Subject: Centre-periphery
Date sent: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 15:10:37
Dear all,
I am something of a novice in the Foucault field, so excuse anything
I say that might sound naive.
Seeing that the debate has begun to touch on issues of colonialism
and political geography ....
I am a working on 'Centre-periphery' relations in the Soviet Union
under Stalinism - actually concentrating on the development of the
Republic of Karelian (way up north on the Finnish border) in the
1930's. The traditional 'totalitarian' model assumed absolute central
control; the so-called revisionists, in their eagerness to break
taboos and secure tenures, countered that control was lax,
administration was chaotic and the regions exercised a large degree
of autonomy from Moscow and the central leadership. Of course,
because it is now the 1990's, post-Cold War, and the revisionists
and radicals in all disciplines are being revised and superceded by
a new bright young generation (that was ironic), because I too am
time-serving for a Ph.D. and searching for an innovative
interpretation to oil the all-too grinding wheels of my career, and
lastly, because the archives are now accessible(ish) and historians
can actually base their work on considerably more than political
prejudice and colouring-by-numbers, I think they were all wrong. Or,
at least, none was exclusively right.
So far it is not only the polarised interpretations that I am trying
to overcome. From my background theoretical reading I am also
somewhat unhappy with the traditional approaches to spatial
conceptualisation. Perhaps it's because my discipline (history, with
a colouring of political science) has traditionally conceived of
'centre-local' relations in a far too unquestioning manner.
Economic, political and administrative relations are conceptualised
by reference to models of rational choice, of internal colonisation,
of inter-organisational decision-making, of federal constitutional, of
games theory and personnel networks etc. etc.
However, it seems to me that the binary oppostion of 'centre-
periphery' begs the question of 'real' polarities. Now, admittedly,
in Stalin's Russia, there WAS a striving for powerful central
control over the regions - not solely through political and economic
mechanisms (which in the USSR were often hard to differentiate), but
more generally through the imposition of a centrally-defined
discourse, which constituted fields of 'reasonable' expression and
action. But does this mean there were *fixed* notions of 'centrality'
and 'peripherality'?
This discourse was forever in flux, indeed the space of
uncertainty permitted both a degree of autonomous activity and
arbitrary repression. The policies, language, intentions, practice
etc. of the centre changed not only in time, but also in space -
different regions behaved differently, according to their location,
resources, military or economic significance, regional Party
leadership, national/ethnic composition etc.. So 'central' discourse
was shaped by the periphery (and not only AT regional level, as
revisionists maintained, through inefficient central control, but
also during the policy-formulation process at the centre, as regional
interests had their representatives and spokesmen in Moscow).
It seems to me that Foucault provides an interesting way of
looking at several dimensions of this field.
1. From 'Power/Knowledge' there is an essay on geography, which,
I think, deals with categories of spatial knowledge. Does
this suggest that concepts such as 'centre- periphery'
should be understood as spatial constructs of 'our' (the
observers) making, informed, presumably, by the preconceptions
and preoccupations (episteme?) of 'our' times? This then would free
the analyst to question empirically (from the evidence) what
precisely the 'centre' would have meant to *contemporary*
actors - how did 'Stalinist Russia' locate people in place?
how many 'centres' were there, how many 'peripheries'? What
could be meant by 'central discourse' and does it have any
useful meaning?
2. Perhaps this next question is prompted by what some discussants on
this list have identified with 'late' Foucault (but I don't want to
re-open old wounds). Could this construction of spatial sense be seen
as a strategy for reforging individual identity, in other words, as a
process of 'normalisation'? I might need that term explained. To me
it means the internalisation by subjects (perhaps shouldn't have used
that term either) of constituting 'knowledge' about themselves
determined/defined by .... 'power'.
However, this has also been a matter of controversy on the
list recently. Does this mean (pace Malcolm, I think), on the one
hand, a universal, diffuse power, which implies, not equal
reciprocity, but an inevitable countervailing resistance? This
would seem a useful concept to understand the response of, say,
ethnic Karelians and Finns in Karelia (which had been part of
Finland) to 'sovietising' (to a large extent 'russifying') strategies,
and even [?] to understand the process of negotiation of
economic decisions - Moscow seeks to define Karelia's role
according to ITS priorities; Karelia bargains or evades etc.
This understands 'power' more in the sense of 'to-be-able',
as I think Malcolm said recently.
