In What Sense is a High Social Position also a Central Position?

Abstract

Some years ago Johan Galtung presented certain findings with regard to the relation between social position and foreign policy opinion.1 Constructing an index of social position, he was able to point out some interesting contrasts between people in high and low positions. Not only did persons with a high score on the index turn out to be more knowledgeable in respect to foreign affairs, but there was also a striking difference between the gradualist character of their opinions as against the absolutist and moralistic opinions on international affairs to which persons with low scores on the index would give expression. Further, Galtung indicated that differences in power or influence corresponded with differences in social position on his index. According to him, any given society is divided into a decision-making center and a periphery: 'Our concern is with the difference in foreign policy orientation between the social center and the social periphery within any one country.'2 Later on in the same article he declared that center and periphery are to be equated with high and low social rank or position.3 However, while his distinction between center and periphery in terms of decision-making has been accepted, doubts have been expressed in respect to the legitimacy of regarding high and low social positions as synonymous with central and peripheral positions, respectively. Sivert Langholm, in a research communication published in 1971, emphasized the conceptual distinction between the two pairs of notions.4 His discussion remained on a rather abstract level, but the point which he raised must be taken account of when Galtung's index is used in empirical research. Recently it has been used in a study of the attitudes of Norwegians to the question of membership in the European Communities. Ottar Hellevik, Nils Petter Gleditsch and Kristen Ringdal present the results of their study in an article entitled 'The Common Market Issue in Norway: A Conflict Between Center and Periphery'.5 While they are aware of the distinction made by Langholm, they do not regard it as being of importance with regard to their work.6 They assume that the two concepts can be used interchangeably in a study of the EC issue in Norway. In our opinion the assumption is not tenable. We shall try to show why. In their article Hellevik, Gleditsch and Ringdal have demonstrated forcefully how the Common Market attitudes of Norwegians can be considered a function of their social position as measured by Galtung's index: the lower a person's position, the greater the likelihood that she or he would be opposed to Norwegian EC membership, and vice versa. In the lowest social position category only 16 per cent were in favor of joining the Common Market, while 64 per cent were against. Of those in the highest category, on the other hand, 70 per cent were in favor and only 23 per cent opposed to the idea. Excluding respondents who said they did not know, the figures were 20 to 80 per cent in the former and 75 to 25 in the latter group. Furthermore, there was a smooth and gradual transition in this respect from the lowest to the highest category. It seems that this close correspondence be-