. I have had to devote much time to the study of science policy ane! in many subjects m which | have been inter nnd periplery. Itisa test ofthe intellectual value of these ideas. to many fields study of ancient Israel anel of Iskam, ested for many decades. | have haul to reexamine what L knew previously and to acquire new knowledge. I have had to reconsider my knowledge of these subjects and to ask myself whether the understanding of the movements of knowledge is significantly illuminated by the differentiated use of the ideas of ‘center and periphery 1am not by any means pessimislie about the possibilities. Papers [ have published on these subjects over the past fifteen years encourage me. One on the expansion of knowledge published in the volume of essays in honor of A. D. Gorwala, and one on “The Universality of Science,” and a number of ‘other papers on expansion of religious knowledge, and the large manuscript 1 have written and rewritten over the dozen years since I delivered a series of lectures on “The Distribution of Knowledge” as the first Jones lecturer at the University of Belfast persuade me that the task isin principle susceptible to fruitful solution. This clear that the stages I have followed on the way to arriving at the ideas that are the theme of this work have not followed each other in a linear se- quence. There have bees many zigzags in the course of this sequence, Look ing back, [am struck by wo things. One is that over the course of five decades have studied many particular subjects. The same themes have reappeared in my analysis of many very different and very particular problems. ‘The efforts | hhave made to grasp the position and orientations —intellectual, political, and social—of intellectuals, fitst European and American and then of ln Chinese, Japanese, and African intellectuals, the attempt to obtain a better isp of the practice of seerecy and privacy, the analysis of personal and ideo-logical primary groups, my interest in political development in Asia and AF rica since the Second World War, my interest in the history of sociology in Europe and the United States, my concerns with the growth of scientific knowledge and its expansion in Europe, and from Europe to America, and from Europe and America to Asia, and with the problems of the promotion of scientific knowledge and its application did not begin with any determination to analyze them in the light of any theoretically claborate ideas. 1 began by trying to deal with each of them in the best way I could, My approach to them was undoubtedly affected by my study of the writings of Max Weber and to a lesser extent by Robert Park whose last seminar on “Collective Behavior” L had the good fortune to attend in 1934, but I did not approach any of these subjects with any theorctical scheme clearly in mind. I had of course a view: point, vague but fairly firm, formed by my study not only of the works of Weber, Durkheim, ‘Thomas, and Park and other leading sociologists of the past century and a half and of the great political philosophers of antiquity and cearly modern times as well as oF the classical and mexlern economists. In none cf my studies did attempt to impose or even apply the scheme of center and periphery, [began cach of my enquiries with an interest of a rather concrete nature Readers who have been schooled in the writings of Fhomas Hobbes, Berd rand Toennies, Henry Sumner Maine, Max Weber, Vilftedo Pareto, Emile Durkheim, Karl Mars, Georges Sorel, Roberto Michels, Wemer Sombart ier years, will discem many and William Robertson Smith, as I was in my ea cchoes of these writers; Max Weber was more important to me than any of the others although the othets have all left marks whieh, looking backward, | cean see fairly cleatly. ‘Those who are acquainted with the studies on Roman history and the extension and limits of Hellenization by the late Amaldo thi Momnigliano will sce his influence here. [owe son v6 to my associ tion with Michael! Polanyi Park and Thomas merit a fuller reference here. ‘They had studied the pro cesses entailed in the relationships of the immigrant and ethnic communities in the great American industrial cities, and the tension between the inherited traditional culture the immigrants brought with them and the central insite fF the United States which was their host-society. ‘Thon 1 The Polish Peasant in Europe and America written with ions and culture he Polish sociologist Florian Znaniecki, analyzed the personal and social dis organization of the Polish peasants when they moved from the periphery of Polish society, living under alien rule but kept coherent in part by their at achment to the transcendental centers of the idea of the Polish nation and the Roman Cathol ripheral to Ameti¢ anthly transeende ‘connection with nent to it, they bec growth of conneeti and contint of the Polish natin bot no authoritative Catholie Church w attachment through ganization” as he w: of a stable peripher: or exigent in its det ideal entity lying ov study of the Negro American urban soe tion of lower-class Both Park and’) ‘center” and “periph Park came closer to ecology.” In the eo Robert Park had bee ogy, and from it he |. recession, seg this schema to the position and moxem hhimselF inthe study was affected by the s ripheries in the Mi Galpin’ writings wit hem.) From these own particular stud elaborate here inten Although in re-e rnuich of what under fall of adumbration apparent to me, Ped time that I was forJevelopment in Asia and Af inthe history of sociology in sith the growth of scientific mm Kurope to America, and problems ofthe promotion of vegin with any determination ¥ elaborate ideas. 