4 Center and Periphery Edward Shils Society has a center. There is a central zone in the structure of society. This central zone impinges in various ways on those who live within the ecological domain in which the society exists. Membership in the society, in more than the ecological sense of being located in a bounded territory and of adapting to an environment affected or made up by other persons located in the same territory, is constituted hy relationship to this central zone. The central zone is not, as such, a spatially located phenomenon. It almost always hhas a more or less definite location within the bounded territory in which the society lives. Its centrality has, however, nothing to do with geometry and little with geogtaphy The center, or the central zone, is a phenomenon of the realm of values and beliefs Ik is the center of the order of symbols, of values and beliefs, which govern the society. It is the center because itis the ultimate and irreducibles and itis felt to be such by many who cannot give explicit articulation to its irreducibility. The central zone partakes of the nature of the sacred. In this sense, every society has an “official” religion, even when that society or its exponents and interpreters, conceive of ity more or less correctly, as a secular, pluralistic, and tolerant society. The principle of the Counterreformation ~ Cuius regio, eis religio — although its rigor has been loosened and its harshness mollified, retains a cote of permanent truth. The center is also a phenomenon of the realm of action. Te is a structure of activities, of roles and persons, within the network of institutions. It is in these roles that the values and beliefs which are central are embodied and pro pounded, The larger society appears, on a cursory inspection and by the methods of inquiry in futrent use, to consist of a number of interdependent subsystems ~ the economy, the Status system, the polity, the kinship system, and the institutions which have in their Special custody the cultivation of cultural values, e.g. the university system, the feclesiastical system, etc. (I use “ecclesiastical” to include the religious institutions Of societies which do not have a church in the Western sense of the term.) Each of these subsystems itself comprises a network of organizations which are connected, with varying degrees of affirmation, through a common authority, overlapping Petsorinel, personal relationships, contracts, perceived identities of interest, a sense Of alfinity within a transcendent whole, and a territorial location possessing symm. _ hollc value, (These subsystems and thee constituent bodies are not equally affreas. fe vis-a-vis each other. Moreover the degree of affirmation varies through time, And is quite compatible with a certain measure of alienation within each elite and “mong the elites.) «gist of these organizations has an authority, an elite, which might be either a Sle individual or a group of individuals, loosely or closely organized. Each of thes tlles makes decisis, sometimes in consultation with ocher cites and somesinen,ooo oe 48 _ EDWARD SMILS sacredness. Sacredness by its nature is symbols endowed with it, however indie with some measure of authoritativeness, he appreciation of aut which authority all societies tions. Impliciely, the central value s than its espousal by and embodin order which may be | authority and regulate it, o itself is judged and even cl central value system, and in t itself, is endowed with dyn, of critical jndgment on the To use Mannheim’s termin CENTER AND Peni 49 Jargely on its own initiative, with the intention of maintaining the organization, controlling the condi of is members and fulfilling its goals. (These decisions are by no means always successful in the achievement of these ends, and the goals are seldom equally o fully shared by the elite and those whose actions are ordained by its decisions.) ‘The decisions made by che elites contain as major elements certain generat standards of judament and action, and certain concrete values, of which the system asa whole, the sociery, is one of the mose preeminent. The values which are inherent in these standards, and which are espoused and more or less observed by those in authority, we shal call the central value system of the society. This central value system is the central zone of the society. It is central because of its intimate connee- tion with what the society holds to he sacreds itis central because it is espoused by the ruling authorities of the society. These two kinds of centrality are vitally related. Bach defnes and supports the other. The