Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism

Rating:
Summary: An all-encompasing review of nationalism
Review: 'Imagined communities' refers to the awareness of nationalism which began to arise among non-European groups at the turn of the century. A southeast Asian specialist, Anderson provides an intellectual discussion of the reasons and implications of nationalism. Fascinating and thought-provoking.

Rating:
Summary: importance of imagined community
Review: accessible yet thought-provoking reflection on national identity. Of interest to historians, political theorists, cultural studies. A book I keep coming back to in my mind -- so I finally bought a copy

Rating:
Summary: excellent book on nationalism
Review: although i don't proscribe to the ideals of nationalism, being a socialist, this book delves deeply and thoughtfully on an intriguing topic. the developing world was created on nationalism and now around the world, in countries that are developing we are trying to stifle nationalist feelings because they, while the building blocks of nations, also tend to be very violent. trying to understand how nations are created is very difficult and very complex, but this book sheds great light on the question of nationalism and how it is founded everywhere, including here in america.

Rating:
Summary: A Misread or Rizal and What Else?
Review: Anderson writes a very compelling seminal piece that on the one hand flirts with the postmodern (through the introduction of words like 'imagined' and 'construction') but falls back on the ever secure category laden project of the Enlightenment. Aside from this, it seems apparent to me that Anderson had misread Rizal and may have misread other writers as well. Both items I see as problematic despite my recommending this book highly as a point of engagement. Where does one start? This common question by most students of nationhood and nationalism is a common quandary. Anderson is a good place to start as most dominant discourses go - but is certainly not a place to stop.

"Nation-ness" is apparently the most universally legitimate value in political life but has apparently been elided as an "anomaly" by Marxism. Understandably so as, according to Anderson - in his postmodern best, nationalism cuts through the meta-narratives and provides a local solution. It is "Imagined" because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members. Most of them, or will not even hear of the rest, yet in the minds of each lives the image of the community, a shared community. 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. In my opinion, this was not such as bad thing, but it seems the ancien regime was replaced by a secular dominant model that opened up spaces of new problematics by creating a new currency and further demarcating the world along imagined lines. Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherent of any universal religions were inescapably confronted with living "Pluralism." It is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. In fact all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face (and according to Anderson even these) are imagined. I don't take exception to the concept of imagined as if it is imagined it has become real. However, there are instant problematics assigned to this almost one size fits all solution. Besides falling into the Enlightenment project of demarcation and categorization, the problem of who decides what is what and who is who in this orgy of demarcation and categorization is still stuck with the problem of who decides and what is decided.

Here is a classic example, Anderson posits that nation-ness has become sort of the de facto standard within which all the games are played and all the rules laid out. Anderson himself seems to be part of this dominant discourse and has given out, as an example, the rise of the imagined Philippines through the text of Jose Rizal. A more careful and responsible study of the Philippines will show that Rizal was less an advocate of independence but closer and more equal ties to the empire. Rizal fought for closer ties to the empire; equal status under those laws; representation in the central government in Spain to have a voice; checks on the abuses perpetuated by the Holy Orders, and not independence. If one wishes to look for shades of "nationalism" one should not read Noli Me Tangere nor El Filibusterismo nor for that matter Ultimo Adios but rather look to Emilio Aguinaldo, Andres Bonifacio and Marcelo H. Del Pilar. Despite Rizal's references to "Adios, Patria adorada...." (Farewell, dear Land,....) and Anderson footnote "Not only, of course by functionaries, though they were the main group. Consider, for example, the geography of Noli Me Tangere (and many other nationalist novels). Though some of the most important characters in Rizal's text are Spanish, and some of the Filipino characters have been to Spain (off the novel's stage), the circumambience of travel by any of the characters is confined to what, eleven years after its publication and two years after its author's execution, would become the Republic of the Philippines." (Anderson, 1991: 115). Taking aside authorial functions, just because a novel becomes a catalyst for revolt does not automatically make it a nationalist novel. Noli and Fili (as they are affectionately called) are not per se nationalist novels and were not direct players in nationhood. Noli and Fili (and Rizal for that matter) are part of the nationalist discourse but not in the form that Anderson suggests.

