Imagined Communities

I like the idea of an imagined community being the basis of nationality/nationalism. This idea leads to a definition of “real community” as the group of people with whom one interacts on a very regular basis. Anderson states, “the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members.” I think the idea that one’s community is made up of the people with whom he/she interacts consistently could lead to more valued friends, family, co-workers, etc. If a reader of Anderson’s work decided to focus more on treasuring her “real community” rather than thinking too much about the “imagined community” she has in her mind she might gain a greater sense of value for that "real community". On the other hand, I think it is important to feel a part of a larger group, even without knowing every member. Anderson’s idea does not seem to directly make nations out to be bad, but as I read about it I felt Anderson judging me for not instantly and completely agreeing. Nationality is a big part of culture. As it is, cultures bleed across borders. As a traveler moves from one country to the next he does not experience a complete cultural change at every boundary. Since cultures are not confined within borders, I wonder why it is necessary to apply positive or negative feelings to the idea of nationality. Clearly, geographical borders are man-made and changing, but their existence makes people feel as though they belong to a group. Overall, I think that on a small scale, imagined communities are worth thinking about in day-to-day life because it may add perspective to one’s relationships. On a global scale, however, I think that imagined community might be beneficial because it leads to a sense of belonging and tends to strengthen a person’s cultural pride. If an imagined community helps people feel cultural pride and belonging it is probably a good thing to imagine.

My term from this reading is ‘print-language’. I chose this term because I love the idea of differentiating between spoken and written language. Though something written and something spoken might be in the same general language, they are sure to sound very different. The definition is rather clear. Print language is the language used in the written word. I was very interested by the way print-language was brought up in the article. It said that the vernacular was used in mass publications, which led to a common print-language between people who had different dialects in their spoken languages.