On the other hand, it could be argued that this sense is far too
inocuous for the viciously repressive Stalinist system, and the
second sense of a 'totalitarian', dominating power is more fitting
to the historical circumstances. To whatever extent the 'periphery'
could exercise its 'capacities', repression, as the archives have
now fairly conclusively shown, was initiated at the centre - at
Stalin's desk, and the actors on the 'periphery' survived only on the
whim of the centre (which could protect as well as destroy). What
does Malcolm's understanding of Foucault's understanding of power then
tell us about the repressive dymnamics of a *real* totalitarian
state.
I seem to remember reading some comments of Foucault's about the
USSR, when he doesn't for a second doubt the nature of power
exercised there - he was speaking out in defence of a persecuted
writer - what implications does this have for 1. his (later?)
conceptualisation of power and 2. (in relation to my point above on
'central discourse') the nature of primary relations between the
extra-discursive (does this mean the political-economic system
traditionally defined??) and discursive practice [see Archeology
of Knowledge - a book I sense I enjoyed more than I understood].
To sum up, I would be very grateful for any thought other members of
this list have on, firstly, Foucault and spatial conceptualisation
(Foucault as geographer) and, secondly, Foucault and the nature of
centralising ('totalitarian') power.
I hope that as well of being of use to me, this discussion will put
into focus many of the more abstract issues previously aired. It is
all to easy to ignore the implications of theoretical debates, and to
my mind (perhaps I'm too much of an empirical historian), theoretical
talk that remains etherial is wasted breath, unless one at least
*tries* to see what it means for practice.
Thanks for all your patience, hope this was all of some interest.
Nick Baron
University of Birmingham
UK
p.s.
By the way, I think the 'colonisation' debate (it was on
THIS list, wasn't it?) is silly and political. As usual, it
hinges on a definition - of 'colonisation', which is
something different from 'conquest', and is a specific
historical term. Not all 'empires' consist of colonies -
the Holy Roman Empire, Napoleon's, Russia's (Chechnya,
regardless of the fact that it is INSIDE Russia, might be an
imperial *conquest*, but is not a 'colony' to my mind (though not
to the Chechens')) etc. It has to do, I think, with degree of
metropolitan exploitation and **perceived** superiority (e.g.
Nazi Germany's conquest of western Europe, v. colonisation of
the east - this also accounts for the peculiar hegemony exercised
by the USSR over eastern Europe since 1945, when the 'centre' -
thousands of miles eastwards - was considered to be inferior
in all respects but ideological to the 'periphery'). Oh!!
What do you know.... (how subltle) that brings us back to
'centre' and 'periphery' ......!
Date sent: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 15:10:37
Dear all,
I am something of a novice in the Foucault field, so excuse anything
I say that might sound naive.
Seeing that the debate has begun to touch on issues of colonialism
and political geography ....
I am a working on 'Centre-periphery' relations in the Soviet Union
under Stalinism - actually concentrating on the development of the
Republic of Karelian (way up north on the Finnish border) in the
1930's. The traditional 'totalitarian' model assumed absolute central
control; the so-called revisionists, in their eagerness to break
taboos and secure tenures, countered that control was lax,
administration was chaotic and the regions exercised a large degree
of autonomy from Moscow and the central leadership. Of course,
because it is now the 1990's, post-Cold War, and the revisionists
and radicals in all disciplines are being revised and superceded by
a new bright young generation (that was ironic), because I too am
time-serving for a Ph.D. and searching for an innovative
interpretation to oil the all-too grinding wheels of my career, and
lastly, because the archives are now accessible(ish) and historians
can actually base their work on considerably more than political
prejudice and colouring-by-numbers, I think they were all wrong. Or,
at least, none was exclusively right.
So far it is not only the polarised interpretations that I am trying
to overcome. From my background theoretical reading I am also
somewhat unhappy with the traditional approaches to spatial
conceptualisation. Perhaps it's because my discipline (history, with
a colouring of political science) has traditionally conceived of
'centre-local' relations in a far too unquestioning manner.
Economic, political and administrative relations are conceptualised
by reference to models of rational choice, of internal colonisation,
of inter-organisational decision-making, of federal constitutional, of
games theory and personnel networks etc. etc.
However, it seems to me that the binary oppostion of 'centre-
periphery' begs the question of 'real' polarities. Now, admittedly,
in Stalin's Russia, there WAS a striving for powerful central
control over the regions - not solely through political and economic
mechanisms (which in the USSR were often hard to differentiate), but
more generally through the imposition of a centrally-defined
discourse, which constituted fields of 'reasonable' expression and
action. But does this mean there were *fixed* notions of 'centrality'
and 'peripherality'?
