In reading the Anderson article, I immediately was shocked by my own confusion with the order of words chosen for his ideology. Mentally, it was like I was stuck at a circus with the same question roaming around my mind. Some questions that arouse were: are nation and community interchangeable? Is a nation a communion? Is a communion a fraternity? Are nations only separated by languages? If communication is community and community is nation, then if languages are changing through globalization in forming one solid form of communication, then will the whole world become one community and thus one nation? However, in checking the resource of the four out of five star book online, I found a comment that made me feel not as bad about my thinking toward Anderson:
I think the writing style is pretentious, ostentatious, and rambling. Anderson seems to belittle people and communities who are willing to die for their beliefs- who is he to criticize? He takes paragraphs upon paragraphs to get to the point, and uses 15 large words when 1 or 2 simpler words would suffice. Anderson seems very full of himself, and looks down upon people who do not share his beliefs on nationalism. He cares little for his audience or persuading his audience, he simply cares about trying to look as academic and snobbish as he can. Some arguments were obvious, and he tries to dress them up by adding pages of useless information and showy vocabulary. Others make no sense, and he doesn't explain them clearly or adequately. I do not recommend this book to anyone. (http://www.amazon.com/Imagined-Communities-Reflections-Origin-Nationalism/product-reviews/0860915468/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar)
While Mr. Anderson puts forth provoking theories about the rise and nature of nationalism, his style is very confusing and his examples equally as convoluted. This book could easily have been condensed into an 8 page essay and would have been far more coherent.(http://www.amazon.com/Imagined-Communities-Reflections-Origin-Nationalism/product-reviews/0860915468/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addTwoStar)
While this may seem like a load of negative aggressiveness, I completely agree with how Smith interprets Anderson’s lingo. In fact, looking back into American history, many situations of division occur because of the differences in pop and social culture of a nation. For instance, the USA is a separate nation from England, even though languages are the same and some of the diversity of the people are the same, the difference occurs in the rules and regulations of what America defines as a necessary element of being a part of the nation of America.
Nicole, I really like the questions you posed at the beginning of your post. I wish you would have followed one of them and explored it in your response. While I appreciate your frustration with the article, I think could have chosen to engage with Anderson's ideas more. The article I gave you was not actually written by Anderson, though it did feature several quotes from his book. The responses from random amazon.com consumers does not necessarily seem like the best critique to exclusively focus on. At the end of your post you begin to touch on an interesting and relevant question - how do differences (and similarites) in culture, language, and customs define (or not) different nations.
ReplyDeleteI also really liked your question about what is happening to community/differences in an age of globalization (You wrote: "If communication is community and community is nation, then if languages are changing through globalization in forming one solid form of communication, then will the whole world become one community and thus one nation?")
ReplyDelete