Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Peace Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Galtung, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Foreign Policy Opinion as a Function of Social Position

Johan Galtung

Peace Research Institute — Oslo

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.

Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 1, No. 3-4, 206-230 (1964)
DOI: 10.1177/002234336400100306


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Acta SociologicaHome page
N. Petersen
The Popular Basis of Nordic Cooperation: A Danish Case Study
Acta Sociologica, January 1, 1977; 20(3): 263 - 285.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Acta SociologicaHome page
N. P. Gleditsch
Slow is beautiful. The Stratification of Personal Mobility, with special reference to international aviation
Acta Sociologica, January 1, 1975; 18(1): 76 - 97.
[PDF]