In the Afterward to the novel, “Children of the Mind,” Orson Scott Card explores the concept of Edge Nations and Center Nations. This concept provides insight into the mechanics of change. In understanding the relationship between edge and center nations (or peoples), one can study and predict, and embrace or combat change. In the novel, Card explains that edge nations are unstable, are drawn to conquest and expansion, but overextend themselves and seldom last long. Center nations, on the other hand, are stable, long lasting, and only conquer to ensure stability and protect the homeland. They show no tendency to go out and conquer the world because they think they already possess within their borders everything that is important. (Card: 364-365)
Card makes some noteworthy observations about edge people, center people, their characteristics and their relationship to one another. He writes that center people do not fear losing their identity and that they assume everyone else wants to be like them. They know that they are the highest civilization and all others are either a bad imitation or simply a one-time mistake. Of edge people he observes that they realize they are not the highest civilization but will often raid, steal, conquer and occasionally stick around to rule for a while. Sometimes they undergo radical changes in order to compete. “When they are on the rise,” he says, “they are insufferable because they are unsure of their worth and must therefore brag and show off and prove themselves again and again…” (Card: 364)
Card was not the first to suggest the idea of edge and center nations. Johan Galtung, a professor at the University of Oslo, argued in 1971 that the world can be divided up into two sections, the Center and the Periphery. Center nations, he implies, are the developed world, like the United States and the United Kingdom. Periphery nations are developing nations, such as sub-Saharan African nations, Caribbean nations and many Latin American states as well. Galtung views world international economic and political affairs along a system of imperialism, an implicit dominant relationship of the Center over the Periphery–this theory is known as Structural Theory, or Dependency Theory. It requires that Periphery nations be dependent on the Center nation(s), and that the nature of this relationship is fixed and permanent. Periphery nations can hope to, at best, alter the degree of this dependency, but the fundamental relationship will remain (Galtung: 81).
In his dialogue, Card reflects on historic “edge peoples” and how many of them swept through a dominant culture, often taking power for a time and then exiting, but leaving behind a profound and long lasting influence. He cites examples of this phenomenon: The Arabs conquering of the Romans; the Turks into the heart of the Muslim world; and the Mongols who united long enough to conquer China (Card: 363).
From a historical perspective, there have only been a handful of “center peoples.” Egypt was a center nation until being conquered by the Alexander the Great and the edge nation of Greece in the 4th century BC (Wiki: Alexander, n.p.). Still, Egypt maintained much of its “centeredness” until being virtually erased by Islam (Card: 363). Another example is China, a center nation until the conquest of the Mongols in the 13th century AD. The Mongols, led by Genghis Kahn, ruled China for more than 100 years (Wiki: Mongol, n.p.). The Mongols, under Kublai Khan, established the Yuan Dynasty and was eventually overthrown (Wiki: China, n.p.). Considering the Yuan Dynasty was responsible for building the Forbidden City, an important part of modern Chinese culture, it would appear that more than a military coup it was Chinese “centeredness” that eventually absorbed the Mongols into itself. The reign of the Mongols was simply an interlude in the development of a superior Chinese culture. This is the key to perpetuating the rule of a center nation.
Consider the United States, arguably the strongest center nation in the world today. An interesting experiment, the United States was built by edge people–refugees from other center and edge nations:
American culture is a Western culture, with influences from Europe, the Native American peoples, African Americans and to a lesser extent Asian Americans and other young groups of immigrants. The United States has traditionally been known as a melting pot, with a trend towards cultural diversity. Due to the extent of American culture there are many integrated but unique subcultures within the United States (Wiki: Culture, n.p.)
Proud of its mantle of “melting pot,” essentially the United States obtained its center by incorporating the sum of its edges. It was the ideas of these edge peoples that defined the values of the nation. However, in order to perpetuate its rule the United States has, over the last two centuries, constantly bent to the will of those who chose to remain on the edge. This has been beneficial to the country, for example, the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves and suffrage gave women the right to vote, and history has confirmed the “rightness” of these changes. This isn’t always the case.
In the contemplation of “rightness” and “wrongness,” one must consider the intent of the original framers of the country’s values. When one considers slavery, the determination of wrongness is a simple one, but what about an issue of today, such as illegal immigration? Actually, the determination of wrongness is again a simple one, but the issue is clouded by the agendas of edge peoples. These edge-peoples include politicians who seek benefit at the polls on election day and farmers who enjoy the benefit of cheap labor. The actions (or inactions) of these edge peoples lead to increased crime and welfare in our country (Wiki: Illegal, n.p.). As a result, the center peoples sacrifice security and fund the care and feeding of the illegal immigrants. The edge peoples are effectively changing the values of this nation and restructuring the country to fit the edge image.