central value system is not the whole of the order of values and beliefs espoused and obsorved in the society. The value systems obtaining in any diversified society may be regarded as being distributed along a range. There are variants of the central value system running from hyperaffirmation of some of the components of the major, central vale system fo an extreme denial of some ofthese major elements in the central value systems the Itter tends to, but isnot inevitably associated with, an affirmation of certain elements denied or subordinated in the central value system, There are also elements of the order of values and belicfs which are as ransom with respect to the central value system as the value and beliefs of human beings can be. There is always a considerable amount of unintegratedness of values and beliefs, both within the realm of value of representative individuals and among sc be individuals and sections ofa society. thir relationships & eho ascribed to individuals by vitene of The central value system is constituted by the values which are pursued and steer they ay et Ye acauited through stay and expenence Bog affirmed by the elites of the constituent subsystems and of the organizations which ause oftheir connection with the rence oe cenit valu 5 are comprised in the subsystems. By their very possession of authority, they attribute 4 derivative ith the exercise of authority. (Despi to themselves an essential affinity with the sacred elements of their society, of which they regard themselves asthe custodians. By the same token, many members of theie society aciribute to them tha same kind of affinity. The elites of the economy affiem and usually observe certain values which should govern economic activity. The elites of the polity affirm and usually observe certain values which should govern political APpropriace qualities which in various activity. The elites of the university system and the ecclesiastical system affiem and. shihory Ie Lovie ee distributions Ly om balize degrees of proximity t0 usually practice certain values which should govern intellectual and religious activ. €écupy authoritative roles in the society, by greene he Propertics of those who ities (including beliefs). On the whole, these values are the values embedded in ~_ Bency of those rotes and the a see, teessing the legitimacy of their incum- current activity, ‘The ideals which they affirm do not far transcend the reality Trarreratencss of the rewards they receive, By implica which is ruled by those who espouse them." The values of the different elites are live at vatious distances T Trwatds received by those who raed incoan aes consensual pater.” i : a central in: merty is preced ne of the major elements in any central value system is an affirmative atticude 4 is legitimated by the centr coe che set of institutions toward established authority. This is present in the central value systems of all 4f desclbed a those nng nse cha egutan. Less ical however it maybe societies, however much these might differ from each other in their appreciation of _ Di form to the ie oF «considerable section ee he ahi, give aushoriy. Theres something ikea “floes” a minimum of appreciation of authority, WB eon, polical, cesar oe St 9 he population ofthe soca The in every society, however liberal that society might be. Even the most libertarian and © Bany poin : ” and cultural institutions impinge compellingly at equalitarian societies which have ever existed possess atleast this minimam appre’ Bal cio ay ane Sag IY set ciation of authority. Authority enjoys appreciation because it arouses sentiments of ioe mad fe Potential exercise of coercion, through the Psion of persuasive models of action, sad through a partial authoriative, Those persons, ffices, or sctly and remotely, hendo are therewith endowed ms to judge itself. This ordes, which is implicit in the he light of which the cental ln ples ‘mic potentialities. Iecontains, above ashe potentialiy Saclay and the ental insttational system Matha ic a “utopian” potenti, fo ute ny own terme oe Ty dorve ona ti el a9 idoloscl potentials. The drnamic pore ond which ic mis contal valve greg ne oe al HO of he Closely connected with the appreciation of autkorit itis exercised, is am appreciation of the quay, ‘exercise of authority or which are charactereine These qualities, which ve shall call secondary val familial, economic, professional; they may be ty and the institutions in which es which qualify persons for the of those who exercise authority ues, can be ethnic, educational, yystem simply e their ultimately The central value system thus comprises secondan