Aside form the abovementioned, there still remains, despite the postmodern language, the problem of an almost nostalgic attachment to the Enlightenment project. Far from being the light of reason to shed light and resolve problems surrounding the human condition, the Enlightenment according to scholars such as Michel Foucault, replaced the ancien regime model of social marginalization and class demarcations with a better mousetrap of domination, which was simply a modernized technology of social control. It would no longer be possible to look to the obvious figures of sovereignty and privilege - embodied in king and counts - for the telling signs of "power." While Anderson attempts to define the nations along of secularized lines, the nation seems to take on a new ontological position replacing religions making one almost a new religion. Aside from the almost exclusive nature and its endorsement as "the" model of legitimacy calls back, I feel, to an Enlightenment scenario that excludes more than it includes. Having said all that, I strongly urge everyone to read this as "a" explanation rather than "the" explanation and move along from there.

Miguel Llora

Rating:
Summary: A Misread or Rizal and What Else?
Review: Anderson writes a very compelling seminal piece that on the one hand flirts with the postmodern (through the introduction of words like `imagined' and `construction') but falls back on the ever secure category laden project of the Enlightenment. Aside from this, it seems apparent to me that Anderson had misread Rizal and may have misread other writers as well. Both items I see as problematic despite my recommending this book highly as a point of engagement. Where does one start? This common question by most students of nationhood and nationalism is a common quandary. Anderson is a good place to start as most dominant discourses go - but is certainly not a place to stop.

"Nation-ness" is apparently the most universally legitimate value in political life but has apparently been elided as an "anomaly" by Marxism. Understandably so as, according to Anderson - in his postmodern best, nationalism cuts through the meta-narratives and provides a local solution. It is "Imagined" because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members. Most of them, or will not even hear of the rest, yet in the minds of each lives the image of the community, a shared community. 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. In my opinion, this was not such as bad thing, but it seems the ancien regime was replaced by a secular dominant model that opened up spaces of new problematics by creating a new currency and further demarcating the world along imagined lines. Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherent of any universal religions were inescapably confronted with living "Pluralism." It is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. In fact all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face (and according to Anderson even these) are imagined. I don't take exception to the concept of imagined as if it is imagined it has become real. However, there are instant problematics assigned to this almost one size fits all solution. Besides falling into the Enlightenment project of demarcation and categorization, the problem of who decides what is what and who is who in this orgy of demarcation and categorization is still stuck with the problem of who decides and what is decided.

Here is a classic example, Anderson posits that nation-ness has become sort of the de facto standard within which all the games are played and all the rules laid out. Anderson himself seems to be part of this dominant discourse and has given out, as an example, the rise of the imagined Philippines through the text of Jose Rizal. A more careful and responsible study of the Philippines will show that Rizal was less an advocate of independence but closer and more equal ties to the empire. Rizal fought for closer ties to the empire; equal status under those laws; representation in the central government in Spain to have a voice; checks on the abuses perpetuated by the Holy Orders, and not independence. If one wishes to look for shades of "nationalism" one should not read Noli Me Tangere nor El Filibusterismo nor for that matter Ultimo Adios but rather look to Emilio Aguinaldo, Andres Bonifacio and Marcelo H. Del Pilar. Despite Rizal's references to "Adios, Patria adorada...." (Farewell, dear Land,....) and Anderson footnote "Not only, of course by functionaries, though they were the main group. Consider, for example, the geography of Noli Me Tangere (and many other nationalist novels). Though some of the most important characters in Rizal's text are Spanish, and some of the Filipino characters have been to Spain (off the novel's stage), the circumambience of travel by any of the characters is confined to what, eleven years after its publication and two years after its author's execution, would become the Republic of the Philippines." (Anderson, 1991: 115). Taking aside authorial functions, just because a novel becomes a catalyst for revolt does not automatically make it a nationalist novel. Noli and Fili (as they are affectionately called) are not per se nationalist novels and were not direct players in nationhood. Noli and Fili (and Rizal for that matter) are part of the nationalist discourse but not in the form that Anderson suggests.

