What are the Centers of Our Communities and Who is on the Periphery?

What?

Edward Shils’ model of Center vs Periphery, to me, is one of the most interesting modes of looking at society that I have studied so far in my history/humanities studies. I found it quite perplexing in the beginning, but by the time we discussed it in class I truly felt comfortable with the subject and felt that I could examine Center and Peripheries in multiple aspects of society. The first two parts that summarize the theory are that society has a Center, and memberships are formed in correlation with the Center. The Center is defined as symbols, values, beliefs, and actions; the Center is never truly tangible and it is not controlled by one person like an organization or institution is: instead, the Center shifts according to the people in proximity to it which are most commonly the elites (or people with authority). I think this was a concept that made me confused before discussing it in class, because it wasn’t until we talked about the Center in class that we came to a conclusion that the Center does not have power, but it is endorsed or influenced by people who do. The Periphery is better understood when it is visualized, but in simple terms it is a range or degree of how close an individual or memberships are to the Center. The people who are in the Periphery are still within range of the Center, yet there are not close to influencing it per say- the people who are in denial of the Center (who don’t value the Center subject) are referred to as the “complete Periphery.”

As I was brainstorming in class, I realized that a Center in American society is materialism, which has affected many people in terms of socioeconomic status. If the people who create the materials, such as major manufacturing companies, or promote them, like advertising/marketing workers, are closest to the Center, then people who consumer and value the materials are on the Periphery, varying in degrees. Since the advertisers are part of the coercion force, they stand much closer to the Center than the people who struggle to afford material goods such as clothing, cars, and technology. On a global scale, there might be people living in developing or third world countries who do not have access to material good like we do, so they’d be considered on the complete Periphery, or not even in the circle at all. I thought about this in terms of the Ritter Center and how’d they place on the model. Upon some thought, I came to the conclusion that they all value materials in some way, because of the clothes they wear every morning and the stores that they buy their goods from: our society lives on the economy of buying and selling materials, so unless people are farming and making their own goods, they will be involved.

So What?

Family is one of the number one Centers in my life, so I tend to fall closer to the Center than other people my age might. I live at home with my parents, and have a close family of larger than 100 people at significant family gatherings (like Easter). Since this Center is only in my life, it shifts when I become closer to certain members or parts of my family; for example, I am periodically distanced from my parents and move closer to my sister and nieces, so my Center shifts slightly from the “nuclear family” to siblings and other relatives. An alternate Center for me would be my relationship with my friends, and valuing long term friendships. If I am still understanding correctly, I find myself in the Periphery of that center when I am not able to see them as they go away to college or spend time with my family rather than them (both of these examples have to do with proximity to them and my Center). For both of these Centers, I think that temporary emotions can also have an effect on Periphery as well: I think the degrees of Periphery are meant to be fluid and changing depending on specific instances or relationships you make with stimuli around you.

Now What?

I think that the best example of a Center in the community I work with not just food insecurity, but also religious faith, specifically Christianity. Time and time again people tell me “God bless you” as a greeting or thank you, so I think that shows a significant attraction towards faith in the low income/homeless community. I wrote about these interactions numerous times in my GivePulse entries, even on my second day. On February 5th I wrote, “[I gave the client oranges to] … help keep the flu bug away. He was so appreciative of me and said ‘God bless you’ with the biggest smile I had ever seen.” I have not seen Dion recently, but I still remember his positive attitude vividly, as well as his smile to me while he was sitting and waiting to be helped. The next week on February 12th I was blessed yet again by another wonderful member of the community. His name was Stephen, and felt a really strong connection with the way he talked to me, even writing in my impact that he, “was so genuine in saying ‘God bless you’ that I felt like he could be a member of my parish or family.” These are not the only two times I have heard the phrase, because it often happens multiple times per day, every visit, so the Center of religion is obviously part of the community. I think that the Periphery in this case is how often homeless people are able to attend church services without feeling othered. In the Marin community, attending church services is often attached to materialistic superficiality: what clothes do you wear, who do you know at the church, did you donate money, etc. Besides that, I think it shows a great dedication towards religion from the low income community and just how much religion is a universal value for society in general but some people are marginalized from the Center or institutions close to the Centers even if they are not meant to be in theory.