Ties hag bution of roles and rewards to persons posessing the 'Y as well as primary values. Ie fabs and explicitly as well, it legitimates the smaller fom the circles in which ai stitutional system may thus be de contro! ofoe CENTER AND PERIPHERY 51 EDWARD SHILS ae He have much, Even those who share in the consensus do so with different degrces of intensity, insip and family apstems,alehough they have veh whole-heartedness, and devotion, As we move from the center of society the ceneee f the central institutional system an in which authority is possessed, co the hinterland ot the periphery, ever hak authority is exercised, attachment to the central value system become amend ‘The central institutional ystem is neither unitary nor homogenous, sod come acts fave more majesty than others, The lower one goes in the hierarchy, ot te tnale ! fone moves tecrtorally from the locus of authority, the less one appreciates nathnne ity. Likewise, the further one moves from those possesing the secondary wate associated with che exercise of authority into sectors of the populasion whic aa not equally possess those qualities, the less affirmative is the attitude towacle he reigning authority, and theless intense i tha allirmation whick doce ex ne ddorden, the respect for creativity, and the need to Aare ero of te enol assy ofcourse, no hese aeativ established and created order the respect for creativity, andthe cede is affirmation, Much more widespread, in the course of history and ta any pe Hi Stenarear do nt exhaust the fore eae iF auhority ticular society, isan intermittent, partial, and attenuated aifirmation of tha cor mse conser the naa of ahorty ise Authority Erriseoet ndeney 10 expand the ordet which § prs For the most part, the mass of the population in premodern societies have been far ihe satraton of tector space, The acceptance of the valiy of that removed from the immediate impact of the central value system. They have pos Serena a endeney toward is oniversaliaon within the sociery ever whigh | sessed thei own value systems, which were oscasionally and fnpmentarilyaeticn Stroy rl. Rang inde cons in the nverslaion = within dhe bound lated with the central value system, These pockets of approximate independence aes of society ~ ofthe rules inherent the order ler nt Pea Sedan bere ase however een completly inompaie wth isolated occasions of articus rvs ener nbc hy smb embody. The bolton of rariciaton ben incompatible with occasions of seine eee ed et to obtain aiees of authority has a compelling effect on those who occupy fo the central institutional system, to the elite which sits at its center, and te the pperaectas lish a universal difusion of the ff central value system which that elite puts forward for he own een vip consequences of this, rulers seek to establish which they are the custodians ‘The more territorially dispersed the insticutional system, the less the likelihood of Je once and abseevance of the values and Its which shy arte casos aa intense affirmation of the central value system, The more ineyalitanes the acceptance and obse: cir powers to punish thos cumbency in those offices. They use d ees society, the less the likelihood of an intense affirmation ofthe central value system Fa a rd wah thee favor thore who conform, Ths, the mere hial societies, there are large and dis leviate a aan ety. Lwould regret especially where, as in mose steeply hice in society imposes acetal value Ss Ot reiThere ls continous gaps ferween these eet et he Indeed, it might be otra anderstandng co which the foregoing semenees migh: give He. het t said that the degeee of afficmation inevitably shades off from the ceutee St che pnt empirical truth nthe comoon sat auhorty, in enforcing their posession ___fretcse of authority and of the promulation of value, thar they are only inerested in remaining in anchortys in ceinforsing Er poses _ As long as societies were loosely coordinated, as long as authority lacked the ee aad esha thee seca all: Nonetheless these cbservations Bans fen contol, ad an long as much he econo i aeound their own values and belief. ‘mic property of A cattied on outside any market or almost excl ficial. They fail to discem the dynamic property 01 Value system invariably became attenuated in the out oan Cossess the same sespon-/ MMM Gfthe marker, and the adminissaree oad ete | a ae ey: Some eh mitact with the central value system increased, i Tradition, fthermore,, 4 When asin modem society, degree of differentiation of Hbanization, and education hi the allocation of rewards. The ki smaller radii, are microcosms o! buttress its efficiency. cen yale stem ret in