Hearn, Jonathan

Edinburgh Research Explorer

     Edinburgh Research Explorer                                      Benedict Anderson's Imagined CommunitiesCitation for published version:Hearn, J 2016, 'Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities: a symposium' Nations and Nationalism, vol22, no. 4, pp. 633 - 637. DOI: 10.1111/nana.12236.Digital Object Identifier (DOI):10.1111/nana.12236.Link:Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research ExplorerDocument Version:Peer reviewed versionPublished In:Nations and NationalismPublisher Rights Statement:This is the peer reviewed version of the following work: Breuilly, J. (2016) Benedict Anderson's ImaginedCommunities: a symposium. Nations and Nationalism, which has been published in final form at10.1111/nana.12236. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Termsand Conditions for Self-Archiving.General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.Take down policyThe University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorercontent complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright pleasecontact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately andinvestigate your claim.Download date: 01. Aug. 2018	 1	Jonathan	Hearn	(2016)	'The	impact	of	Imagined	Communities	on	sociology'	(pp.	633-637),	a	contribution	to	'Benedict	Anderson's	Imagined	Communities:	a	symposium'	by	John	Breuilly,	et	al.,	in	Nations	and	Nationalism	22(4):	256-659. 	The	first	point	this	exercise	brought	home	to	me	was	that	I	don’t	normally	think	about	the	influence	of	major	figures	like	Anderson	in	disciplinary	terms.		I	think	of	him	influencing	a	loosely	defined	cross-disciplinary	field	called	nationalism	studies	(leaving	aside	his	area	studies	impact).		But	once	posed,	it’s	an	interesting	question.		The	second	point	is	that	‘influence’	or	‘impact’	is	an	elusive	thing—it	depends	on	how	you	define	it.		If	it	means	appearing	somehow	in	the	works	of	others,	the	ripples	of	Imagined	Communities	have	travelled	far	and	wide.		If	it	means	penetrating	into	the	very	conception	of	nationalism,	as	widely	expressed,	the	evidence	is	more	equivocal.			Which	leads	to	my	third	opening	point,	which	is	a	question.		Did	Anderson	have	a	theory,	or	was	it	a	collection	of	conceptual	touchstones,	brought	together	at	a	critical	moment,	in	a	beguiling	form?		I	think	this	comes	closer	to	the	mark.		A	quick	informal	survey	of	some	major	sociological	outlets	since	1983,	Annual	Reviews	of	Sociology,	American	Journal	of	Sociology,	American	Sociological	Review,	British	Journal	of	Sociology,	and	Sociology,	bears	on	my	second	point.		Across	these	journals,	although	the	term	appears	hundreds	of	times	in	the	full	texts	and	references,	it	only	occurs	in	three	article	titles.		And	it	is	being	stretched	beyond	its	national	remit,	for	instance	‘schools	as	imagined	communities’,	and	‘imagined	global	community’.		My	sense	is	that	in	the	wider	field	of	sociology,	the	image	of	imagined	communities	has	been	as	popular	for	its	transposability	as	for	its	applicability	to	nationalism.			It	is	standard	in	discussions	of	Anderson’s	key	idea		 2	to	note	his	acknowledgment	that	all	communities	are	‘imagined’	to	some	degree	(1991:	6).		But	sociologists	seem	to	have	made	the	most	of	this	fact.		