oping’ (or ‘developed/underdeveloped’) indicate one continuous line of thinking, with different ‘policy features’, depending on the dominant ideo
logy of the time, in Europe. The ‘other’ is always lacking skills and culture, is imperfect, and can only hope to get rid of this status by adapting to the favoured side of the distinction. While this is partly true for ‘centre/peri
phery’, too, this distinction is more complex, at least for some authors, since it can be nested, as I will account for later. One of the first to make extensive use of the dual concept of centre/periphery in the SSH, but pro
moting a rather flat view of the distinction, was Shils’ conceptualisation.
Shils, in his Essays in Macrosociology (1975; also see Shils 1972), interest
ingly, focuses on introspection and values to explain the distinction: the centre, or metropolis, is identified as a realm of symbols, beliefs and values that map one’s own position, specifically the position of intellectuals, in relation to that centre. Selfvalue depends on how close or far the distance appears on this inner map, since the periphery is identified as unimaginat
ive, unpolished and narrow, while the metropolis stands for the opposite, including the roles and institutions propagating the related values. Shils does not explain instructively where these beliefs come from, nor what their consequences are, in a macrosociological perspective.
resonating for the first time, the power executed from the centre is not ap
praised, but sharply criticised. Although the event of the disastrous First World War paved the way for recognised critique,⁷² in most contexts, this remained a minority position until today. Yet Eurocentricity was increas
ingly challenged, for example in the 1930s and 1940s in the work of Arjun Appadurai, Cyril Lionel Robert James, Rajani Palme Dutt, Eric Williams, and Jacob Cornelis van Leur (see Blaut 2000, p. 8).
In my opinion, the credit for introducing an advanced concept of cen
tre/periphery into social sciences is well deserved by the dependency ap
proach,⁷³ which reacted to modernisation theory that in turn claims the periphery would catch up one day if it only introduced liberal markets (see Pelizzon and Somel 2016, p. 831). Neoclassical theory is another point of negative reference ‘which had assumed that economic growth was be
neficial to all (Pareto optimal) even if the benefits were not always equally shared’ (Ferraro 2008). The Director of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America 195063, Raul Prebisch, led the opposi
tion against these beliefs, stating that, for the periphery states, exporting resources to the centre states and importing manufactured products would always result in lacking purchasing power in the periphery states, because prices are highly competitive worldwide. For the centre state, savings en
abled by new production technology go directly into profits and higher wages for centre workers (Prebisch 1962, also called the PrebischSinger hypothesis). Many other hypotheses attempting to explain dependencies between centre and periphery were discussed in the Latin American con
text, which cannot be detailed here (see Sanchez 2014, for a starting point).
The basic idea is that as long as neoclassical economic theory dominates the world system, the periphery is trapped. As Sanchez demonstrates, with the exception of Wallerstein’s historical analyses, the approach went largely un
noticed in ‘the North’, possibly also due to the fact that most scholars there are unable to read Spanish (including myself, unfortunately).
72 See Connell 2007, pp. 19 sq. about Oswald Spengler.
73 This is often referred to as ‘dependency theory’, while it actually is a large gathering of different theories.
While the postLenin antonym of centre/periphery is asymmetrical, just like the distinctions mentioned previously, it points at a reciprocal depend
ency that exceeds the function of stabilising one’s own dominant position rhetorically. That is, first of all, the clear economic dimension to the dis
tinction which supports a power that turns the positioning at the peripheral side into a continuous existential problem. In the following, I will intro
duce another theory focusing on the centre/periphery distinction(s) that followed up on the ideas of Marx and Lenin, namely Galtung’s theory of imperialism, which is systematically multidimensional and multifaceted from the start.
Galtung’s theory of imperialism (1971) is based on nested distinctions be
tween centre and periphery, labelling relations of different types between Centre and Peripherystates (note the capitalisation), while within, both states are again differentiated in centre and periphery. It is the centre of the Periphery, and the periphery of the Centre, that, taken together, Wall
erstein will later call ‘semiperiphery’, the intermediate zone. For Galtung (ibid., p. 81), these nested relations define imperialism:
Imperialism will be conceived of as […] a sophisticated type of dominance relation which cuts across states, basing itself on a bridgehead which the center in the Centerstate establishes in the center of the Peripherystate, for the joint benefit of both. [… I]mperialism is a system that splits up collectivities and relates some of the parts to each other in relations of harmony of interest, and other parts in relations of disharmony of interest, or conflict of interest.