This discourse was forever in flux, indeed the space of
uncertainty permitted both a degree of autonomous activity and
arbitrary repression. The policies, language, intentions, practice
etc. of the centre changed not only in time, but also in space -
different regions behaved differently, according to their location,
resources, military or economic significance, regional Party
leadership, national/ethnic composition etc.. So 'central' discourse
was shaped by the periphery (and not only AT regional level, as
revisionists maintained, through inefficient central control, but
also during the policy-formulation process at the centre, as regional
interests had their representatives and spokesmen in Moscow).
It seems to me that Foucault provides an interesting way of
looking at several dimensions of this field.
1. From 'Power/Knowledge' there is an essay on geography, which,
I think, deals with categories of spatial knowledge. Does
this suggest that concepts such as 'centre- periphery'
should be understood as spatial constructs of 'our' (the
observers) making, informed, presumably, by the preconceptions
and preoccupations (episteme?) of 'our' times? This then would free
the analyst to question empirically (from the evidence) what
precisely the 'centre' would have meant to *contemporary*
actors - how did 'Stalinist Russia' locate people in place?
how many 'centres' were there, how many 'peripheries'? What
could be meant by 'central discourse' and does it have any
useful meaning?
2. Perhaps this next question is prompted by what some discussants on
this list have identified with 'late' Foucault (but I don't want to
re-open old wounds). Could this construction of spatial sense be seen
as a strategy for reforging individual identity, in other words, as a
process of 'normalisation'? I might need that term explained. To me
it means the internalisation by subjects (perhaps shouldn't have used
that term either) of constituting 'knowledge' about themselves
determined/defined by .... 'power'.
However, this has also been a matter of controversy on the
list recently. Does this mean (pace Malcolm, I think), on the one
hand, a universal, diffuse power, which implies, not equal
reciprocity, but an inevitable countervailing resistance? This
would seem a useful concept to understand the response of, say,
ethnic Karelians and Finns in Karelia (which had been part of
Finland) to 'sovietising' (to a large extent 'russifying') strategies,
and even [?] to understand the process of negotiation of
economic decisions - Moscow seeks to define Karelia's role
according to ITS priorities; Karelia bargains or evades etc.
This understands 'power' more in the sense of 'to-be-able',
as I think Malcolm said recently.
On the other hand, it could be argued that this sense is far too
inocuous for the viciously repressive Stalinist system, and the
second sense of a 'totalitarian', dominating power is more fitting
to the historical circumstances. To whatever extent the 'periphery'
could exercise its 'capacities', repression, as the archives have
now fairly conclusively shown, was initiated at the centre - at
Stalin's desk, and the actors on the 'periphery' survived only on the
whim of the centre (which could protect as well as destroy). What
does Malcolm's understanding of Foucault's understanding of power then
tell us about the repressive dymnamics of a *real* totalitarian
state.
I seem to remember reading some comments of Foucault's about the
USSR, when he doesn't for a second doubt the nature of power
exercised there - he was speaking out in defence of a persecuted
writer - what implications does this have for 1. his (later?)
conceptualisation of power and 2. (in relation to my point above on
'central discourse') the nature of primary relations between the
extra-discursive (does this mean the political-economic system
traditionally defined??) and discursive practice [see Archeology
of Knowledge - a book I sense I enjoyed more than I understood].
To sum up, I would be very grateful for any thought other members of
this list have on, firstly, Foucault and spatial conceptualisation
(Foucault as geographer) and, secondly, Foucault and the nature of
centralising ('totalitarian') power.
I hope that as well of being of use to me, this discussion will put
into focus many of the more abstract issues previously aired. It is
all to easy to ignore the implications of theoretical debates, and to
my mind (perhaps I'm too much of an empirical historian), theoretical
talk that remains etherial is wasted breath, unless one at least
*tries* to see what it means for practice.
Thanks for all your patience, hope this was all of some interest.
Nick Baron
University of Birmingham
UK
p.s.
By the way, I think the 'colonisation' debate (it was on
THIS list, wasn't it?) is silly and political. As usual, it
hinges on a definition - of 'colonisation', which is
something different from 'conquest', and is a specific
historical term. Not all 'empires' consist of colonies -
the Holy Roman Empire, Napoleon's, Russia's (Chechnya,
regardless of the fact that it is INSIDE Russia, might be an
imperial *conquest*, but is not a 'colony' to my mind (though not
to the Chechens')) etc. It has to do, I think, with degree of
metropolitan exploitation and **perceived** superiority (e.g.
Nazi Germany's conquest of western Europe, v. colonisation of
the east - this also accounts for the peculiar hegemony exercised
by the USSR over eastern Europe since 1945, when the 'centre' -
thousands of miles eastwards - was considered to be inferior
in all respects but ideological to the 'periphery'). Oh!!
What do you know.... (how subltle) that brings us back to
'centre' and 'periphery' ......!