Aside form the abovementioned, there still remains, despite the postmodern language, the problem of an almost nostalgic attachment to the Enlightenment project. Far from being the light of reason to shed light and resolve problems surrounding the human condition, the Enlightenment according to scholars such as Michel Foucault, replaced the ancien regime model of social marginalization and class demarcations with a better mousetrap of domination, which was simply a modernized technology of social control. It would no longer be possible to look to the obvious figures of sovereignty and privilege - embodied in king and counts - for the telling signs of "power." While Anderson attempts to define the nations along of secularized lines, the nation seems to take on a new ontological position replacing religions making one almost a new religion. Aside from the almost exclusive nature and its endorsement as "the" model of legitimacy calls back, I feel, to an Enlightenment scenario that excludes more than it includes. Having said all that, I strongly urge everyone to read this as "a" explanation rather than "the" explanation and move along from there.

Miguel Llora

Rating:
Summary: "i cheers for democracy"
Review: Benedict Anderson's *Imagined Communities*, perhaps the most important work of political science published in the last 20 years, brings historical good sense and a panoply of meticulously organized facts to bear on the central problem of 20th-century history: namely, the growth and spread of nationalist sentiments in places that did not previously permit such for *several* reasons. Anderson's analysis "undoes" several commonplaces about the nation-state, chief among them that the concept originated in Europe: he locates the critical "fusion" of people and state as occurring with the anti-colonial movement around Simon Bolivar in 19th century Latin America, rather than the earlier movement for independence of the British colonies which formed the United States.

However, to Anderson's mind the character of one of the modern world's more curious institutions is not entirely without import for understanding nationalist movements, as they almost without exception employ concepts of territorial and cultural integrity which did not exist prior to colonial regimentation: the scope and extent of today's India has more to do with the British Raj than the Moghuls. But perhaps this displacement is in truth somewhat not to the taste of contemporary "interrogators" of the intersection to truth and power, and the art of Anderson's book consists in his leaving the question of national unity unsolved. To my mind one of the most telling instances of democratic sentiment on hand, and a book whose way with you is so short on account of its often-tortured verbiage: gems such as this have other uses, and I can imagine almost no use for this book.

