Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism

Anderson highlights the ''imaginary'' part of nationalism. The nation is just a mental construct, and a recent one at that. This can require a shift in mental gears to one who feels devotion to his 'nation' is what makes life significant. And anyone that feels his group is connected to some eternal past/future will be stunned. Anderson covers abundant historical and emotional evidence to support his theme. For example, what unites millions of diverse individuals? What shared customs confirms their connectedness? Not daily prayers to God, but morning/evening mental unity with all fellow news readers/listeners. - ''The significance of this mass ceremony –Hegel observed that newspapers serve modern man as a substitute for morning prayers –is paradoxical. It is performed in silent privacy, in the lair of the skull.'' How can this isolated, individual action produce unity? '''Yet each communicant is well aware that the ceremony he performs is being replicated simultaneously by thousands (or millions) of others of whose existence he is confident, yet of whose identity he has not the slightest notion. Furthermore, this ceremony is incessantly repeated at daily or half-daily intervals throughout the calendar. What more vivid figure for the secular, historically clocked, imagined community can be envisioned?'' (33) Each reader/listener knows exactly the thoughts of all! What connection. What unity! 1 Introduction 2 Cultural Roots 3 The Origins of National Consciousness 4 Creole Pioneers 5 Old Languages, New Models 6 Official Nationalism and Imperialism 7 The Last Wave 8 Patriotism and Racism 9 The Angel of History 10 Census, Map, Museum 11 Memory and Forgetting Travel and Traffic: On the Geo-biography of Imagined Communities Bibliography Index Anderson is not sympathetic to nationalism. From the introduction - ''It is characteristic that even so sympathetic a student of nationalism as Tom Nairn can nonetheless write that: ‘ “Nationalism” is the pathology of modern developmental history, as inescapable as “neurosis” in the individual, with much the same essential ambiguity attaching to it, a similar built-in capacity for descent into dementia, rooted in the dilemmas of helplessness thrust upon most of the world (the equivalent of infantilism for societies) and largely incurable.’' Wow! The connection/contrast of nationalism with religion surfaces consistently. ''The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them, encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic, boundaries, beyond which lie other nations. No nation imagines itself coterminous with mankind. The most messianic nationalists do not dream of a day when all the members of the human race will join their nation in the way that it was possible, in certain epochs, for, say, Christians to dream of a wholly Christian planet.'' This distinction is crucial for modern nationalism. ''It is imagined as sovereign because the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm. Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherents of any universal religion were inescapably confronted with the living pluralism of such religions, and the allomorphism between each faith’s ontological claims and territorial stretch, nations dream of being free, and, if under God, directly so. The gage and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state.'' Key idea. Nationalism is a recent invention due to the demise of Christendom. Many other insights. Writing is not always smooth or clear. Sometimes feels like reader is thrown into the middle of a conversation without background. Some subjects seem to continue beyond what is needed. Examples so detailed that idea submerged. Nevertheless, interesting and eye opening. (This note added 6/2/18. Recently found the work of Professor Hans Kohn. Spent lifetime of scholarship on Nationalism, history, meaning, impact, etc., etc.. Great!)

The recent rise of nationalism, as reflected by the vitriolic nature of national politics in many countries had inspired me to seek answers in Benjamin Anderson’s seminal work. ‘The Imagined Communities’ was originally published in 1983, and the current revised edition was released in 2006. This is the definitive text on the nationalism. Anderson postulates that nations are a complex, socio-political, and cultural constructs that emerge in the imagining of groups of people. He traces three main, interrelated themes of influence in the imagining of nations. Firstly, he explores the influence of language, script and mass literacy, with the fall of the old ‘sacred’ languages like Latin and the spread of vernacular language through the advent of ‘print capitalism’ (a happy merger between print technology and capitalism). Secondly, the de-authorization of centripetal power structures, like monarchies and dynasties with divinely vested rule is examined. Finally, the very notion of time are reimagined is flat and continuous. Benedict Anderson makes his concepts relevant to global citizens by drawing examples from Europe and the former colonies in the Americas and Asia. The independence achieved by the colonies in the Americas were in a different time and had different influences, compared to the fairly recent colonial independence of the South East Asian countries. Being a South East Asian scholar, Anderson lovingly contrasts the colonies of French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies, detailing the influences that caused Indochina to fragment into three separate states (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia), while the vast and varied island populations of Dutch East Indies to meld with relative harmony into Indonesia. Also explored are the shaping of a nation’s borders and consciousness by its conquerors by means of economic and military defined maps, national census that require categorisation of people and the propaganda of antiquities in museums. This is a compelling read, albeit a fairly difficult one. Anderson writes mainly in English, but scattered in are words, sentences and paragraphs in innumerable other languages, thus the narration is stunted. Also, the author writes for a more educated audience, as a layperson in the fields of sociology, political science, and history, I struggled with the sometimes unhelpful footnotes and references. Nevertheless, this is a compelling read, and I am happy to note translated to many languages to reach a wider audience.

