Cores, Peripheries, and Globalization

Chapter 6: Core, Periphery, and Civil Society

ChaPter siX Core, Periphery, and Civil society Jürgen KoCKa i ivan berend is one of the pioneers of the core–periphery approach, and this essay discusses the uses and limits of this conceptual scheme.1 although mainly concerned with economic history, this scheme also embraced the realms of culture, political structures, and international relations.2 i am one of those historians who, in recent years, have been experimenting with the concept civil society.3 the following article tries to bring these two approaches together, with the aim of developing a comparative model of european societies during the “long nineteenth century.”4 the core–periphery concept seems to lend itself well to comparative analyses. such an approach is interested, first and foremost, in identifying similarities and differences between the core countries of Western europe and the nations of the european periphery (defined by berend as the “ring of countries surrounding the core—scandinavia, the countries of the iberian Peninsula, the italian states, the balkans, the eastern regions of the habsburg Monarchy and the russian empire ”) with respect to economic advancement or backwardness, and with a special emphasis on industrialization. in certain respects, the approach is influenced by the modernization paradigm, because it invites researchers to ask how the core influenced the periphery: “the relationship is fundamentally an unequal one and benefits the core. it is often destructive of the periphery, but it can also be an inducement to development, serving—under appropriate conditions—to lift the area from its peripheral position.” the latter point has been raised also by the work of immanuel Wallerstein and hints of it can perhaps also be seen in the writings of alexander Gerschenkron. in the light of more i4 globalization.indb 97 2011.01.05. 10:35 98 Jürgen Kocka recent debates, which are partly inspired by “postcolonial” themes, investigating the impact of the periphery on the core might also be of great interest.5 is it possible to use the civil-society paradigm to elicit additional knowledge of core–periphery relations? in my opinion, the answer is “yes,” so long as the civil-society concept is used with a discrimination that never loses sight of its history. it has been used in so many very different ways and so often instrumentalized in political debates to have become impregnated with certain associations. its meanings are vague. because of this complicated usage, it is important here to review the essential meanings that civil society has acquired over time, and the roles that the concept has played, before proceeding with a novel application.6 ii For centuries, civil society has been among the central concepts in european political thought. in the medieval and early modern periods, until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the aristotelian concept of politiki koinonia or polis survived, translated as “societas civilis,” “civil society,” “société civile,” or “bürgerliche Gesellschaft.” notwithstanding its polymorphous use, three aspects of its meaning remained relatively constant. First, societas civilis was seen as distinct from and transcendent to the sphere of the household, that is, a realm outside the sphere of work and reproduction. second, there was no clear delineation between civil society and the state; quite the contrary, one spoke of “societas civilis sive res publica,” that is, a community not yet internally differentiated by the distinction between society and state. third, civil society usually had something to do with the ways in which localities, houses, families, estates, and individuals lived or should have lived together. its meaning transcended the strictly particular; it had to do with common things, with the common well-being, with the commonwealth , with general aims, with virtues and vices, with res publica. in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a redefinition took place, in the process the modern meaning emerged, as was the case with so many central concepts of our social and political language. increasingly , civil society was understood as a process of civilizing, or as i4 globalization.indb 98 2011.01.05. 10:35 99 Core, Periphery, and Civil Society civilization defined by a new type of difference: difference from “nature ” or difference from “barbarism.” this was tied to the emergence of a new kind of european self-understanding; one which opposed the european world to the non-european. in these eighteenth-century discourses civil society was defined in various ways, related to different semantic fields. For example, in the writings of david hume, adam smith, and...