It has long been thought that in the systematic analysis of human relations one had to think about the image of atoms, which means with the center and the periphery. This theoretical scheme has been, and continues to be, very effective in understanding, above all, the power relations in society. For example, sociological research can demonstrate that socio-economic, political-cultural forces are concentrated in urban centers, and in the surroundings, in the so-called French Banlieue, those of the lowest social class, immigrants and the private are marginalized. Without giving another example, it can be demonstrated that in the literary system there are exemplary works in the center, lecturers, institutions or canonized markets, and that in the periphery there is secondary literature. In the main cultural areas such as Spain or France, the nucleus of the literary atom can be identified and the Basque literature can be classified in the marginal regional literature, as if it were an insignificant electron. And within the Basque literature, one can also place the center of literary life in the area of Gipuzkoa, around prestigious authors and critics, seeing the production of Iparralde marginalized.

The fact of thinking through the concepts of center-periphery has its drawbacks: it studies human realities in a hierarchical way, and stimulates the agents that their facts are carried out according to the types of dominant-dominated relations, as if any human relation were a relationship of power or struggle. In Bizkitarte, the center-periphery ideas also have their advantages, especially in the cultural sphere: defining a “center”, define a model that can be optimistic and motivating. What comparative aspect did the Basque literature have if it did not have a solid model that has given universal dissemination to our own?

Through another theoretical framework one can understand the intricacies of society, taking into account that we are all immersed in a globalized world, that is, to think that there are no more centers or that it is not so significant to identify centers, because, in short, only the peripheries are left in a globality without borders. Here, and particularly in the cultural sphere, I am referring to the philosophy of Martian Edouard Glissant, who says that the era of centralisation is over and that the new world is made up of archipelagos. What happens is that, rather than lack of center, there are unexpected interactions between cultures: languages are mixed, but also artistic models. Glissant calls this phenomenon “creolization” and believes it is a welcoming good because culture perpetuates them.

The world without center can be very attractive: without an academic model, all the freedom to claim all differences and confusions, beyond all borders. The world is only possible thanks to the large Banlieue. But the revolt, would we not be drowned in artificial multiculturalism, to the detriment of our real difference (or identity) enriching? Would the revolt not lead us to a sad standardisation for the benefit of the most basic of globalisation? Given this risk, we should be focused on Basques, returning to the previous theoretical scheme...

In the line of the Blaise Pascal Reflections, which we want to immerse ourselves in the center or in the circumference, we are faced with the difficult question we have to ask ourselves.