This is the same thing that happened to Egypt when Islam shattered its centeredness. It was the Muslim Arabs who introduced Islam and the Arabic language in the seventh century to the Egyptians, who gradually adopted both (Wiki: Egypt, n.p.). Islam means “submission” and requires an Islamic government (Gabriel: 23), which virtually wiped-out the Egyptian culture in a relatively short period of time. Still this required the consent of the Egyptians because as an edge nation, the Islamic Arabs were dependent (for a time) on the support of the center nation of Egypt (Galtung: 81).
When considering the concept of edge and center peoples, it isn’t hard to understand the fate that befell Egypt could easily fall upon the United States. In fact a similar cultural conversion is taking place in the United States and although at a much slower rate, it is much more insidious. We must guard against the agendas of the edge peoples among us and fight their assault on our values. If we’re to remain a nation of right, we must be willing to fight–and die–in the battle against wrong. Unfortunately, there are not enough of us left who truly believe in what is right.
- Card, Orson Scott. “Children of the Mind.” Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 1996.
- Gabriel, John. “Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad.” Charisma House, 2002.
- Galtung, Johan. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1971).
- Wikipedia. “Alexander the Great.” Internet, June 4, 2006. Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander
- Wikipedia. “China.” Internet, June 4, 2006. Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China
- Wikipedia. “Culture of the United States.” Internet, June 4, 2006. Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_the_United_States
- Wikipedia. “Mongols.” Internet, June 4, 2006. Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol
-
The nature of a Center Nation is such that it absorbs all comers, and bends them to it’s cultural will. Those who come to the Center Nation come not to spread their own ideas, but to absorb and be part of the culture; they come to integrate with and in doing so magnify that Center Nation. The Mongols came and conquered, and perhaps left a hint of Mongol-ness on Chinese Culture, but the rulers were, within two or three generations, essentially Chinese. Thus, without overthrowing their Mongol rulers, the Chinese returned their naiton to Chinese rule.
Thus I would argue that, under different circumstances, immigration is not inherently motivated by a desire to change or “feed off” America, but rather to become American, and share and grow our culture. Foolish is the man who would argue that their culture is inferior. However, international economic disparity leads to a differing perception of what it means to live at the bottom of American society. To 90% of the world, living at the bottom of American society is a wondrous and beautiful thing, indeed. It is a dream to be attained, a goal to be sought. This is fueled by comparatively horrendous conditions in their countries of origin.
The reality, though is in many cases different form the foreign perceptions. For whatever reason (a sense of entitlement to more, local economic disparities, or the immutable ravages globalization itself), competition at the bottom of the chain here seems to be fierce. This seems to leads to a strong rejection of outsiders, and their subsequent failure to fully integrate into our culture as they originally intended. Instead of seamlessly fusing with our melting pot, the edges of our culture have hardened and cooled to continued input from the outside, and the repeated battering by these “cultures that want to be melted” only serves to further cool the periphery.
Perhaps the heat has gone out of our melting flame, or maybe it is simply a matter of time for the “heat to spread” to these pockets of non-integrated culture. Either way, I would argue that the less our culture welcomes these new immigrants and teaches them our culture, the “American Way,” the longer their integration takes, and the more we exacerbate our the problems we so publicly decry. If we continue to reject pockets of foreign culture and allow them to cluster on the fringe of our society, we leave ourselves at serious risk of allowing them to coalesce and never integrate.
On the margin, though, I assert that the warmer (one sense of the word implies the other) we can be to new arrivals, the sooner we can forget our worries of becoming “un-American.” If you want America to be American, the best way to ensure it is to spread America values. Do these values traditionally encompass hatred and fear? Not in my memory, unless you’re from the South. Maybe the Union should have become a true Center Nation and let the South go it’s own way on the Edge.
The Luddites wouldn’t have been so militant if they hadn’t forgotten the impact of the free towns and the horse collar, which were heralded in their own day as radical deviations from the way things were “supposed to be done.”
Nick,
You have an interesting perspective, but I disagree with your assertion that foreigners are drawn to pockets of non-integrated culture due to being unwelcome in my country. I believe its the other way around and foreigners who refuse to adapt to the American culture flee to these non-integrated pockets. It’s not that they’re rejected by the American culture, they themselves reject the American culture. If living in a foreign country, I would not expect its citizens to adapt to me; it is I who must adapt to their way of life. Conversely, I should not be expected to adapt to a foreigner living in my country.
- JOS
[ + ]
1 comment
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://shyspeak.net/2006/06/04/edge-and-center-nations/trackback/