Nations are nothing more than ‘imagined communities’.

Do you agree?

The term ‘imagined community’ was first coined in 1983 by Benedict Anderson in his
analysis of nationalism, describing nations to be socially constructed communities.
Those in an imagined political community have not met, seen, or even heard of most
of their fellow nation-members, yet still perceive themselves to be part of a wider
communion, or nation. The ensuing essay will present why the statement in hand,
which argues that nations are wholly imagined communities, possesses considerable
credence and validity through a thorough analysis of Anderson’s notions whilst also
considering alternative ideologies regarding the ‘nation’.

A fundamental argument supporting the notion that nations are indeed socially
constructed imagined communities lies in the fact that humans are intrinsically alike,
yet are distinguished by arbitrary traditions and constructs. Anderson acknowledges
this throughout his book ‘Imagined Communities’ as he asserts that nations are a
product of a community identifying with one another through common language,
traditions and mannerisms which were not fictionalised, but rather collectively
fabricated unselfconsciously. The concept of banal nationalism whereby members of
a nation’s identities are regularly affirmed through established foods, colloquialisms,
flags and even particular sporting activities, asserts this. Accordingly, technical
means of representation were highly significant in propagating these commonalities,
particularly through novels and newspapers that shaped “the style in which (these
nations) were imagined” (Anderson 1983). Furthermore, Ernest Gellner proposed
that nationalism is inevitable to spur advancement and industrialization. Gellner
described the shift of society from an agrarian-based economy to one centralised
around industrialism, this was achieved through assimilation, possible through the
mutuality of language and culture, and standardised education. Prior to the
transformation, many separate communities existed that did not share common
language, religion, traditions or culture, such communities faced the impossibility of
economic mobility and industrial or social advancement, hence justifying the rise of
nationalism and reinforcing the argument that nations are socially constructed.
However, it is essential to mention the shortcomings of Gellner’s argument,
particularly his defence that the most successful states are those that strive for one
culture or ethnicity under the nation. Historically this is false, the English Monarchy
has not been English for over a thousand years; the Normans were French, Stewarts
were Scottish and Tudors were Welsh. Despite this, England has developed into the
objectively and conventionally successful nation we still see today. In sum, humans
have developed cultural and linguistic systems by which communities adhere to,
leading to the formation of nations, or ‘imagined communities’. One may not know
another member of his nation, yet is bound to them by these arbitrary constructs
which were propagated through technical means. This is not just a matter of
identification but also a strive for development according to Geller, such arguments
heavily reinforce the statement that nations are in fact imagined communities.
Further support for the statement is found in explanations for communal brutal acts
such as ethnic cleansing through a nationalist perspective. Ethnic cleansing can be
considered a form of nationalism in which ethnically exclusive groups discriminate
against non-members of their community, with the aim of achieving a state united by
ethnicity, culture and language. What distinguishes the marginalised community from
the oppressing one are the aforementioned arbitrary values, constructs like language
and flags provide such compelling force to identify within your ‘imagined community’
and to spread the identity. Bauman (1989:92) highlighted the gardening mentality as
“one of many chores people who treat society as a garden need to undertake”,
referring to humans as weeds who must be “segregated, contained, prevented from
spreading, removed and kept outside the society boundaries'', and eventually killed if
these measures proved insufficient. This reads shocking, yet the imagined ideals in
an ‘imagined community’ allow and encourage such behaviour due to the seemingly
irrational cohesion. Nazi Germany provides an epitomic example of this. Adolf
Hitler’s contagious nationalism convinced Germans that it was just to segregate
minority communities in the name of nationalism, and thus any form of dissent would
indicate your disagreement with national values, rather than Nazi ideology. This
further asserts the power of the ‘imagined community’, as ordinary individuals were
transformed into killers through the manipulation of what it means to be in a nation,
and its corresponding values. The idea that such values are collectively fabricated
unselfconsciously is also reinforced as Germany underwent a drastic attitude shift
under Hitler’s rule, providing evidence for the production of new, imaginary, ideals.
Though many may argue that the modern state has resulted in a decrease of
violence, one can still witness violent acts in the guise of nationalism. Race-fuelled
attacks are prevalent in the U.S.A, yet are quite often committed by ethnic groups
that are not indigenous to the land. Ultimately, this portrays the imagined sense of
belonging and righthood that members of an imagined community would claim.
Socially constructed ideals generate the desire to unify nations based on ethnicity,
strengthening the claim that nations are ‘imagined communities’.