fandamenta way om he need Thick human beings : Yao something which transcends a fave for incorporation de and rice al existence. They have a need to be in o CE a a chic ager ints dmmensions than their own Bods and re oa Oram? seuctre of reality than their routine everyday wrote cena inthe be connected with the center systems, To fill out the list, we has an expansive tendency. It has a tet these intermittent occasions of of authorit consensus built rem to me to be too supert sechorty as such, and particularly of authort a Not all persons who come into positions of ori nes t0 the inherently dynamic and expansive tend siege attuned to it; others are more capable of ‘sisting Tuva power bake upon expanses, 3 does the structure of elites and of the sociery as a whole. fe of the society ‘ly in local markets, the central lying reaches, With the growth gical strengthening of authoriey, 8 more unified economic system, political democra: ave brought the different sections of the population AUG More frequent contact with each other and created even greater tnuitual aware, 3 Be fa Sette value system has found a wider acceptance than in other periods of © _Gelistory of society. At the same time these changes have also increase the extent, modern societies, probably even in revolutionary | system eat GE ft04 he intensiy, of active “uisensu” or rejection ef thc ao eee The central institutional sytem of ount of consensus. The central value syst oo" of nce "dinenses” or sv eae the object of a substantial arn ‘ The same objects which r od thi d aroused the sent videly shared, but the consensis = objects which previously engaged the attention and aroused the seat ‘hich legitimates the central institutional system is wel a sey abou . PEAS of a very restricted minority of the population have in modern societios waste perc Ther are erences wiineven the most consensual sox lie Face oncerns of much broader strata of the population. At the same time thar ior erably of authority, the insiations within whi : gy fsed contact with authority has led to a generally deferential attitude, it hes aloe the appreciably i llocation of rewards and the justice of its al which exercise it, crises,52_ EDWARD SHS ron up against the tenacity of prior attachments and a reluctance to accept strange gods. Class conflict in the most advanced modetn societies is probably more open and more continuots than in premodern societies, but itis also more domesticated and restricted by attachments to the central value system, Violent revolutions and bloody civil wars are much less characteristic of modern societies than of premodern societies. Revolutionary parties are feeble in modern societies which have moved toward widespread popular education, a greatet equality of status, etc, The size of nominally revolutionary parties in France and Traly is a measure of the extent to which French and Iralian societies have not become modernized in this sense. The inertness, from a revolutionary point of view, of the cank and file of these parties is partially indicative of the extent to which, despite their cevolutionary doctrines, the working, classes in these countries have become assimilated into the central value system of their respective societies. ‘The old gods have fallen, religious faith has become much more attenuated in the educated classes, and suspicion of authority is mach more overt than it has ever been. Nonetheless in the modern societies of the West, the central. value system has gone much more deeply into the heart of their members than it has ever succeeded in doing in any earlier society. ‘The “masses” have responded to their contact with a striking measure of acceptance. ‘The power of the ruling class derives from its incumbency of certain key positions in the central institutional system. Societies vary in the extent to which the ruling class is unitary or relatively segmental. Even where the ruling class is relatively segmental, there is, because of centralized control of appointment to the most crucial of the key positions or because of personal ties or because of overlapping personnel, some sense of affinity which, more of less, unites the different sectors of the elite.” This sense of affinity rests ultimately on the high degree of proximity to the center which is shared by all these different sectors of the ruling class. They have, itis true, a common vested interest in their position. Itis not, however, simply the product of a The different sectors ofthe elite are never equal. One ot two usually predominate, to varying degrees, over the others, even in situations where there is much mutual respect and