The world as we know it is currently covered in invisible lines.
Sometimes these lines follow rivers or trace mountain ranges; sometimes they’re straight, drawn to mirror other invisible lines that are measured in degrees.
We also like to imagine coloring in these invisible lines, to differentiate them on maps of the Earth.
Sometimes the lines have fences tracing them; and sometimes the lines leave no trace at all.
But whether visible or otherwise, these imaginary lines form the very real borders of very real nations. And being born on one side or the other of these lines can have a dramatic effect on the quality of life one is able to experience.
This begs the question:
what are these things we call nations?
And what does it mean to be a certain nationality?
What is the significance of nationalism, that it trumps all other categories (race, ethnicity, religion, class, age, etc.) ?
Often considered a birth right, though at times attainable via some bureaucratic procedure, nationality is perhaps the most recently developed aspect of human identity and, at present, plays a huge part in the way we identify ourselves and others.
Maybe my interest stems from growing up with a foreign name in America. I became accustomed to the curious “so,what (nationality) are you?” One learns early on that when an American asks another American what nationality they are, the party asking is never satisfied with the obvious answer, “American.”
As if, American or not, there must be an affiliation to another nation found beneath the American.
Or rather than beneath, along side.
Italian anthropologist Sandra Bussatta (1996) used the example of the hyphenated-American, (African-American, Italian-American ,etc.) to challenge the theory of a melting pot sentiment in the United States. But something makes the Italian-Americans and African-Americans both Americans.
What is it that joins them together into a single community that the both of them would call ‘the USA’?
What is a nation?
Anthropologist Brackette Williams (1989) described nationalism as a ‘race-class-nation conflation,’ and suggested that the nation is something invented by the ruling class in order to better consolidate their control over one or many distinct populations.
Could this be what is behind the nation?
I’m not so sure, for this approach only considers the motives of the political elite and ignores the vast populations who also participate in the development and fulfillment of nationalism; willing to laugh, cry, fight, and die for their nation above all others.
Benedict Anderson who was born in mainland-China to an Irish father and an English mother was possibly intrigued by the notion of the nations.
In his book, Imagined Communities (1983), provides a masterful analysis of the causal factors related to the origination and spread of nationalism. Anderson considers the effects of imperialism and print-capitalism on the development of nationalism,and also maintains that the Machiavellian nationalism employed by imperial powers was merely one of many factors contributing to the spread of nationalism.
In his book, Imagined Communities (1983), provides a masterful analysis of the causal factors related to the origination and spread of nationalism. Anderson considers the effects of imperialism and print-capitalism on the development of nationalism,and also maintains that the Machiavellian nationalism employed by imperial powers was merely one of many factors contributing to the spread of nationalism.
Anderson also argues that the concept of the nation first took form in the New World, but that nationalism immediately became modular and, thus, could be adopted and adapted to a wide range of varying contexts.
As a result, the reality of the nation has now spread around the planet; and every person born is born, not just into this shared planet, but into a discrete nation.
As a result, the reality of the nation has now spread around the planet; and every person born is born, not just into this shared planet, but into a discrete nation.
Even remote, indigenous persons, who may have (had) no knowledge of nations or nationalism, (were and) are suddenly and unknowingly situated within the invisible lines that demarcate these imagined communities. Indeed, indigenous has come to indicate populations that existed before the nation- pre-nation nations.
So then what does it mean that over the passed three hundred years we have covered the globe in lines that distinguish individual nations?
What is the nature of this relatively new societal invention?
From where does the nation derive its credibility?
Is it a better world thanks to the development of nations and boundaries?
Is this to be considered ‘progress’?
Or did the spread of nationalism serve only the strong nations while leaving the 3rd world equivalents to struggle as neglected antiques of decolonization?
What is a nation?
What does it mean to be a citizen of a nation?
Why do some nations have civil wars and then re-form, while others separate into new nations?
And what is a new nation, especially when compared to an old nation?
Are nations ageless?
If you have thoughts about these questions, or any others regarding nationalism, please share them! [source]
No comments:
Post a Comment