De facto nations/groups are more relevant, interesting, and information-rich than the de jure.ģ. People who live in/on the borderlands between two nations frequently have much in common, at least culturally speaking, and have many important connections between them that are both different from and sometimes stronger than nationalism. Anderson’s theory of nationalism ignores geopolitics. The theory of the “imagined community” is, of course, partly designed to explain how and why people who have little in common and who don’t know each other can have much in common vis-à-vis nationalism, but what changes if no one really knows anyone? What changes to theories of nationalism when the people I know live far away? What is the actual power of the nation State.Ģ. I know a few (probably less than ten) to a limited degree. What power does the “imagined community” have when it is almost entirely comprised of strangers next door? Within a mile of where I live, there are easily over a thousand people, maybe two thousand people. Wikipedia also provides a good overview here of the book where he describes his theory.ġ. For some limited background information on what we mean by “imagined community,” you can look at past blogs I have written here. Brilliantly incisive, Anderson's analysis shows how good interpretative skills can form the foundations for compelling and original insight.While Benedict Anderson’s theory is important and interesting, it has limitations. The analysis that follows from this insight is all about examining and breaking down the historical processes that helped foster these communities - above all the birth of printing, and the development of capitalism. But if this is the case, how can we agree what a 'nation' is? Anderson's proposed definition is that they are 'imagined communities' - comprising groups of people who regard themselves as belonging to the same community, even if they have never met, and have nothing in common otherwise.

For Anderson, it is clear that nations are not 'natural ' as historians and anthropologists are well aware, nations as we understand them are a relatively modern phenomenon, dating back only as far as around 1500.

One crucial aspect of Anderson's work involves the apparently simple act of defining precisely what we mean when we say 'nation' or 'nationalism' - an interpretative step that is vital to the analysis he proceeds to carry out. Is a ground-breaking analysis of the origins and meanings of 'nations' and 'nationalism'.Ī book that helped reshape the field of nationalism studies,Īlso shows the critical thinking skills of interpretation and analysis working at their highest levels.

The imagined community