Limiting	ourselves	to	those	who	are	both	sociologists	(for	the	most	part)	and	addressing	nationalism,	we	can	make	a	rough	and	ready	distinction	between	three	types	of	contexts	in	which	Imagined	Communities	appears:	historical	comparativist	treatments	that	offer	long-term	accounts	of	nationalism;	surveys	of	major	works	in	the	field	of	nationalism	studies;	and	exercises	in	theory	building,		1.	Historical	comparativism		Imagined	Communities	is	itself	a	loose-jointed	work	of	historical	comparativism.	It	offers	an	account	of	what	kind	of	social	phenomenon	nationalism	is,	how	it	arose,	and	how	it	spread	around	the	globe.		As	suggested	above,	it	does	not	so	much	present	and	test	a	theory,	as	lay	out	a	collection	of	striking,	and,	at	least	when	first	formulated,	often	counter-intuitive	conceptualisations	with	which	to	get	a	handle	on	this	phenomenon.		Nations	are	‘imagined	communities’,	real	in	their	fictiveness.		They	crystalise	at	a	particular	historical	moment,	through	the	mechanism	of	‘print-capitalism’.		People	in	a	particular	social	position,	‘creole	pioneers’,	are	the	privileged	articulators	and	carriers	of	the	new	worldview.		Once	formulated	in	the	Americas,	this	new	worldview	morphs	and	adapts	to	multiple	new	contexts.		And	it	is	a	‘worldview’	entailing	not	just	the	imagining	of	community,	but	a	reimaging	of	spatial	and	temporal	relationships	around	the	world,	as	abstract	bearers	of	repeated	forms	of	nation-ness.		Imagined		 3	Communities	is	a	‘grand’	narrative	of	this	historical	process,	suspended	between	these	striking	conceptual	formulations.		Given	the	historical	comparative	nature	of	the	original	argument,	it	is	striking	that	in	this	field	of	sociology	Anderson’s	influence	seems	modest	and	piecemeal.		An	unsystematic	survey	helps	illustrate	my	point.				Throughout	his	four	volumes	of	Sources	of	Social	Power,	Michael	Mann	is	more	likely	to	mention	brother	Perry	than	Benedict,	only	citing	a	less	known	New	Left	Review	article	on	democracy	in	the	Philippines	(Anderson	1988)	in	volume	three	(2012).		In	The	Dark	Side	of	Democracy	(2005)	he	briefly	connects	the	imagined	communities	concept	to	his	own	conception	of	‘ideological	power’.		The	place	where	he	most	fully	engages	Anderson	is	in	his	chapter	on	‘the	emergence	of	modern	European	nationalism’	(1992),	where	he	draws	on	Anderson’s	print-capitalism	thesis	to	amend	Gellner’s	argument	about	the	role	of	industrialisation	in	the	formation	of	nationalism,	suggesting	that	an	earlier	florescence	of	‘discursive	literacy’	in	the	context	of	commercial-agrarian	states	was	instead	the	crucial	factor.		Indeed,	the	print-capitalism	thesis	seems	to	be	the	main	thing	that	more	historically	oriented	sociologists	have	picked	up	on	from	Anderson.		Josep		LLobera’s	The	God	of	Modernity	(1994)	briefly	mentions	‘imagined	communities’,	but	pays	more	attention	to		‘print-capitalism’	as	a	peculiar	thesis	about	the	uneven	development	of	capitalism.		More	recently,	in	his	historical	overview	of	States	and	Power	(2010)	Richard	Lachmann	also	touches	on	the	‘print-	 4	capitalism’	concept	as	crucial	for	the	formation	of	modern	citizenries.		Apart	from	a	footnote	(2000:	188-9)	where	he	takes	issue	with	Anderson’s	notion	of	the	reason	why	people	are	willing	to	die	for	the	nation,	which	clashes	with	his	own	more	rational	choice	perspective,	Michael	Hechter	also	mostly	invokes	ideas	of	communication	and	print	capitalism	in	connection	to	Anderson	in	his	Containing	Nationalism.		This	prominence	of	print-capitalism	is	perhaps	not	surprising,	given	that	among	Anderson’s	set	of	‘touchstones’,	this	is	the	one	that	is	most	like	a	causal	mechanism,	designed	to	explain	historical	change.		