Gee thanks. Another book added to my to-read list. ;-) But seriously I do plan on picking up a used copy now.
Leaving aside the difficulty in coming up with a precise definition for "nationalism", does Anderson allow for there being something in between so-called "globalism" and "nationalism" (primarily when those are used as pejoratives)? Or, from another angle, is there a form of "nationalism" that's actually mostly good?
I recall sometime ago we had a brief exchange about Imagined Communities in the context of Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People.
Maybe in light of the current quasi-ludicrous yet simultaneously horrific manifestation of the nationalist Weltanschauung, a quote from Gramsci is apropos.:
The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters.
Overall, your critique is as usual, a timely and discerning analysis.
Right up 'til the nationalists drop the big one...
"the Internet — although it seemed revolutionary at first — doesn’t depart much from what came before it. It’s a similar kind of technology and exerts a similar kind of technological force."
not sure about that. in the old pre tech neighborhoods people talked in person. they might all be reading the same print, in books or (political) pamphlets, but their responses were more personal interactions. vs today, when (at least in my life) the internet provides immediate personal feedback, especially when things go viral. its not the same as writing the local paper and hoping they publish your response. you can't compare neighborhood or dinner table discourse with current social media because there's no technology in dinner table talk, aside from the origin of print media. the immediacy of todays social media, compounded by cell phone, doesn't limit exposure of ideas to the neighborhood, but to a glocal audience, therefore, ones "nation" might be those who think and feel the same, vs ethnicity.
another thing worth noting, (re Shlomo Sand). the word "nation" during my childhood always meant one thing, "a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government"(websters). our nation was America. now it has 2 meaning, the other being, a people (an ethnicity, religion or ideology). these are 2 very different concepts of nation, and both are correct. i think of it as a homograh. there's nation, and then there's nation, but they are not the same, at all.
Exactly, regarding your comments on the immediacy of the Internet. Twenty or thirty years ago we would read about the abuses against Palestinians in papers, magazines or books, weeks or months after the fact. Now a person can go on YouTube and see a Palestinian rapping about life in the Gaza - a young guy living in a traditional culture, doing modern rap from home in English and Arabic and communicating directly to the World. You would never get this level of immediacy, or empathy for that matter, from reading magazines and books about the same issue. Also I wonder about how well nationalism is really entrenched in today’s world. I lean toward the view that when a historical tendency is weakening and ready to collapse, it becomes even more rigid. Living in any big city today one cannot help notice the incredible mix of cultures and nationalities, and some of the really interesting and positive results of this mixing. No doubt human beings will always want to feel part of a social/cultural group, but I try to stay optimistic that things like cultural barriers, ethnic/religious supremacism and chauvinism will eventually fade away.
Gee thanks. Another book added to my to-read list. ;-) But seriously I do plan on picking up a used copy now.
Leaving aside the difficulty in coming up with a precise definition for "nationalism", does Anderson allow for there being something in between so-called "globalism" and "nationalism" (primarily when those are used as pejoratives)? Or, from another angle, is there a form of "nationalism" that's actually mostly good?
no
Thanks. Just canceled my order. J/K
I recall sometime ago we had a brief exchange about Imagined Communities in the context of Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People.
Maybe in light of the current quasi-ludicrous yet simultaneously horrific manifestation of the nationalist Weltanschauung, a quote from Gramsci is apropos.:
The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters.
Overall, your critique is as usual, a timely and discerning analysis.
Right up 'til the nationalists drop the big one...
"the Internet — although it seemed revolutionary at first — doesn’t depart much from what came before it. It’s a similar kind of technology and exerts a similar kind of technological force."
not sure about that. in the old pre tech neighborhoods people talked in person. they might all be reading the same print, in books or (political) pamphlets, but their responses were more personal interactions. vs today, when (at least in my life) the internet provides immediate personal feedback, especially when things go viral. its not the same as writing the local paper and hoping they publish your response. you can't compare neighborhood or dinner table discourse with current social media because there's no technology in dinner table talk, aside from the origin of print media. the immediacy of todays social media, compounded by cell phone, doesn't limit exposure of ideas to the neighborhood, but to a glocal audience, therefore, ones "nation" might be those who think and feel the same, vs ethnicity.
another thing worth noting, (re Shlomo Sand). the word "nation" during my childhood always meant one thing, "a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government"(websters). our nation was America. now it has 2 meaning, the other being, a people (an ethnicity, religion or ideology). these are 2 very different concepts of nation, and both are correct. i think of it as a homograh. there's nation, and then there's nation, but they are not the same, at all.
Exactly, regarding your comments on the immediacy of the Internet. Twenty or thirty years ago we would read about the abuses against Palestinians in papers, magazines or books, weeks or months after the fact. Now a person can go on YouTube and see a Palestinian rapping about life in the Gaza - a young guy living in a traditional culture, doing modern rap from home in English and Arabic and communicating directly to the World. You would never get this level of immediacy, or empathy for that matter, from reading magazines and books about the same issue. Also I wonder about how well nationalism is really entrenched in today’s world. I lean toward the view that when a historical tendency is weakening and ready to collapse, it becomes even more rigid. Living in any big city today one cannot help notice the incredible mix of cultures and nationalities, and some of the really interesting and positive results of this mixing. No doubt human beings will always want to feel part of a social/cultural group, but I try to stay optimistic that things like cultural barriers, ethnic/religious supremacism and chauvinism will eventually fade away.