Imagined Communities
Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism is a book by Benedict Anderson about the development of national feeling in different eras and throughout different geographies across the world. It introduced the term "imagined communities" as a descriptor of a social group—specifically nations—and the term has since entered standard usage in myriad political and social science fields. The book was first published in 1983 and was reissued with additional chapters in 1991 and a further revised version in 2006. The book is widely considered influential in the social sciences,[1] with Eric G.E. Zuelow describing the book as "perhaps the most read book about nationalism."[2] It is among the top 10 most-cited publications in the social sciences.[3] Historical argumentAccording to Anderson's theory of imagined communities, the main historical causes of nationalism include:
All of these phenomena coincided with the start of the Industrial Revolution.[2][4] Nation as an imagined communityAccording to Anderson, nations are socially constructed.[5] For Anderson, the idea of the "nation" is relatively new and is a product of various socio-material forces. He defined a nation as "an imagined political community—and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign".[6] As Anderson puts it, a nation "is imagined, because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet, in the minds of each lives the image of their communion."[6] While members of the community probably will never know each of the other members, face-to-face, they may have similar interests or identify as part of the same nation. Members hold, in their minds, a mental image of their affinity: for example, the nationhood felt with other members of your nation when your "imagined community" participates in a larger event, such as the Olympic Games. Nations are "limited" in that they have "finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations".[6] They are "sovereign," since no dynastic monarchy can claim authority over them, in the modern period:
Even though we may never see anyone in our imagined community, we still know they are there through communication means, such as newspapers. He describes the act of reading a daily paper as a "mass ceremony:”
Finally, a nation is a community, because,
CritiqueThe first major critique of Anderson's theory was Partha Chatterjee, who contends that European colonialism de facto imposed limits to nationalism: "Even our imaginations must remain, forever, colonized" (Chatterjee, 1993: 5).[7] Feminist historians, such as Linda McDowell, have noted a much broader but also unreflexive acceptance of nationalism, as a gendered vision: "the very term horizontal comradeship [...] brings with it connotations of masculine solidarity" (McDowell, 1999: 195).[8] Imagined Communities does not directly address the gendered nature of nationalism.[citation needed] Adrian Hastings criticized the modernist interpretations of Anderson and another Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawm, for restricting the emergence of nationalism to the modern period and the eighteenth century as ignoring the national feelings of the medieval period and the framework for national coexistence within the Bible and Christian theology.[9] Dean Kostantaras argued that Anderson's study of nationalism was far too broad, and the topic required a much more thorough investigation.[10] Writing in a retrospective essay for The New Republic in 2024, Samuel Clowes Huneke argued that the book suffered from flaws in its Marxist framework, stating that it "cannot explain the devotion that nations have and continue to inspire," while arguing, further, that Anderson's emphasis on "nations inspiring love" ignores a history of racism in the rise of nationalism, ultimately claiming that while the book "offers a compelling account of nationalism’s origins, then, it speaks little to the guises in which nationalism has reappeared in the twenty-first century, at the same time "[t]he notion that the conjoined spread of capitalism and nationalism—both of which were amply wrapped up in colonialism—had nothing to do with racism is risible."[11] See also
External links
References
|