Edward Shils on consensus: an appreciation and critique.

The problem of order and the age-old debate over conflict and consensus continues to animate modern social theory. The article critically appraises sociologist Edward Shils' relatively uncelebrated contribution in the rescue of the classical consensual view of society from its current state of disrepute by fusing it with tenets derived from conflict framework. Shils' theory of society builds upon the premise that 'Every society, seen macro-sociologically, may be interpreted as a centre and a periphery.' These 'zones' have both a structural and a cultural aspect. Defined in terms of structure, the centre consists of those institutions and roles which exercise authority, while the periphery consists of those strata or sectors of society which are recipients of commands and of beliefs which they do not themselves create or cause to be diffused. Alongside the institutional structure of authority relations, Shils suggests that every society also acquires a central cultural system. Unlike 'orthodox' consensus theorists who see consensus deriving from a natural identity of interest served by a common stake in cooperative activity, Shils explicitly rejects the notion that a fundamental harmony of interest undergirds social order.