As a historian and political scientist, Benedict Anderson (1936-2015) published his

book
Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism
in 1983, and gained wide popularity due to his brilliant researches and arguments about
the nationalism. He separated his book into eleven contents including the introduction.
I, in this report, am going to explain his main researches and arguments separating the
report into eleven parts, as Anderson did.
Introduction
Initially, Anderson explains that there is no scientific definition of the nation can be
Devised, and he defines the nation as an imagined political community that has those
four characteristics: the nation is imagined because most of its fellow members never
know eachother, and their minds live in the image of their community. To clarify, he
quotes from Ernest Gellner nationalism is not the awakening of the nations to self
-consciousness: it invents nation where they do not exist. Secondly, the nation is
limited because when some ideas like religion aim to be accepted/joined by whole,
nations have boundaries that are finite.
Sovereignty is the other feature of the nation. Nations dream of being free because the
emblem of this freedom is a sovereign state. Lastly, it is community because the nation
is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Furthermore, he adds the
theorists of nationalism that have encountered three paradoxes: first is the paradoxes of
objective modernity of nations (from historians eye) vs subjective antiquity in the
eyes of nationalists. Then, the formal universality nationality vs particularity of its
manifestations as sui generis, and lastly the political power of nationalism vs its
philosophical poverty even in incoherence. (pp. 1-8).

Cultural Roots
A nation state always emphasizes an immemorial past, and goes into limitless future,
if itis considered as new and historical state. This magic leads the turn of chance to
destiny for a nation state. From that point, Anderson expresses two relevant cultural
systems, religious community and the dynastic realm by arguing those: Nor am I suggesting that
some how nationalism historically supersedes religion. What I am proposing is that
nationalism has to be understood by aligning it [] with the large cultural systems that
preceded it, out of which-as well as against which- it come being.As a religious
community, the sacred language of conversion allows an Englishmen to become Pope
and a Manchu son of Heaven. In the dynastic realms, kingships have a centralized way
of governing and its legitimacy drives from divinity, instead of the population who are
already recognized as subjects, not citizen. Also there are seen dynastic marriages who
derive mix-blooded lineages. However nation states, that are
regarded as imagined community by the Anderson, growing out of and replacing
religious communities and dynastic realms. Anderson clarifies how historically a
nation state rises, I have been arguing that the very possibility of imagining the nation

only arose historically when, and where, three fundamental cultural conceptions, all of
great antiquity lost their axiomatic grip on mens minds. The first of these was the idea
that a particular script-language offered privileged access to ontological truth. []
Second was the belief that society was naturally organized around and under high
centers-monarchs who were persons apart from other human beings and who ruled by
some form of cosmological (divine) dispensation. []
Third was a conception of temporality in which cosmology and history
indistinguishable, the origins of the world and of men essentially identical. (pp. 9
-36)

Benedict Anderson: Imagined Communities: "Cultural Roots"

Anderson's chapter "Cultural Roots" attempts to set out the foundations for the
beginning of sociological entities, or groups of people to conceive of themselves as a
nation. He does this through an explanation of how previous ways of thinking ended:
Anderson uses the examples of languages as connected to religious systems (Divine
Truth in ways of thinking, views of the world, cosmologies in general), an ending of
Dynasties (meaning Monarchies and societies connected to specific families) and
finally, through a disconnection between a cosmology and a notion of time (History),
this is evident in a sort of "end of times" notion of the present.
All of these claims sound reasonable, and Anderson does well in backing up his claims
through examples in literature as well as through history. However, in this blog, I want
to raise some questions concerning the first point, and then briefly explain the others,
finally ending up with some questions concerning how Anderson's chapter related to
White, Hutcheon, Spivak, Norris and so on. I'll say this in my email to you as well, but I
would like to be able to begin our conversation on Shadow lines (including roughly the
first 100 pages).

