Search results

Whether vital US interests are threatened by international terrorism; response strategies, particularly military retaliation.

One of the more intriguing theories to be formulated in the field of public opinion has been Johan Galtung's conceptualization of a center-periphery continuum in a given society and its effect on policy attitudes. Using an eight variable index as a measure of social position, Galtung found the center of Norwegian society to be gradualist, consistent, and optimistic in its foreign policy orientation, while the periphery was absolutist, inconsistent, and pessi mistic.The aim of this article was to confront Galtung's theory with new data in a different society over a twenty-year period. Using United States data as gathered by the Survey Research Center between 1952 and 1972, the general finding was a partial rejection of Galtung's theory. The periphery was not more pessimistic than the center, but was less consistent in some of its foreign policy attitudes. Surprisingly, we found the center to be more likely than the periphery to favor 'tough' foreign policies, and was consistently the main supporters for escalation of the Korean and Vietnam wars, and for keeping soldiers overseas during the non-war survey years of 1956 and 1960.Our conclusion was that Galtung's social position index is a useful analytical tool for separating certain foreign policy attitudes among the American public. However, we found no support for Galtung's original fear that the periphery would be a negative factor in the establishment of a peace-oriented public opinion.