I	think	the	general	narrative	of	replication	and	spread	from	a	European	or	Euro-American	core	is	so	widely	accepted	that	is	not	likely	to	be	attributed	specifically	to	Anderson.		A	few	other	historically	oriented	sociologists	are	also	notable	for	their	sparse	reference	to	Anderson’s	ideas.		Siniša	Malešević	mentions	several	key	ideas	from	Imagined	Communities	in	passing	in	Nation-States	and	Nationalisms	(2013),	but	not	to	deploy	them	in	any	systematic	way.			In	three	major	books	(1992,	1996,	2004)	Rogers	Brubaker	never	seems	to	discuss	Anderson	or	Imagined	Communities.		Liah	Greenfeld,	in	a	footnote	in	the	Introduction	to	Nationalism:	Five	Roads	to	Modernity	(1992:	496-7),	castigates	Anderson	as	offering	an	example	of	a	‘materialist’	approach,	to	which	her	highly	idealist	reading	of	Max	Weber	is	theoretically	opposed.		So,	it	is	not	possible	to	say	that	Anderson	generated	an	influential	paradigm	for	describing	and	analysing	the	historical	emergence	of	nationalism.		At	most	it	seems	appropriate	to	say	that	one	of	his	key	concepts,	print-capitalism,	has	been		 5	broadly	taken	up	as	nicely	encoding	an	important	and	consequential	material	and	cultural	development,	bearing	on	the	emergence	of	nationalism.		2.	Surveys	of	major	works		Obviously	there	is	something	paradoxical	about	taking	books	that	survey	the	field	as	evidence	of	the	influence	of	Imagined	Communities,	because	its	presence	in	such	books	supposedly	acknowledges	its	influence,	rather	than	being	instances	of	the	same.		There	is	an	element	of	self-fulfilling	prophecy	at	this	point.		At	any	rate,	many	of	the	most	extended	treatments	of	Anderson’s	ideas	are	found	in	such	books.		Again,	a	few	examples	from	sociologists	help	illustrate.		The	very	idea	of	nations	as	‘imagined	communities’	provides	an	obvious	point	of	departure	for	Craig	Calhoun’s	‘discursive’	conception	of	nationalism,	presented	in	Nationalism	(1997).		Here,	in	ways	I’m	not	sure	he	would	have	welcomed,	Anderson	tends	to	get	aligned	with	Foucault,	in	a	conception	of	nationalism	as	discursive	form	of	thought	and	practice.			This	form	has	a	specific	history,	but	is	rather	detached	from	a	notion	of	a	general	causal	relationship	between	the	material	and	the	ideational,	that	I	think	was	basic	to	Anderson’s	rather	flexible	relationship	with	Marx.		This	is	one	of	the	interesting	points	about	Anderson,	the	way	Imagined	Communities	blithely	stood	on	a	cusp	between	modernist	and	more	postmodernist	ways	of	thinking.		In	the	last	chapter	Calhoun	turns	to	Anderson’s	ideas	of	creole	pioneers	and	the	modular	spread	of	nationalism,	but	again	with	the	accent	on	nationalism	as	a	discursive	form,	which	leads	into	Partha	Chatterjee’s	(1996)	well	known	critique	of	this	part	of	Anderson’s	thesis.		 6		David	McCrone’s	The	Sociology	of	Nationalism	(1998)	raises	Anderson’s	concept	of	imagined	communities	at	the	outset	as	a	good	starting	definition,	and	especially	to	contrast	it,	as	Anderson	did	himself,	with	Gellner’s	rather	more	instrumentalist	sounding	‘invention’	of	nations.		He	also	finds	Anderson’s	thoughts	on	the	construction	of	space	and	time	in	the	chapter	on	‘census,	map	and	museum’,	added	to	the	second	edition,	helpful	for	grappling	with	arguments	about	the	invention	of	the	nation.	In	chapter	six	he	emphasises	the	way	Anderson’s	creole	pioneers	hypothesis,	and	notion	of	nationalism	as	a	uniquely	modular	political	form	provided	a	corrective	alternative	to	the	dominant	neo-marxist	world	systems	theories	in	which	nationalism	was	largely	epiphenomenal	to	the	dynamics	of	evolving	global	capitalism	and	its	divisions	of	labour.			