While the ‘harmony of interests’ refers to the relations between the centres of Centrestates—the metropolises, the ‘joint benefit’ established both in the Centre and Periphery must be taken with a grain of salt, since dis
harmony and conflicts of interest within and between the peripheries are emphasised by Galtung. Because of these, the peripheries of Centre and Peripherystates will hardly form any alliances. Furthermore, regarding the actual benefits for the centre of the Periphery, ‘the interaction is cumulat
ively asymmetric in terms of what the two parties get out of it’ (ibid., 85), while still keeping up enough harmony of interest to let the system persist.
In the case of cultural imperialism (Galtung 1971, p. 93), which includes research, the main interest of the centrePeriphery, most likely, is to learn, to keep up with the knowledge created in the centreCentre, which ap
pears as key to a more balanced relation between centreCentre and centre
Periphery. In fact, an increasing asymmetry is enforced, because the centre
Centre receives a farreaching validation of that knowledge as a surplus, and a dependency that can be exploited by trading information materials and teachers to the centrePeriphery, which will hardly ever reach its own periphery (see ibid., Table Iv). The ‘disharmony of interests’ is the typical relation between centre and periphery of a state, no matter its status of peripherality, and it can easily develop into a conflict.
Differing from Galtung’s theory, Wallerstein instead places whole coun
tries in either centre, periphery or semiperiphery. It is therefore import
ant to emphasise here that, instead of being an international relationship, imperialism is ‘a combination of intra and international relations’ (ibid., p. 84). Furthermore, as with other types of imperialist relations, including in cultural imperialism, the Periphery provides the Centre with raw mater
ial. In the case of research, this would be research data and research objects.
In return, it receives research results to research questions formulated in the Centre, to
send the finished product, a journal, a book (manufactured goods) back for consumption in the center of the Periphery—after first having created a demand for it through demonstration effect, training in the Center coun
try, and some degree of low level participation in the data collection team (ibid., p. 93).
This relation has also been called the ‘academic division of labour’, not least brought up in the context of the dependency approach (Waast 2002;
Baber 2003; Alatas 2003; Medina 2013).⁷⁴ There, it extends to the centre performing strongly in theory, methodology and conceptual studies, while
74 In its extreme form, and specifically in the context of medical studies in the 1980s and 90s, according to the American Indian Law Center 1999, this has also been called
‘“Safari” or helicopter research, in which the researcher drops into the community, gathers the data, then leaves with the data for good’; also see Palca 1990; AcostaCazares, Browne et al. 2000.
the periphery focuses on empirical case studies about topics relevant to the author’s home community, drawing on these foundations.
In most cases, centre/periphery concepts refer to places where certain power relations are played out: the distinction is tied to nations or actors who occupy a physical place or space. From those positions, control is exer
cised over the knowing and doing of other actors, positioned elsewhere (ad
ditional to those referred to already; see especially Strassoldo 1980). To con
clude this section, I see three problems with these types of concepts. Firstly, they have to admit an enormous number of exceptions. The Kenyan writer that is nominated for the Nobel Prize for literature, the Philippine start
up that a whole line of business goes crazy about, and so on. A sound analytical concept, embedded in a theoretical framework, must somehow address the possibility of outstanding events like that. Secondly, if, for some reason, a country or a location is labelled as peripheral, it is stigmat
ised with everything it physically ‘contains’: people, businesses, culture, et cetera, while individual status and selfobservations might lead to very different diagnoses with regard to a centre/periphery position. Thirdly, in the spatial conceptualisations reviewed, this stigmatisation does not entail much leeway for change. I agree that the economic, political, medical, and educational conditions in many countries are calamitous for the ma
jority of the populations, and people have every reason to feel ‘damned’, but I claim that a sound theory must be capable of incorporating possible change, not least to identify points of potential intervention. This is the motivation behind my research.