|
If anyone has a chance of redeeming modernist interpretations regarding nationalism then Anderson certainly is among those with a chance of making the case. Anderson differs most markedly from other modernists, such as Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawm, by countering that nationalism is not so much about ideology as it is an anthropological phenomenon, hence Anderson's use of the term "Imagined Communities." While nationalism to Anderson is the product of modernity, it is an inclusive rather than exclusive phenomenon, driven by ever-changing factors which varied from region to region, and from age to age, focusing on what diverse peoples have in common. For Anderson, nationalism is an anomaly which is not accounted for by either Marxian or liberal theory. Nationalism in the decolonization era was marked by the same hostility towards the European metropoles, but emphasized the use of indigenous languages and class consciousness by nationalists to create communities where none had existed before, such as in Indonesia, or to shore up diverse multi-ethnic entities as in China or Vietnam. As opposed to Gellner and Hobsbawm, who advance the theory that nationalism is a more recent phenomenon dating to the 19th Century and driven by ideology, capitalism and industrialization, Anderson and the others advocate that the modern age is much older and that language and other cultural factors played a much larger role in the origins and evolution of nationalism. Countered against the arguments made the more recent ethnosymbolist scholarship by Patrick Geary and Anthony D. Instead, nationalism is bound up in mortality, religion, language and culture. The nationalism that flourished in the Americas was marked by its hostility of their colonial elites towards the authority centers or metropoles in Europe.
Anderson's approach is that nationalism draws extensively upon the past as a means of creating new social structures.As a result, Anderson's argument is closer to more recent scholarship by other modernists such as David A. Smith, Anderson makes an interesting and compelling argument that is less rigid than earlier modernists like Gellner and Hobsbawm. While ostensibly a modernist, Anderson's "Imagined Communities" differs from his peers as he, like the primordialists before him, believes that language is central to creating a sense of community or nationalism, although language was not necessarily a decisive factor or the most essential. While acknowledging the centrality of language, Anderson also proposes there are three sequential causes resulting in the rise of nationalism: "print-capitalism," the rise of new elites (particularly in the Americas), and the bureaucratic "weld" or grafting of nations onto empires (particularly as with Great Britain, Russia, and France). Bell, Linda Colley, and Lisa Cody, who argue nationalism predated the 19th Century by a hundred years or more.
The book was in very good condition. I received this product earlier than I expected to. Overall this seller is very reliable.
This is one of the classics and a must for any student of nationalism. No need to comment. Even if you don't agree with Anderson's account on the origins of nationalism, you still have to read it.
Prof Anderson also describes how the predecessors of today's European nations "created" their national languages as well as their myths. A better book for understanding the lunatic-type nationalism which causes so much trouble would be Eric Hoffer's classic book, "The True Believer." However, as a primer for understanding how the modern nation came to exist in the first place, this book does offer some thought-provoking ideas. In order to think of oneself as belonging to a nation, one must think of oneself as being related to others who share only the circumstance of living at the same time. Here is a passage describing this idea: "What has come to take the place of the medieval conception of simultaneity-along-time is, to borrow again from Benjamin, an idea of 'homogeneous, empty time,' in which simultaneity is, as it were, transverse, cross-time, marked not be prefiguring and fulfillment, but by temporal coincidence and measured by clock and calendar." I think that this should give some idea of the flavor of Prof Anderson's prose.
After all, how can people relate to other people unless there is first communication among them. Very briefly, the thesis of "Imagined Communities" is that political nations are the creation of modern communication networks (definition of modern: post-Gutenberg). It is not surprising that the nations of Europe have formed around linguistic communities since having a common language facilitates communication. This is a very sketchy overview of what I believe to be the major points of this book. Futhermore, a sense of nationhood may be fostered by a state that creates through its educational system and its media a sense of shared experiences (eg, national holidays, national heroes, and national myths). Furthermore, it is necessary to imagine a different relationship with those who have gone before. "Imagined Communities" is not a book which flows easily.
With widespread literacy, the possibility exists of having communities of people who are not in direct contact with one another. Is it all worth the effort. However, a sense of alienation from a ruling class may also facilitate a sense of nationhood, as it did in the Americas in the late 18th century when our founding fathers (and those of Latin America)felt themselves excluded from the political lives of their mother countries. When one stops to think about it, this insight seems intuitive.
In a world in which most people are illiterate and never travel beyond their villages, of course they would not think of themselves as belonging to a great nation of people since they would most likely be unable to imagine such a concept. Having the means to communicate throughout their colonies made possible the recognition of common feelings among these colonials. I believe that Prof Anderson might have made life a bit easier for his readers had he been able to express himself a bit more clearly. I think that anyone who is trying to understand the problems created by 20th (and 21st) century nationalism will not find much help here.
This book is something of a classic of sociology but not a light read. Benedict Anderson takes this insight about nationhood and discusses how these imagined communities of people not directly in contact with one another may be formed. For example, he is describing how a sense of history is essential for the concept of nationhood.
Though some interesting and provocative ideas are presented shedding some light on the idea of the rise of nationalism, this was largely a poorly written book that will not add an iota of understanding to what motivates human behavior.
|
