A CRITICAL REVIEW OF BENEDICT ANDERSON’S “IMAGINED COMMUNITIES ” By Matt Cromwell November 2, 2010 I.
Introduction Modern Americans today can easily answer the question “When was your nation
birthed?” Though the details of their answer may vary, the basic idea would place that time around the American Revolution. Some “older” countries such as Italy, Greece, or China would not have such a ready-made answer because becau se they believe their nation was a natural manifestation of their people. Not so, according to Benedict Be nedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (Anderson 1983). 1983). Nations are a purely modern manifestation which are created for political purposes. It is my aim to summarize Anderson’s work, analyze and give critical input on his methodology and biases, and provide a my summary of o f thoughts on how this work benefits us today. II.
Summary Anderson sets the stage of this work by defining nations as imagined, limited, and
sovereign communities. Each adjective of that definition is an attempt to address a historically recognized paradox in the study of nation building. Regarding the objective modernity of nations for historians versus their subjective antiquity for its citizens, Anderson leans towards the subjective by calling them imagined. For Anderson a nation is far more particular in its manifestation than universal, therefore it is limited. Lastly, though
Page 1
the concept of a nation is rather weak philosophically (according to Anderson) it is nevertheless powerful and therefore sovereign. In short, nations are a small idea shared by a geographically limited area of people that – that – despite its limitations – has influence and power in its greater region and sovereignty over its people. The definition is first defended by illustrating the rise of nations, primarily through Western cultural history. Anderson shows how the concept of a nation became more and more realized as three th ree longstanding institutions faded: linguistic diversity, religious authority, and traditional monarchies. Whereas the ruling classes maintained their authority through legitimacy to the throne, administrative and inaccessible languages for the lower classes, and religious power and influence, the arising concept of representative government was stripping each of those modes of influence from their power . According to Anderson by emphasizing the native tongue, shifting the source of power from monarchs to the people, and lessening the influence of the church in public life, nations began to be a real possibility. All of this was expedited by the arrival and utilization of the printing press. Anderson next illustrates the rise to national consciousness in the Americas, in Europe, and eventually in the colonial nation-states. Each of these examples benefitted greatly from their various uses of the printing press, how they consolidated co nsolidated power and communication, and education. The last chapters are spent further clarifying nationalism against other powerful influences like racism, history, and geography. Each of these influences can both hurt and help the formation and and operation of a nation. Anderson’s chapter on Patriotism and Racism, for example, leans the conversation towards political morality though with a focus
Page 2
on how racism can adversely affect the longevity of a nation. Another example is modernmo dernday China; its current nation-building nation-building process benefits directly from the West’s past two centuries of nation-building history. Anderson concludes with a call for a need for a narrative of identity. III.
Anderson’s Research and Method A brief scan of Anderson’s Bibliography shows how dependent he dependent he was on secondary
sources. This is an obvious weakness of the total work, and many critics have cited this issue. On the other hand, what is the alternative? It is very likely that there would wou ld not be direct primary documentation of the building of a nation. He could cite public records that detail changes in the economy or land ownership before and after times of nationalistic transition. Anderson, instead, chooses to use cultural manifestations of national consciousness to support his claims. Novels and newspapers are his primary sources. He ch ooses these mediums primarily because of his main argument; that nations are “imagined.” imagined.” Thus imagined, they take shape in the popular culture of the time long before they are realized. In many ways he is advocating for a view of literary criticism that suggests that literature not only serves as a mirror to t o society but also to the future of where a society is heading. The immediate issue that is raised with this methodology is that analysis of literary fiction is rather subjective. Whereas analysis of newspapers can be more direct, early newspapers contained many novellas or chapters of books as well, which makes them part journalistic account, part fiction.
Page 3
IV.