a genuine sense of affinity. Regardless, however, of whether they are equal of unequal, unitary ot segmental, there is usually a fairly large amount of ‘consensus among the elices of the central institutional system. This consensus has its ultimate oot in their common feeling for the transcendent order which they believe they embody or for which they think themselves responsible. This does not obtain | equally for all elites. Some are much more concerned in an almost entirely “secular ‘or manipulative way with remaining in power. Nonetheless, even in a situation of ‘geeat heterogeneity and mach murual antipathy, the different scctors of che elite tend | to experience the “transforming” transcendental overtones which are generated by 7 incurbency in authoritative roles, or by proximity to “fundamentally important chings.”. 3 [Glreater incorporation carries with it also an inherent tension, Those who partiel pate in the central institutional and value systems ~ who feel sufficiently closer to the center now than file members also which have felt th the process is even ; shared more widely the West, the mass connection with the Was once thought co be in the special The elites are, shasing powers as w _ sven where they did not feel it. Mixer Senuine respect for the mass of the pop. @ genuine, even if still limited, “members of the civi _clonethcless, the expansion of individuality remoteness from the center, in a way in w! | The modern trade union movement, tionary hopes were to be . to be supported bs development, The leaders of the trade institutional system and accordingly, at le are inherent in the action within that syst system and to affirm more deeply an institutional system. Nonetheless, ofthe incorporation ofthe masses states, the ruling classes have com into the wider reaches of the society, ‘The qualities which acco _ Which lives at the center of society, their forebears ever did have come to share m remseh more fragmentary, ~ also feet their position as outsi hich thie forebears probably did n which has disappointed those whos sh organized working ase, unions have come to be part of the eenteal astin part, they fulfill the obligations which rst bligations which 'ore widely and intensely inthe cen ; continuously than in the past the eos ss the leaders, ! Ives to be outside the p carry taces ofthat position in thir tion central institutional system than the leadersh position as outsiders vis-d-vis the central value them are the most dffcul forthe leaders of the phate ih this incorporation ofthe ma alting, spotty, and imperfect as this incorporat attitudes of the ruling classes of the modern cena corresponding to the greater fragmentariness into those societies) In the modern Western increasingly to acknowledge the dispersion, «society of the charisma which informs the center for che expansiveness of aut : ee by the population, far from the cente of the positions of authority reside. In the eye CENTER AND PERIPHERY 53 les, their 1 feel it, ¢ revolu illustrates chis | Ac the same time, the unions’ rank and in the past the central revailing society, still and necessatih the rank and file, less involved in ae ip, experience even more acutely their system. The more sensitive amon, unions to hold in check, _ | ’s of the West. (In Asia rm rae hority have come to be fer in which the incumbents of the population have c “ordes” which i ith, legislative powes, ell. These would make appreciation society and, ted greatly to narrow’ . ene once amen ring the range of inequality. is no longer so distant. es of the elites of the modern states of mn fave sonchow Cone to share inthe via s in the central value system and whi 0 be custody of the ruling classes. a perception of a coalescent interest; it contains a substantial component of mutual” ower and thew eae pes an regard arising from a feeling of a common relationship to the central value system. 4 i einen aad asta! pit oe them simulate reg dl with ths simulated ze vulation as bearers of a true indi in the deepest sense, Y attendant on the growth of individual sity of communications, have conttib- sectors of society which have voting ect for the populace spect, however, is a ividuality, and of their intinsic worth as fallow -as vessels of the charisma ‘The peak at the center is no longerti al 1 54 _ EDWARD SHILS central value system might in Notes ‘CENTER AND PERIPHERY 55, sity which has underlain the entry into the consensus around the the end also be endangered by it. Liberty and privacy sacar gal sea, When the tie rises they may be engulfed. This i ss cetical relationships among consensus, indifference, and * consideration