Although published in 1983, Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is still one of the standard works on nationalism. As Anderson points out numerous times in the book, although nationalism has become the dominant political force of the modern world, there is no agreed upon definition of nationalism. Political theorists and historians generally agree that nationalism first rose in the late eighteenth century, but beyond that the picture is muddled. Arguing against Marxists who underrate nationalism, Anderson thinks the successful revolutions of the twentieth century have all been nationalist. More important than that, though, is Anderson's contention that the nation is an imagined community and that nationalism is perceived as destiny. As such, Anderson's book very much is in line with the books assigned for this course. Anderson argues that nationalism triumphed in the Americas due to friction between revolutionary creoles and the imperial governments that ruled them. In many ways, the creole nationalists would have been content with the European government that ruled them if they could be part of the political process. But, after being shown they were expendable and/or unnecessary, the creoles attempted to create a national consciousness. One area where Anderson and several of the books we read disagree is on the role of patriotism and racism. Anderson argues that racism should be disassociated from racism and attached instead to class. Disagreeing with this, historians of whiteness studies and several historians of the South, including Stephanie McCurry, have shown that race was often linked to national identity. Especially in the United States, to be a white man was to be American for essentially the entire nineteenth century. In many ways, Anderson's book is a discussion of what makes people not only unite as a nation, but see themselves as part of a group of people, especially when they will never meet their other countrymen. This is certainly a question that has been explored in many of the books we have read. What makes an American? Based on the books we have read this semester, there are different answers to that. One of the more interesting answers might be Stephanie McCurry's. Although she is talking about the Confederate States, she successfully argues that while the government was founded with the idea that only white men were members of the community, white women were able to make their voice heard. So, in some ways, the mere act of interacting with the government makes one "American." Other historians, such as Charles Sellers, would argue that it is the economics of the United States that link the nation together. Capitalism, and the market, allowed Americans to feel unified. Still others, like Sean Wilentz, would point to the politics of the United States as what links everyone together. To be sure, not everyone agrees on politics or even participates, but Wilentz argues that it was participatory democracy that unified the country. The interesting thing is that none of these historians, except maybe McCurry, were even discussing nationalism. However, it is nearly impossible to discuss the sense of unification of a country and not touch on nationalism. As such, nationalism has become more prevalent in the past thirty years or so. However, there still does not seem to be an agreed-upon definition of exactly what nationalism is. Because Anderson's book has been so influential, though, his definition has become one of the standards in the field.

The thesis: "Nations" are imagined communities. They don't exist per se, as we will never know the overwhelming majority of our fellow compatriots. Nations don't respect ethnicity, religion, or preferences. They are not entities formed out of voluntary association. They are not optional at birth. They are political concoctions, perceived as limited and sovereign. Independently of the existing inequalities, they are conceived as horizontal fraternities. This book traces the development of this very recent and peculiar concept, unknown during the greater part of human history. It sprung from the vanishing of two preceding principles of organization as such: religion and dynasty. It owes its existence to the capitalist press's expansion, and its necessity of a uniform and general language, as well as to the art of the novel and its expression of the simultaneity of time for different local communities. Capitalism and its expansive force were central to the creation of Nationalism which, as an idea, was born in America, created by Europeans born already there, but without a history and in need of creating identities that would permit them keep power from the indigenous masses and the slaves or former slaves. In Europe, by contrast, Nationalism was basically linguistic, but never before had language been strictly identified with territory or race. Truly national languages were created by the press, and the threat of dissolution of empires created Official Nationalism as a defense mechanism of dynastic powers. In the European colonies, the census, maps, and museums created by the metropolises awakened (invented) in the various subjugated countries a national "conscience", which created nations there where the concept had no meaning, with the disastrous results we are witnesses to every day, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. There was no such thing as "Israel" and "Palestine". "Irak", "Kuwait", "Saudi Arabia" and many other "nations" are in reality nothing but partitions of former colonial territories. Especially in Africa, tribes were divided and ancestral enemies piled together without their consent into artificial nations. This is an excellent book, well written and documented, with abundant examples and original and convincing theses. In the end, "nations" are nothing but inventions by politicians eager to keep their power, and it is likely that the model will change as communications, travel, immigration, supranational entities, and other developments affect the way communities organize around the globe. It will be (it is being) an exciting and interesting phenomenon to watch.