Throughout	this	book	Anderson’s	ideas	provide	counter	arguments	to	those	who	would	minimise	the	importance	of	nationalism,	because	it	is	seen	more	as	an	effect	of	other	more	fundamental	causes.		However	imagined,	Anderson’s	nations,	and	world	of	nations,	are	causal	processes	in	their	own	right,	which	cannot	be	easily	reduced	to	others.		Philip	Spencer	and	Howard	Wollman’s	Nationalism:	A	Critical	Introduction	(2002)	provides	an	overview	of	Anderson’s	ideas	(pp.	37-40)	and	draws	especially	on	him	in	their	discussion	of	the	role	of	culture	in	politics.		True	to	their	title	however,	they	express	reservations	about	Anderson’s	admitted	sympathies	for	nationalism,	and	suggest	that	an	analysis	of	nationalism	must	also	be	a	critique	of	nationalism.			For	my	own	part,	where	I	can	speak	more	reflectively,	when	I	wrote	Rethinking	Nationalism	(2006)	I	was	aware	that		 7	Anderson	could	not	be	ignored	in	this	context,	even	through	he	doesn’t	figure	prominently	in	my	other	work	on	nationalism.		There	I	emphasised	the	fact	that	Anderson	seems	to	deploy	a	very	complex	notion	of	culture,	not	the	usual	bundle	of	symbols	and	meaning	attached	to	particular	societies,	but	something	more	like	a	worldview,	which	has	both	highly	particularistic	and	highly	general	manifestations.			But	I	think	of	Anderson	more	as	a	provocative	foil	for	reflections	on	nationalism,	than	as	a	progenitor	of	a	theory,	or	a	concise	concept	of	the	nation.		3.	Theory	building		What	about	Anderson’s	impact	on	more	general	social	theory	building	in	relation	to	nationalism?		Anthony	Giddens’	The	Nation-State	and	Violence	(1985)	was	perhaps	too	early	to	be	affected	by	the	first	1983	edition	of	Imagined	Communities,	of	which	it	didn’t	take	any	notice.		But	it	is	worth	noting	that	modern	modes	of	communication	were	quite	central	to	Giddens’	conception	of	the	administrative	power	of	the	nation-state.		This	suggests	to	me	that	reconsiderations	of	the	role	of	communication	in	nation	building	were	generally	‘in	the	air’	at	that	time,	but	also	that	Giddens’	rethinking	of	historical	materialism,	despite	the	profound	difference	of	analytic	style,	was	akin	to	Anderson’s	more	humanistic,	Walter	Benjamin-influenced	reconfiguration	of	Marxist	ideas.		Paul	James,	though	perhaps	only	a	quasi-sociologist,	is	worth	mentioning	because		in	Nation	Formation:	Towards	a	Theory	of	Abstract	Community	(1996)		 8	he	uses	Anderson’s	imagined	communities	concept	as	a	point	of	departure	for	developing	his	own	more	heavily	theorised	notion	of	nations	as	a	modern	form	of	‘abstract	community’.		James	is	looking	for	an	analysis	of	nationalism,	and	of	abstraction,	that	avoids	idealist-materialist	dualisms,	in	which	the	abstraction	of	the	nation	is	nonetheless	a	very	concrete	process.		For	him	Anderson’s	version	of	‘imagined’	inadvertently	leans	towards	idealism	and	subjectivity,	despite	the	attention	to	material	conditions	such	as	print-capitalism.		So	James’s	work	is	partly	an	effort	to	correct	that	bias.		One	of	the	most	recent	major	theory	building	exercises	in	this	area	is	Andreas	Wimmer’s	Ethnic	Boundary	Making:	Institutions,	Power,	Networks	(2013),	a	book	with	a	remit	much	wider	than	just	nations.		Much	like	Rogers	Brubaker’s	work,	there	is	a	call	to	question	naturalised	ethnic	categories,	and	redirect	analytic	attention	onto	processes	of	boundary	making.		