Rating:
Summary: A must for students of nationalism
Review: Benedict Anderson's book Imagined Communities is an intriguing attempt at explanation of the phenomenon of nations and nationalism. Anderson's approach centers around the socio-cultural aspects of the explanation. For him a nation is by definition an imagined community, that is a community, the members of which are aware of each other's existence but, even for a lifetime do not meet or come to know a substantial number of the rest of the members of that community. Yet through a number of media they acquire a sense of belonging to this larger group. This definition which can be derived from the text leads Anderson to explore the origins of this sense of commonality. In his view three major factors have contributed to the emergence of these communities. One is the fragmentation of the previously single religious community. The Reformation, which led to the emergence of new Christian denominations constituted an assault on the Catholic Church and thus an assault on the principle of universality that the Church was promoting. Also, the geographical discoveries broadened the universe of the man of the Middle Ages to whom, previously, that same universe had been confined to the realm of Christendom. As universality was particularized and as the world suddenly broadened this for the first time gave the people the opportunity to compare and contrast their lives to those of others, very unlike themselves. The world and life had become more complex and the straightforward and, what is more important, traditional explanations of the church of life and death and suffering no longer sufficed. A comparison with Karl Deutsch (1966) shows certain similarities in this understanding of the origins of nations and nationalism. The process of the church losing its authority as the source of all the answers and thus the emergence of the sense of insecurity as a result of the loss of the secure firm ground of easy and unquestionable answers is one of Deutsch's examples of the reasons leading to "social mobilization". Anderson argues that one of the major components of the environment in which nations emerged was language. The decline of the usage of the old universal languages and the standardization of certain versions of each vernacular language (with the appearance of print-capitalism) led to the emergence of larger groups with shared identity on the basis of common language. So, Anderson argues that with the appearance of the bourgeois class (which alone had both the means - the market - and the incentive - profit - to spread printed books to the point of saturating with them the literate strata of society), a profound change began, a change that would eventually lead to the formation of nations, to the emergence of nationalism. Two more factors in Adnderson's argument could be regarded as central to the origins of nationalism - the decline of dynastic realm and the changing apprehensions of time. The former was important because it called for a new foundation of legitimacy and, in due course of time, nations came to be regarded as providing that foundation. The ruling elites even started at some point to consciously try and shape emerging nations in a certain desired way through the instrument of nationalist ideology. The changing apprehension of time allowed for the first time a look to the past as to history and not as a reflection of the future or realization of the future. It allowed for the first time a look at the future as to an essentially limitless period of time. The present became the calendaric present and not the Biblical "end of time", not the eschatological expectation of the end of the world. This allowed for new opportunities of "manufacturing" commonality, creating a sense of belonging to an established community. History, in the most general sense of the word, became instrumental in this respect - the map, the census and the museum served excellently to create a sense of tradition and continuity that would be convincing enough to create the community in the imagination of the people. Anderson emphasizes the role of the newspapers and, later, the radio in this process of creation. With respect to the nationalism in the former colonies, Anderson introduces the notion of "pilgrimage", meaning the mobility of the members of some key social strata between positions of authority (control). Where the upward (to the higher positions) or the centripetal (to the metropolitan country) mobility was restricted, this created additional conditions to the identification of the affected strata with a community (albeit imagined) distinctly different from that of the colonial state. Anderson introduces here aspects of Karl Deutsch's notions of "assimilation" and "alienation". Anderson's approach is very strongly psychological in orientation. He is discussing the influence of different processes (or events) on the formation of nations primarily in terms of their impact on the individual and from there on the group psychology. His analysis has much to do with apprehensions and perceptions. In that as well as through the points he makes in the text he implies that nations are above all something subjective, imagined. They exist only to the extent that they exist in people's imagination. Thus the sense of belonging to a nation, and the nation itself depend on individual perception rather then on objective factors. Yet the argument, concerning the era before the appearance of the bourgeoisie could be adapted to serve in the new conditions - one is born and brought up to speak a certain language, to have a certain religion (or be an atheist or agnostic), to live in a society that is shaped around certain values, experiences, history (no matter how it is interpreted to serve certain nationalist ideology), a sense of common future. These factors are objective to the single individual. He/she has no choice, especially in the early stages of life, no opportunity to grasp the partiality of these experiences as related to the entire world. For a considerable period of time the individual's immediate surroundings are his only universe and to many people they remain the only universe until the end of their lives. The very fact (which Anderson mentions) that the world today has turned the notion of nation and thus nationality into a universal concept, that people are EXPECTED to be of CERTAIN nationality is an objective factor. The nation then should be considered in terms of its objectiveness as well not only in terms of perc

Rating:
Summary: A must for any student of nationalism
Review: Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is one of the most important and influential books on the phenomenon of nationalism currently in print. The primary contribution he makes concerns the notion of the development of a community with shared or common cultural media that generate a sense of communal self-awareness or consciousness. Although he uses as his primary example the experience of reading a newspaper (which makes readers conscious of others who share their values, concerns, and experiences, even if they have no direct contact with those people, often over a great distance), the imagined community has broader implications.

This book will make you think about how you conceive of the communities you belong to, and how these communities are created and reproduced. Beyond the obvious importance of broadcast media, in modern American culture, the mall, with its ubiquitous chain stores, is an important motor of our imagined American community: you will find the same basic stores, carrying the same basic styles, in every town in America, creating a sense of common tastes and culture.

While some may complain that the book is dry and boring, it is a scholarly work intended for an educated audience. It is not a popularization intended for the general public. Nevertheless, if you are up for it, it is more than worthwhile.

Rating:
Summary: Good but very mediocre
Review: Here is a review of the book that I wrote for my history-writing class.

