Foreign Policy Opinion as a Function of Social Position

Abstract

In this article a theory of how foreign policy opinion depends on the social position of the opinion-holder is developed. The society is divided into a center and a periphery, where the center is the favored part and the periphery the rejected part of society. The periphery is the victim of insufficient communication and of isolation, and will for that reason represent other phases of attitude-formation than the center. Thus, the periphery will distinguish less between cognitions and evaluations of foreign policy alternatives, and be more absolutist in its orientation to change. The periphery will either favor the status quo or sudden and complete changes, whereas the center will be more revisionist in its outlook. The periphery will either keep silent or improvise demonstrations to make its attitude known. The theory is tested on survey data from Norway 1959-63, and confirmed on a number of points. More particularly, the periphery is found to have a different concept of consistency than the center. A tendency to combine attitudes in favor of atomic weapons with the signing of a protest against them was found to be most pronounced in the periphery. The importance of foreign policy attitude is seen above all in its bargaining value for a foreign minister, but also as a direct impetus provided foreign policy opinion is stabilized, and stabilized for peaceful policies. This can be done by 'making peace pay,' e.g. by including tax cuts in disarmament plans, and by tying the periphery more to the decision-makers through foreign policy oriented elections, or through government parties that also represent the periphery.