However, Anderson’s description of ‘imaginary communities’ is vague and it fails to

provide substantial explanatory power, thus weakening the statement’s claim.
Anderson's definition of a nation is “communities larger than primordial villages of
face-face contact” that have “abstract solidarity”. This neglects physical and territorial
aspects of a nation, as well as historical values that cohere a community. Anderson’s
definition is incomplete, if the logic he prescribes to the formation of nations was
true, it would be applicable to various types of communities including those of a
specific sexuality or fans of a specific football team. Nations do not form in the
stands of a football stadium, however, suggesting that further explanation is needed
and nations are more than just ‘imagined communities’. Anthony Smith (1986)
arguably fills the gaps in Anderson’s definition, stating that modernity is only half of
what defines a nation, stressing that ethnies, history and landscapes are the main
components of the modern nation, and that through the utilities of ‘tradition’
alongside modernity, are ‘nation formation’ tools themselves. Smith used the
example of the establishment of the Jewish state to portray this. He states that while
there ideological and social differences among the Jewish community, a secular
perspective on the inception of the Jewish state views it as a “revival of the Jewish
kingdom under David and Solomon”. What unites the Jewish community is its history
and its ‘legends’, allowing for the formation of a nation on grounds that are not
‘imaginary’ as Anderson describes. Therefore, secularists would believe any
reformation of such a kingdom must be achieved through “settlement and agricultural
return to the homeland”. In this example, the Jewish community is not only bound to
legends, but also to a specific landscape that would possess fertile land needed for
revival of the kingdom.

Furthermore, Smith describes that there are clear physical distinctions between
nations, affirming that communities are inseparable from certain habitats. The
internalisation of territorial features gives rise to a particular atmosphere, birthing a
community- or a nation. As mentioned by Smith, “Swiss peasants may encounter a
rather different ‘nature’ in their mountain valleys than, say, Breton fishermen on their
rugged coasts or Catalan or Chinese overseas traders”. As such, national identity
may be found in the literal geography of which a community lives in, thus providing a
basis for nationalism and reaffirming that nations are not wholly ‘imagined
communities’. Smith also highlights that whilst the geography of a nation may
contribute to certain ways of life, its influence is indirect. Rather, national identity is
more directly impacted by the collective perceptions of these distinct physical
differences and their corresponding myths and ethnic meanings, inextricably tying
the landscape to the nation. The significance of history and landscape cannot be
understated as they provide legitimate grounds for the formation of a nation, as
portrayed by the Jewish community. A community’s link to its physical location can
be sacred, meaningful and distinct, thus cultivating a particular way of life,
suggesting that nations are more than just ‘imagined communities’.

Finally, Smith’s claim that a nation’s physical constituent is substantially significant in

the formation of a nation can be controverted by the fact that many communities
possess diasporas that maintain a strong sense of nationalism, hence supporting the
statement in hand. Alan Finlayson (2012) states that “global diasporas may remain in
regular, even permanent, contact with their home countries, living under one state
while consuming and producing the imaginary of another”. This asserts that an
individual does not necessarily have to be physically present in his nation to possess
a strong national identity and resolute nationalism. Therefore, what acts as a
cohesive force is the perceived community, reinstating that nations are indeed
‘imagined communities’. In addition, Mary Gillepsie describes that technological
advancements in communication, transport and information systems have allowed
for the “strengthening of transnational kinship, religious, economic and political
networks”. The rise of wireless technology would allow the maintenance of core
communal values through an individual’s continuous follow-up with their home
nation. Individuals in a diaspora may even endeavour to partake in domestic political
activities, Jean Seaton (1999: 256) describes these individuals as “external republics
… groups of immigrants who remain fiercely committed to the communities from
which they have come”. The result is a form of distant nationalism, where physical
contact is not needed to exert influence and maintain core national values.
Ultimately, this supports Anderson’s notion that nations are ‘imagined communities’
as an individual may never even step foot in their home nation yet still perceive an
unwavering sense of community and national identity. This also provides some
rebuttal to Smith’s claim, as it proves that physical constituents of a nation are
perhaps not as significant as stated in his book “The Ethnic Origins of Nations”. One,
through various methods of communication, can conserve their nationalism through
the maintenance of socially constructed arbitrary values. Anderson’s term ‘imagined
community’ does not require physical distinctions, as communities are distinguished
not by their geographical attributes, nor their falsity/genuineness, but rather the “style
in which they are imagined”.

In conclusion, to claim that nations are wholly “imagined communities” is

somewhat plausible. Nations certainly possess an ‘imagined’ element, as arbitrary
values distinguish one community from another, possibly explaining why historical
acts of ethnic-cleansing have occurred. However, to say nations are wholly
‘imagined’, is an overstatement. Anderson’s ideology neglects the significance of
history and landscape in the onset of a nation and its culture as described by
Anthony Smith. Due to physical distinctions in the habitats of communities, different
ethnic symbols are assigned corresponding to different ways of life, this is pivotal in
the formation of a nation. It is better to think of nations as imagined communities built
upon many contributing principles, including its territorial and physical aspect, rather
than wholly imagined. Anderson’s research provides great historical insight into how
cultures of different communities have become as distinct as they are today, and
more specifically, how this has led to nationalism.