For	present	purposes,	it	is	interesting	to	note	that	the	term	‘imagined	communities’	is	mentioned	three	times	in	a	long	book,	but	only	the	first	time	in	connection	with	Anderson.		Thereafter	it	occurs	as	a	commonly	recognised	term	of	art.		Perhaps	this	is	the	tail	end	of	influence.		To	conclude,	we	should	remember	that	influence	itself	is	an	historical	process,	with	a	logic	and	an	arc.		Reviewing	various	texts,	I	am	struck	by	the	way	that	when	it	first	came	out,	and	still	in	the	revised	1991	edition	with	the	additional	chapters,	Imagined	Communities	was	providing	a	fresh	counterpoint	and	alternative	to	more	orthodox	Marxian	and	liberal	conceptions	of	nationalism,	as	either	false	consciousness	or	ethnic	regression.		It’s	now	more	like	a	grand	old		 9	Coupe	de	Ville,	standing	alone	in	a	field,	admired	for	its	beautiful	design,	and	routinely	raided	for	its	parts,	its	disruption	of	earlier	orthodoxies	slowly	fading	from	memory.		References		Anderson,	B.	(1991)	Imagined	Communities:	Reflections	on	the	Origin	and	Spread	of	Nationalism,	2nd	revised	edn.		London:	Verso.		Anderson,	B.	(1988)	‘Cacique	Democracy	in	the	Philippines:	Origins	and	Dreams’,	New	Left	Review	169.		Brubaker,	R.	(1992)	Citizenship	and	Nationhood	in	France	and	Germany.		Cambridge,	MA:	Harvard	University	Press.		Brubaker,	R.	(1996)	Nationalism	Reframed:	Nationhood	and	the	national	question	in	the	New	Europe.		Cambridge:	Cambridge	University	Press.		Brubaker,	R.	(2004)	Ethnicity	Without	Groups.		Cambridge,	MA:	Harvard	University	Press.		Calhoun,	C.	(1997)	Nationalism.		Minneapolis:	University	of	Minnesota	Press.		Chatterjee,	P.	(1996)	‘Whose	Imagined	Community?’,	in	G.	Balakrishnan	(ed),	Mapping	the	Nation.		London:	Verso,	pp.	214-225.		 10		Giddens,	A.	(1985)	The	Nation-State	and	Violence:	Volume	Two	of	A	Contemporary	Critique	of	Historical	Materialism.		Cambridge:	Polity.		Greenfeld,	L.	(1992)	Nationalism:	Five	Roads	to	Modernity.		Cambridge,	MA:	Harvard	University	Press.		Hearn,	J.	(2006)	Rethinking	Nationalism:	a	critical	introduction.		Basingstoke:	Palgrave	Macmillan.		Hechter,	M.	(2000)	Containing	Nationalism.		Oxford:	Oxford	University	Press.		James,	P.	(1996)	Nation	Formation:	Towards	a	Theory	of	Abstract	Community.		London:	Sage.		Lachmann,	R.	(2010)	States	and	Power.		Cambridge:	Polity.		LLobera,	J.	(1994)	The	God	of	Modernity:	The	development	of	nationalism	in	Western	Europe.		Oxford:	Berg.		Malešević,	S.	(2013)	Nation-States	and	Nationalisms.		Cambridge:	Polity.		Mann,	M.	(1992)	‘The	emergence	of	modern	European	nationalism’,	in	J.	A.	Hall	and	I.	C.	Jarvie	(eds),	Transition	to	Modernity:	Essays	on	power,	wealth	and	belief.		Cambridge:	Cambridge	University	Press.		 11		Mann,	M.	(2005)	The	Dark	Side	of	Democracy:	Explaining	Ethnic	Cleansing.		Cambridge:	Cambridge	University	Press.		Mann,	M.	(2012)	The	Sources	of	Social	Power:	Global	Empires	and	Revolution,	1890-1945.		Cambridge:	Cambridge	University	Press.		McCrone,	D.	(1998)	The	Sociology	of	Nationalism.	London:	Routledge		Spencer,	P.	and	Wollman,	H.	(2002)	Nationalism:	A	Critical	Introduction.		London:	Sage.		Wimmer,	A.		(2013)	Ethnic	Boundary	Making:	Institutions,	Power,	Networks.		New	York:	Oxford	University	Press.	

Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities:a symposium

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/30142092/Hearn_NAN_2016_AndersonImpact.pdf

Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities:a symposium

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edinburgh Research Explorer