Benedict Anderson, a professor of International Studies at Cornell University, uses his knowledge and experience to construct Imagined Communities, a non-fictional work about the origins and outcomes of nationalism. The subject matter is often complicated but rather interesting to the uneducated mind.
It is clear that Anderson's intent was to educate and enlighten those who are not familiar with the concept of nationalism or the very sub-themes connected with it (i.e. religion, patriotism), however, it appears that Anderson seems to be writing for the audience of college students with the purpose of using his book as text rather than creating the book for the average person, since he is a man of academics.
Origins and the outcomes of nationalism are the two main, distinct themes of Imagined Communities. Anderson explains that the United States is not the only one to be known for its nationalistic and patriotic nature. Many people, not just in North America, but in Europe and Asia, have a profound sense of patriotism and love toward their country of origin. Motivated by religion, patriotism, or loyalty, people from around the world either rise up against the government or crush those who oppose the status quo.
Imagined Communities is a detailed sketch of the outcomes of extreme nationalism. Cases of people being imprisoned or wiped out due to imperialistic mindsets and goals are described in explicit detail. Anderson points out that America and Britain are not the only nations to practice the Manifest Destiny ideals. Countries like China, Japan, and Russia are not immune to those ideals as they decide to push further and further into westward expansion.
The subject matter of the book accurately defines its title, Imagined Communities. Each country imagines itself to be perfect in ideals, government, society, and religion and the country's inhabitants strive to meet those idealistic goals. Some countries have lived up to their imagined standards and some have not done so. The United States was successful in expanding westward and "converting" the Native Americans to Christianity. Russia was successful in its monarchial form of government until the revolution of 1905 after the massacre known as Bloody Sunday.
Anderson's sources appear outdated to those reading this text today, since his sources have been dated as far back as the mid-19th century (the first edition of Anderson's book was published in 1983). The oldest sources are the primary sources, consisting of letters and manuscripts written by the history-makers themselves. Nonetheless, the sources are valid in accordance with the people who wrote them and their viewpoints on the occurrences.
The viewpoints used to construct this text include writers, poets, social reformers, religious leaders, and anyone from any walk of life imaginable. These viewpoints provide accurate and vital accounts of those involved with or the victims of extreme nationalism and imperialism. Anderson's academic experience and knowledge contributes greatly to this novel along with his numerous sources. He gives each case a realistic touch and tries not to let his personal opinions interfere with the hardcore evidence used to prove each case.
The shortcomings of Imagined Communities are few and far between but they must not go unmentioned. Although the intent of the text was to educate the unenlightened and uneducated reader about nationalism and its good and bad points, it appears to take on the shape of a college textbook, educating those who are studying the field of history, social sciences, or international studies. It is quite complicated and hard to understand, even to the eye of a semi-educated college student. As mentioned earlier, Anderson seems to try to not let his biased opinion interfere with the historical evidence, but it is definitely clear. He appears to be preaching his biased opinion on everything from religion to patriotism instead of sticking to the facts. The text's strength is that it drives the point home, the point that every country all over the earth we live on, strives to and imagines itself to be perfect and heavenly. The title itself is very appropriately fitting for the text.
Anderson's Imagined Communities is a mediocre work with good intentions. Unfortunately, those good intentions fall short of their standard of enlightening the reader about nationalism due to the fact that Anderson's style reads like a textbook and it is very complicated, however, his point at the end of every chapter summarizes his thesis very briefly, which makes it easier for the reader to understand and comprehend Anderson's academic writing style. The historical worth of the text is astounding. Anderson's sources provide great insight into the minds of people from the past though his liberal bias appears to be preachy in almost every chapter of his book. It's a great book, but it is more suited for the college student rather than the average, uneducated person.

Rating:
Summary: Not a great book
Review: I read this book for a college course and I didn't find anything extremely enlightening about it. His arguments were obvious and others were confusing. There seemed to be a lot of filler material between claims; I guess I don't see the value of the book - it offered no insights into the root of nationalism.