Nationalism (maybe modernism?) for thought…

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 1991, 2006

& John Smith, Nationalism and Modernism, 1998

Tough week for the social theory and comparative history seminar!  We had to read two books and compare/contrast the two.  Interestingly though, it was one of the most interesting concerning our seminar’s questioning of modernity and how it should be defined and whether or not the ideology is still useful.  The first book was by Anthony Smith called Nationalism and Modernism and the other (far more exciting, interesting, and provocative) book was by Benedict Anderson called Imagined Communities. Smith’s book was a review in most ways of nationalism discourse and its many branches.  It was prescriptive in the sense that he did try to give a basic definition of nationalism and argue that more cross-discipline partnering is necessary but he played it very safe.  Anderson, in contrast, made a very specific claim about nationalism, how it should be understood, and how we can apply it to twenty-first century notions considering the advent and proliferation of technology/transnational ideologies.  Reading the two together made for a great contrast in methodology and they really did complement each other.  The following is my comparison and analysis of the two readings more closely.

Both Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith attempt to define nationalism by illustrating the complicated, paradoxical nature of nations, nation-states, and cultures associated with such.  Nationalism, for Smith, is, “…a modern movement and ideology, which emerged in the latter half of the eighteenth century in Western Europe and America, and which…is now beginning to decline and give way to global forces which transcend the boundaries of nation-states.” (1)  Also, a nation and nationalism by default are particular types of communities which are conceived by the collective patriots.  Smith tries to lay the battle ground of nationalism scholarship and argues for an overall generalized definition and transdiscipline approaches in the future.  Smith is very careful to not pass too many value judgments but sees the diametrically opposed perennialist and modernist approaches to nationalism as valuable.  Anderson also believes that one succinct definition of nationalism is difficult but he does offer that a nation is, “…an imagined political community- and imaged as both inherently limited and sovereign.” (6). Thus nationalism since the 18^th century has been created, distributed, reinvented, constantly narrated via history, and very complex.  If we consider the two definitions together, we can deduce that maybe Smith’s definition is potentially too restrictive and Anderson’s allows for a universality that underlies the political entity itself.

Smith categorizes Anderson’s approach to nationalism as “modernist”.  Maybe there is some truth to this if we summarize, thus far, our working definition of modernity and then consider how this relates to Anderson’s approach to nationalism.  Modernity is self reflexive/critical, self fashioning, participates in “othering” (continually dialectic with both positive and negative outcomes), is an interplay between paradoxical inherent opposites (inherently pluralistic), constantly looks back to move forward, could be considered a universal human experience (on the basis of humanity), and continually negotiates individual  autonomy versus the collective in question.  Similarly, Anderson’s nationalism is constantly self reflexive, which can be seen in borrowing from the modular nationalisms provided initially through the print-capitalism of the French Revolution; self fashioning in the sense that boundaries were demarcated (census’, maps, and museums, oh my), histories were narrated and re-narrated, and language was the main tool of unification;  this self fashioning was also instantaneously in a sense a way of “othering” (especially Anderson’s discussion of Imperialism and nationalism, colonizer versus colonized); through self fashioning and borrowing from past models, looks back to move forward (see Walter Benjamin’s quote on 162); and through defining nationalism as “imagined communities” instead of associating it with a specific time and place, allows for these communities to continue to be imagined in the twenty-first century (thus, the mass proliferation and appeal of his book in the first place).  Smith was indeed right that Anderson used a modernist methodology to describe nationalism.  Anderson’s approach in consequence, provides yet another example of modernity in action as does the nationalism he discusses.

Example of some of the first visually constructed imagined communities….

 

---