Anderson’s Argument and Perspective Perspective Anderson’s Marxism is no secret nor is it a problem because his argument is a
criticism of not only capitalist understandings of nations, but also of Marxist understandings. Tom Nairn wrote in 1977 that nationalism that nationalism “represents Marxism’s greatest historical failure.” failure.” Marxism’ Marxism’s materialist view of history and political action does do es not have a way to address such an emotional and widespread sentiment as nationalism; therefore Anderson is attempting to explain the existence of nations both as a Marxist and capitalist reality. He does that primarily by emphasizing the way nationalism arose from the lower classes through print production, while at the same time illustrating a ve ry postmodern concept of subjectivity through his concept of nations being imagined. Some argue that Anderson’ Anderson’s initial influence in the field of nationalism was much more significant for postmodernists than for Marxists (Davidson 2007). But Marxism, being focused on class and material goods, gives Anderson a unique perspective and allows him to highlight aspects of nation-building that might not otherwise have been so greatly noticed. For example, it is well known and documented how extremely effective the printing press has been in encouraging literacy, making education generally more accessible, allowing a “free trade” of ideas – both religious, philosophical, and economic. But could it be said that the printing press paved the way for an imagined community to become realized as a nation? Anderson’s answer is a resounding, “Yes! Of course!” It is the printer and his trade that enables ideas to spread, not competiti on. It is paper as a commodity that serves as medium for political revolution. This is what makes Anderson’s thesis so unique as well as being a real vulnerability. It is hard to overstate the
Page 4
influence of the printing press on society at large, but to make it the single commonality in all instances of nationalistic consciousness can clearly be understood as an overstatement. Another limitation that most likely arises from his Marxist perspective is cloudy assertions about religion. Anderson claims that as the power-grip of religious institutions lessened, the ability to create a free society emerged. Claudio Lumnitz names this very astutely as a misnomer (Lomnitz 2000: 352). Anderson is describing secularization and naming it nationalism. These are two very distinct processes. This is illustrated clearly by the fact that a nation can rise up with religious institutions still in place; e.g. Spain, Italy, Germany. Marxism carries an extremely negative view of religion which can, and in this case has, resulted in misdiagnosing an issue because of lack of detailed knowledge of th e subject. V.
Concluding Analysis It is always refreshing when a historian attempts to pull together competing
positions to draw a more cohesive picture of a historical h istorical reality. The huge benefit of this is simply the plethora of work that Anderson inspired. All of o f the critiques and theses that follow Imagined Communities add to an even deeper understanding of nationalism as well as providing an excellent resource and springboard for discussion on modern concepts of nationalism. Anderson challenges the idea that nationality is a g iven and provokes the reader to consider how our country came to be constructed in time and place as it is. With such an iconic work it is easy to stand at a distance and pull pieces apart and question its claims, but it is more productive to offer an alternative. alternative. In this vein, Claudio Lomnitz suggests amendments to the definitions definitions of nation (Lomnitz 2000). His primary Page 5
amendment is that “ that “nationalism does not form a single fraternal imaginary community,” community,” but rather several that include our bonds of dependence on the weaker members of society that “ that “strong citizens” citizens” take responsibility for (Lomnitz 200: 337). Therefore, nationalism does not only promise a compelling fraternity, but also domestic relations, care for the downtrodden, productive work-place relations, etc. This is a much more mo re inspiring narrative that feels much more natural to our o ur current understandings of nations and societies today. Lastly, the concept of imagining a nation is very compelling because it is about creating a body of people with similar values and similar history. But as I read I began to wonder if the opposite is also true. tru e. Can imagine destruction as well as creation? Can we detect in our literature today a hint of an impending Civil War, or the subtle vibrations of an imminent clash with Mexico? Would it be possible for future historians to write a book called “Imagined Collapse” Collapse”, or “Dreaming of Downfall” Downfall”? And if so, are those clashes cl ashes just as inevitable as Anderson makes the rise to nation-hood seem?
Page 6
BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. Ed. John Hutchinson and Anthony D Smith Nationalism. Verso. Davidson, Neil. 2007. Reimagined Communities. International Socialism 18 December, no. 117. http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=401&issue=117. Lomnitz, Claudio. 2000. Nationalism as a Practical Practical System: Benedict Anderson’s Theory of Nationalism from the Vantage Point of Spanish America. In The Other Mirror: Grand Theory through the Lens of Latin America, ed. M.A. Centeno and F. Lopez Alves, 329-59. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Miller, Nicola. 2006. The historiography of nationalism and national identity in Latin America. Nations and Nationalism 12, no. 2: 201-221. Nairn, Tom, 1977, “The Modern Janus”, in The Break-Up of Britain: Crisis and Neo Nationalism (New Left Books) as quoted in Davidson, Neil. 2007. Reimagined Communities.
Page 7