Imagined Communities is the progenitor for a whole literature on the genealogy of nationalism. It deserves to be controversial, as its unremitting assault on a natural basis for nationalism is done with some hand waving. But, in its essentials, I found myself agreeing with a writer from the Marxist-Critical school; showing its surprisingly fecundity even to those, like me, who oppose it. Essentially, its argument is that before the Enlightenment and Romantic eras there was no sense of belonging to a nation. Dialects made conversation near impossible between members of the same kingdom and men were more likely to identify with their fellow believers than their respective nationality. With the ebbing of religious authority, states arose with an interest in promoting a national ethos. Printing tended to standardize language, newspapers established a mode of seeing simultaneity between events across one’s linguistic tribe and museums and cultural sites began to embody the pride of the nation. These effects were transferred to the colonized in the twentieth century although there were precursors of European nationalism in many early states of what is now called the developing world. I have just a couple of difficulties with Anderson. First, it seems like his intent is to cooperate in destroying pillar by pillar the foundations of the modern West. While some Marxists criticize the traditional family, others choose to criticize the economic structure and Anderson tries to undermine an emotional connection to the nation. As someone who sees the flaws in our culture and heritage but would like to see them preserved, I can’t but disagree. Secondly, anyone with knowledge of ancients texts knows how strong a similar sense of nationalism was present. How could Pericles’ speech to the Athenians have been been possible if there wasn’t a sense of pride in the Delian League? And how can Anderson not mention the Jewish people? Is there a part of the Hebrew Bible that doesn’t show a brotherhood of Jews and a love for the land of Zion? A love which is, sad to say, again being persecuted today. But I did find myself in agreement with the book’s central idea: modern nationalism is a sui generis idea spread throughout the world primarily in the nineteenth century. It does beget something of an imagined community in which we are supposed to regard all 330M Americans as part of our community even though we have never met or heard of the vast majority. Thus, I do recommend it to all who are intellectually open minded.

This book is something of a classic of sociology but not a light read. Very briefly, the thesis of "Imagined Communities" is that political nations are the creation of modern communication networks (definition of modern: post-Gutenberg). When one stops to think about it, this insight seems intuitive. After all, how can people relate to other people unless there is first communication among them? 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. With widespread literacy, the possibility exists of having communities of people who are not in direct contact with one another. 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. It is not surprising that the nations of Europe have formed around linguistic communities since having a common language facilitates communication. 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. Having the means to communicate throughout their colonies made possible the recognition of common feelings among these colonials. 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). Prof Anderson also describes how the predecessors of today's European nations "created" their national languages as well as their myths. This is a very sketchy overview of what I believe to be the major points of this book. "Imagined Communities" is not a book which flows easily. 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. For example, he is describing how a sense of history is essential for the concept of nationhood. 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. Furthermore, it is necessary to imagine a different relationship with those who have gone before. 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. Is it all worth the effort? I think that anyone who is trying to understand the problems created by 20th (and 21st) century nationalism will not find much help here. 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.

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. For Anderson, nationalism is an anomaly which is not accounted for by either Marxian or liberal theory. Instead, nationalism is bound up in mortality, religion, language and culture. 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). The nationalism that flourished in the Americas was marked by its hostility of their colonial elites towards the authority centers or metropoles in Europe. 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. 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. 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. Bell, Linda Colley, and Lisa Cody, who argue nationalism predated the 19th Century by a hundred years or more. 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. Smith, Anderson makes an interesting and compelling argument that is less rigid than earlier modernists like Gellner and Hobsbawm. If anyone has a chance of redeeming modernist interpretations regarding nationalism then Anderson certainly is among those with a chance of making the case.

Like new. Amazing.

This book is amazing. It fill a gap in my knowledge about that crucial part of political science, how nations come to exist. It is well written book and rich in information.

This is a classic for political science, sociology, and anyone interested in understanding how nations (or really any type of community) is built from scratch.

Very Good.

It is delivered fast and in good condition.

Book arrived early and in good condition