What is interesting to me is the connection between a religious cosmology and a

specific language. Anderson's connection of Latin and the Christian church and Arabic
and Islam bode well. There is definitely a certainty that both Latin and Arabic were (and
still are: Arabic especially) languages that hold special persuasion over the Divine or a
connection to the Divine. The Qur'an specifically notes that the book is given in
Mohammed in Arabic, and as such is a Holy language. Further, the Qur'an notes that
there are other holy books out there that are not given in Arabic, and that this sort of
linguistic plurality hints at the multiplicity of groupings that the Divine is capable of
communicating with. Moreover, in the Catholic church, services were held in Latin for
centuries, claiming that is was a Holy language. This produced interesting and troubling
sociological effects (stratification of knowledge, religious truth, and value systems in

both of those categories). Anderson does well in pointing out these qualifications both
within Europe and colonial locations.

What is interesting to me, and possibly something that might break down through
further questioning, is the idea that there are sociological systems that exist under these
language boundaries; language as connected to religious truth seems to be an extremely
broad notion, and could, through an equally common occurrence and prevalent notion
be syphoned down. My proposition/question deals with ethnicity. Anderson notes the
connection of a language system to a specific geographic location, and that each of
these 3 means of organization operate within a specific geographic location, alternating
(meaning England: Latin as Iraq: Arabic) systems per location. However, I am curious
to the grouping effect of ethnicity. Primarily, ethnicity encompasses geographic
location, a common history, similar cosmologies (related to location and history).
-initially, however, there is a difficulty in the specificity of ethnicity. Primarily due to
the fact that in Anderson's literary examples he notes a sort of connectedness without
acquaintance. He notes that as a United States citizen I will not come into contact with
the majority of the other citizens, yet I have this "knowlegde" of their doings, the very
idea that the others are moving, operating, living within similiar sociological structures
and interacting with similar things that I am. Ethnicity, it may seem is too specific of a
category.
The other two grouping techniques: a connection through dynasties and then an ending
of "Messianic Time," in Benjaminian terms. Understandably, these grouping terms serve
for collection methods in that once these systems break down, the identifier for
sociological entities needs to grasp onto something other. Finally, the transition in from
Messianic time to a sort of time in the "now," which Anderson describes as empty time
is well summed up in his descriptions through literary texts as well as his connection to
the Newspaper. Though I am interested in how the internet changes things in this note.
The death of the newspaper, which is rapidly occurring through our eyes in examples
such as assimilation of newspaper companies, the death of the small town paper, along
with the increase of ad space and decrease of news space on a page all speak to this
example in new and interesting ways.
What I am interested in, is a connection between Anderson and the other previous
author's we've come across. Thinking back to last week and White and Hutcheon who
spoke to the study of history and the academic field of Postmodernism, Anderson's work
seems especially interesting. Anderson is speaking to the fact that groups of people are
grouped together through a sort of imaginary plane and commonalities, located within a
geographic space. White and Hutcheon seem to be looking at the thought systems that
come out of these groupings (Nietzsche, Spivak, Norris all speak to the thought systems
that come out of this as well). It would be interesting to look at the manners in which
sociological entities group themselves and its impact on the thought systems:
Hutcheon's comments on the PM's focus on the ex-centric, Spivak's comments on the

subaltern, even Bhabha's hybridity (noting especially the interactions between the
"nations" through colonialism).

This final paragraph sums Anderson's points up well, but also raises questions (for me
especially between the supposed clear-cut line between secularism and a religious sort
of way of thinking).
The slow, uneven decline of these interlinked certainties, first in Western Europe, later
elsewhere, under the impact of economic change, 'discoveries' (social and scientific, and
the development of increasingly rapid communications, drove a harsh wedge between
cosmology and history. No surprise then that the search was on, so to speak, for a new
way of linking fraternity, power and time meaningfully together. Nothing perhaps more
precipitated this search, nor made it more fruitful, than print-capitalism, which made it
possible for rapidly growing number s of people to think about themselves, and to
related themselves to others, in profoundly new ways. (36).