Summary:

Kari Alenius, Petseri County as part of Estonia: a model of the relationship between the center and periphery

The concepts ”center” or ”core” and ”periphery” are used fairly often in the human sciences, particularly in cultural geography and economy, to describe the hierarchical relationships and interactions between regions and communities.  In principle, the terms are easily understood if they are described accurately. In a conceptual historic or philosophical sense however, there does not appear to be a precise definition of the terms, and researchers applying these terms have not attempted to define them either generally or on a case-specific level. The practice is that the terms are used relatively freely, sometimes using them on a priori basis and sometimes a posteriori, in addition to analysis, as though a specific case can be classified as a relation between the center and periphery.

In the study of history, it is somewhat unclear what added value the use of the center and periphery model has to offer to what is already found in an analysis of relations between different regions and communities by other means. In an exploration of studies in which the center and periphery model has been used, it appears that the model is more of an alternative way to describe certain interactions than a method by which quite different or new results could be achieved, in studying the same interactions. However, the fact that the innovation of the model is not particularly great does not make it unnecessary. The center and periphery model can be useful precisely in describing the relations between regions and communities, and the best benefit is achieved if the model is applied as comprehensively and as diversely as possible. In practice, this means that in analysis, systematic attention is paid to the characteristics of relations between the center and periphery. Through systematics, one can search for the existence of certain features and consider the extent to which different typical features appear in the present case of analysis. Through systematics one can also reflect on why a certain interaction is typical or atypical in its precise features.

However, it is apparent and problematic that there is no existing general model of the center and periphery that is sufficiently delineated. It might well be that it is not even possible to create a model that could be applied universally in all disciplines and cases, or if so, the model would inevitably be so large in its characteristics that any added analytical value it would produce would be meaningless. Part of the answer to this question of a possible model or formula can of course be found by examining individual studies in various sciences that employ the concepts of center and periphery. In my article I will attempt to create a synthesis of the perspectives presented by various researchers and supplement them. In defining what makes a periphery a periphery, the criteria can be grouped into three main categories. These are the periphery’s 1) distance from the center, 2) difference in comparison to the center, and 3) dependence on the center.