1 began by cculd, My approach to them tings of Max Weber and to a on “Collective Behavior” 1 id not approach any of these hind. Uhad of course a view= ry not only of the works o lt leading sociologists of the philosophers of antiquity and malem economists, In none oply the scheme of center and ir interest of a rather conerete aes of Thomas Hobbes, Ferd Veber, Vilficdo Pareto, Emile (6 Michels, Werner Sombar alr years, will discern man) important to me than any of Is which, looking backward, 1 a vth the studies on Roman nization by the late Amaklo something too to my associa ste, They had studied the pre mnt and ethnic communities tension between the inherited 1 thery and the eentral institu as their host-society. "Thomas rope and America written with zd the personal and social dis- moved from the periphery of a teoherent in part by their at- ea ofthe Polish nation an of the Roman Catholic Church. tn the United States, where they were so pe ripheral to Americar society and so shaken from their attachment to the cearthly transcendental center of the Polish nai of connection with the intermediate institutions that sustained their attach: ment to it, they becane “disorganized.” ‘Then they became stabilized by the 1 in consequence of thei lass growth of connections with the American center while at the same time re- newing and continuing their attachment to the earthly transeenclental center ‘of the Polish nation which, when they departed from Poland, had a territory but no authoritative center, and to the transcendental center of the Roman Catholic CI atch which through its nearly universal presence could hold their attachment through all their vicissitrdles, Thomas was as interested in “reor ganization” as he wasin disorganization. “Reorganization” was the formation of a stable peripheral attachment to a new center which was not so exclusive ‘or exigent in its demands that it could not coexist with an attachment to an ideal entity lying outside the United States. Patk had spent much time in the study of the Negro in the United States and Africa, He was interested in American tran societies and the national American societies and in the posi tion of lower-class immigrant groups within them, Both Park and ‘Thomas were clearly interested in what | much later ealled ‘center” and “periphery,” although they never quite formslated it in that way Park came closer to iin his development ofthe sociological study of “human cology.” In the coune of his study of the movement of huumaw populations Robert Park had become interested in the literature of animal and plant eco! ‘ogy, and from it he drew valuable stinlation for the consideration of inv and domination. He applied this schema to the processes of European expansion overseas as well as the position and movement of groups within American society. He also interested himself in the study of the influence of great cities over their hinterland. (Park was affected by the studies of Charles Galpin about small towns and their pe ripheries in the Middle West, and as a resull of Park’ interest [ studied Galpinis writings with much benefit to my thought many years after [ist read them.) From these Furopean writers and the two Americans and from my ‘own particular studies, 1 derived some of the components { have tried to ate here in terms of center and periphery Although in se-resding the writings of those fid 1 whom have acquired niuch of what understanding of society I posses, itis plain that their work is fall of adumbration cf the ideas of center and periphery that was not really apparent to me. Perhaps a litle more embarassing to me is that athe same me that 1 was formatating my views on center and periphery, that is, between 1955 and 1965, 1 also on several occasions worked at the revision, ex tension, and elaboration of Max Weber’ ideas about charismatic authority, but f did not sce the close relationships between these two things which be ‘came apparent to me only much later. Nor did I see the connections between populisin and the relocation of centers from peripheries, although I wrote The Torment of Seerecy only about two years before I hit upon the ideas of center and periphery asa way of making sense of the outlook of Indian intellectuals, Some of the connections of different parts of my own thought about society which | failed to sce when I was working on them became visible to me much later. Like Mr. Jourdain who discovered that he had always been speaking in prose, so I have found in recent years that Land many of my best ancestors hhave been speaking about center and periphery all along, Now it has become evident to me that that is what I have been doing. Even though 1 sce it now, the task is no easier than it was at any time in the past. Every new connection that I see opens new possibilities of interpretation, every new connection seen opens further perspectives on the varieties and re Lationships of centers and peripheries. Perhaps that is the best evidence that the path, on which I entered unknowingly many yeats ago, has been worth persisting in. Perhaps the continuous disclosure of new possibilities of inter pretation is the evidence of its intelleetual value I should add also that [have been encouraged by the work of some of my coevals and juniors, some of which is assembled here, ‘The fact that so many outstanding scholars, only one of whom has been a pupil of mineand that at a time when I had not yet arrived at the ideas set forth here, and all of whom have worked with great distinetion in a variety of fields, have found the ideas of center and periphery interesting enough to apply them in their work has meant even more to me than the testimony of their friendship and col- leagueship. Their friendship and colleagueship have been very precious to ime. ‘Their application of the ideas of center and periphery, in their very dif ferent ways, is a great reassurance that | have not been pursuing, a will-o' theawisp,Lint Gaeesteao is asistant prey of sociology amd soci dudes at Havard Univers. Nica, Maes profesor lc science at the Unversy of Antilles Gane and Nong poesor i de department ithe Chica The University of Chicago Pres, Ch he University of Chicago Pres, Lh 11988 by The University f Ch he reserved, Publis in the United Stterof America Genera din te by Lil Miche! Slatin Inches blige. 1 Macroncilogs. 2. Pluralism (Soil wiences) 3. Social ses. 4 Religion an socio 1 Ghent, Lan, Matin, Michel LINAC 185 ro ss-17094 The Ide Lial 1. Religion and Transform 3. ‘The Rei 4 A Note on 6. Center and