Benedict Anderson's 'Imagined Communities' is a landmark text in understanding nationalism for a few key reasons:
This influential theory of nations has been a cornerstone of understanding nationalism, but it's not without its critiques. Here are some of the main points scholars have raised:
Despite these criticisms, Anderson's work remains a major contribution to our understanding of nationalism. It highlights the constructed nature of national identity and the role of shared cultural experiences in creating a sense of belonging. However, it's important to consider these critiques when applying his ideas to specific historical contexts.
We used AI to provide that potted summary of Imagined Communities and criticisms of it. We haven’t even finished reading the book and have found it pretty hard going but it’s a take that one feels obliged to read given that it’s referenced so frequently.
We have no beef with the author. On the contrary, it’s always impressive to read the work of someone with such broad knowledge and it's certainly thought-provoking. But we do have an observation to make which we hope will help stimulate productive discussion…
‘Imagined Communities’ was first published in 1983. There have been several editions since then and Anderson admits that some of his original thesis may have been ‘hasty and superficial’ (See Chapter 10, ‘Census, Map, Museum,’).
We had a look at the index and found no mention of Cesaire, Fanon, Memmi. Those names will be familiar to those who follow the work of Alf Baird as covered in previous OTS posts and his comments btl on Wings Over Scotland have appeared in (we think) every one of our 34 ‘Not Hitting The Wall’ features.
Is there anyone out there who is familiar with the work of Anderson, Tom Nairn and Baird? (Nairn is mentioned throughout 'Imagined Communities'.) We haven’t the expertise to attempt a synthesis of their work but there must be someone who does. Wouldn’t it make a great subject for a Masters or Phd thesis? Has something along such lines already been published? Anything in the pipeline? We just don’t know.
The timeline of Scotland’s emergence as a ‘nation’ does not align with Anderson’s theory vis-a-vis the proliferation of the printing press. The feelings we have when we see our main independence party - painstakingly constructed over the course of a near-century - being reduced to a penniless and impotent husk in less than a decade are, surely, genuine enough. The pain certainly feels ‘real’.
With the SNP now lying in ruins but support for independence remaining steady at or around the 50% mark, it’s clear that a vacuum exists which must now be filled - relying on the same media models to even acknowledge the existence of the constitutional case (SALVO, Liberation Scotland etc) is pointless, as their treatment of Alba demonstrates. We will now, once again, be expected to toe traditional party boundaries and contain debate within whatever parameters are set by print/broadcast media - it is already clear, less than 24 hours after most results were confirmed, that the main narrative being punted by the mainstream media and political chitterati generally is that 'independence is off the agenda'. If we don't contest this narrative then any meaningful power will simply be passed from one major unionist party to the other for decades to come.
For the millions of Scots who yearn for independence that is a fact. But we have to be able to state why it’s a ‘fact’ and not just a fervently-held belief. Yes, the work of Benedict Anderson, highly influential as it is, raises questions which must be answered fully and confidently. We believe that post-colonial theory can help us reach findings which strengthen the case for independence, both at home and internationally. The place to start is the link below.
Off-Topic Scotland | Alf Baird: The Determinants of Independence (offtopicscotland.com)
No spam or ads, just the latest posts and updates from Scotland's newest pro-independence blog.
.png)