must be left for another occasion. “systems of Value Orientation,” Sonn the Thor of Action: Aa Expltion in Dfon and Cision,” 388-433; Pepa gree en pert ee Foundatins of Moen Soelogeal the Nese Vode Ihe Fa Theor Sco Fesniaon of Mover Soa Theory Nes Yorks, The Hee Fes Por oa epost aplson ae Somaur Marin Lips “The Yale Pa mu of Derecaspe k Go Sey Compute Aol” Aron SdblogcaRaew 28 (96 ‘15-31, zp oft example sma nd qs of vale hoe efor instance fmes Sot "Te Sia of Valen Anal Rev of Scion 9189) 27-1 on hn Swi, “Cuivre in Acton: Syms and State” American Seco Review § ae eae hls divided his ime betwee sath del ne een he Ui of Chicago ad Cambri, He wa ro sue whe Isening Incense mason, ts and ia ction so en he in ls Ses ben oly, ban, an iy. a aon 9 ther eye by Shs celled in Te Conon of Sot (hens Unive of Ching Pe, UB) especially (Cheaper Univrty of Catago Dem, 198) aed is wees of clog crc Ftin Cating of Sockology and Otber Essays on the Pua of Lanmng (Ching, Cavey of cago: Univesity of ‘The individu: ive on islands in a nother instance of « Jienation, but furche onheim called “ideologies,” i.e. values and bat Karl Ma reality (seinskongruent) Ldo not “This set of values corresponds to w! beliefs, which are congruent with or embodied in current tht ideology” to desribe these value orientations, One of he Tot Te pat a the pase few decades the term “ideology” has been uso rule orientations which are exteemely seinstranstendent, “which are explicit, articulated, and Bolsherist doctrine, National Socialist doctrine, or rene ete) Manafci called chese “utopias.” Manabinis distinction wis Fasc ral and Laceep it ou divergent nomenclature notwithstanding “Tha degre ofsonsensaliny lifer among societies al simes, Thee 28 wish to important reasons refer to intensely espoused v ‘which transcend current reality by a wh hostile to the existing order, (For exanspl ities in which > The predorsinant elite demands a complete consensus with iss 0 At specific values Chicago Press 1980) : chicago Pes 1980) Cone amd Perper ce arefeta, Such isthe case in modern coraltarian socites. Absotuist ati past Chicago Press 1975); 71 "phery: Essays in Macrosociol sre rather inc it whether the mass of the population was part "ress 1975); The Intellectuals and the Pos ology (Chicago: University of Spc wih mea ilo sto te mao ie pepsin yo Cag Pr 1970) es seal he owes and ihe ue Cn cade Tee consensus, were quite insistent on consensus among the eles © their societ ‘and its Creators: Essays in Honor n-David and Terey Nichols Clark, eds., Culture 5 SRE cama tron ne emer ts a Een SS aad ts Crestor: Ess it Honor of Edvard Shs (Chicago: Univers of Cheagp Pres ‘among the sit : ‘Unies of Chicago Pre, 1988), ant Soph Tomer “The Sic of Sia Sate mer “The Significance of Shils,” Socio- limiting the expansiveness of authority vision of powers, which can be totally overcome oF Ms the Soviet Union has shown, bat it is a perpet opments have also shown. ly by raconic lege Theory 17 y by incon geal Theory 17 (1999) 125-45, Cener-peiphery images and theories are sls discussed Sia oy et PC ea rs a ad ta fearing ciel rg Cope tac ee Se ayy Ss TES ft som SS dil Seno ach © Richard Hecht, To Rule Jerusalem (C oe le Jerusalem (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press brings with it a di measures, Tt ean be done, strain, as recent Soviet devel Editor's Notes on Further Reading Shits on Central Value Systems edward Shils (1911-95) argued that shared values, beliefs and wadiions essential for caer hesion even in highly differentiated and individualistic podem eT Tn every TEs: cena insiutons reproduce and promote an authoriatve fentral valve system sock charsmaic and fonctions, ultimately overriding the disineeiat™s uence of dissent, apathy, andl domination, Moreover Sis hiolds that the influence of the aoe ete ng aprend farther in odeen societies than was posible Jn premodern ‘Among, Shil’s many i ‘Toleote Parsons and others in developing ton shared values which guide action and pat ‘Aiehough Shils's ideas ultimately differed from che Pars AAR below); this collaboration was impostant because valu Cite eo ne frm the 1950s #0 the 1980s, and subsequent cultural ust value analy by focusing more on the cognitive and Os ‘conflictual in cu aga valeapectves on culture see Talcott Parsons and Edward Shs eds, Far re Action (Caunbrige, MA: Harvard University Brest, 1951) rellectual life was bis collaboration wit culture emphasizing values and focasin evn differences between groups and societies onian theory of culture (sce Tusnes ysis dominated sociologie sociology reacted alate. FOF Toward & expecially ences on Amesican int a theoty o