HUFANA, Beatrice HI 192

144668 March 22, 2018

Reflection Paper #2: Benedict Anderson and the Concept of Nationalism

Nationalism has played an integral role in our history. For centuries, countless events

sprung up because of a nation’s collective consciousness to show patriotism for their own

country. This can be seen in several revolutions wherein colonized countries fought against

their oppressors for independence. An example would be the Philippines, a country that has

attempted several times to be free from the hands of the Spanish and the Americans.

Nationalism is also evident in an extreme form through fascism, an overly nationalistic form

of government that is often led by authoritative leaders. Spain went through a fascist regime

under the dictator Franco during the early 20th century, and this resulted in the Spanish Civil

War. It can also motivate a country to get back up after a period of struggle and adversity,

just like the case of South Korea, which went from being a drastically poor country after the

Korean War, to being one of the most developed nations today. Nationalism can be exhibited

in many different ways, but what exactly is it? Who can be involved in this consciousness?

Can it only apply to people who are physically present in a specific country? A concept that

has been of great importance for centuries had never really been tackled with new in-depth

ideas, but this all changed when Benedict Anderson came along.

According to Anderson, a nation is an imagined political community. It is imagined

both as limited and sovereign. A nation is imagined because “the members of even the

smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of

them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” It should be noted that

when Anderson says a nation is imagined, it does not mean it is an invention or a fabrication.

Rather, there is truth in the community because of the connection people have with one

another as fellow-members. There is no need for a physical boundary or a contract to

determine what and who constitutes a nation because the nation puts more emphasis on

kinship.

Even if it is imagined, it must be noted that a nation, for Anderson, is limited. There

are “elastic boundaries” to nations. Its boundaries can change through time depending on the

historical context. It is limited because, “no nation imagines itself coterminous with

mankind.” Even if we try to unite the whole world and live harmoniously, a nation kind of

works like an exclusive clique that has its own cultures and traditions that differ from other

nations, thus having finite boundaries.

The concept of nations was first conceived during the Enlightenment. The newfound

humanistic approach replaced the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained hierarchical dynasties.

Instead of a nation being ruled by the Church or whatever religion ruled over a nation, power

was given to people who proved to be capable and of ruling based on their skills and reason.

Therefore, a nation is imagined as sovereign.

Finally, a nation is imagined as a community. Anderson incorporates some positivity

into his concept of a nation, which I particularly like. He says,

“(…) Regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in

each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.

Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two

centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to

die for such limited imaginings.”

Anderson sheds light on the unity amongst citizens, instead of just generally describing what

constitutes a nation. I think this camaraderie contributes to the nationalism manifested in the

citizens, and this sense of nationalism is integral for a nation to be constituted as one.

It’s interesting how Anderson’s concept of nation can apply for any place, any time. It

can be applied to different periods of Philippine history. I think the Philippines circa-
Philippine Revolution can already be considered an imagined political community even if it

was still colonized by the Spanish. The Filipinos had the consciousness of nationhood

because of their collective desire to be liberated, giving them the connection needed for an

imagined community. They all may not have known each other, but they all imagined a

community of Filipinos longing for freedom. It was limited because the events that occurred

in the Philippines only resonated with Filipinos. Other countries, such as Cuba, may have

been experiencing something similar under the same colonizers at that time, but their

experiences are unique and the identity of Cubans differ from the Filipinos’. Even if the

Philippines was under the rule of the Spanish, some Filipinos had already formed

revolutionary groups and a government to lead their countrymen. Although not official, this

was representative of the Philippine sovereign the Filipinos longed for. Lastly, this fraternity

exhibited by the Filipinos applies to Anderson’s sense of community.

That was more than a hundred years ago, and the Philippines is now characterized as

a different kind of nation. Even if there are many aspects about the current state of our

country that we complain about, I think Filipinos are still very nationalistic. We have a strong

sense of community, that whenever a Filipino does something, big or small, that makes a

good impact internationally, we won’t hesitate to say “Pinoy pride!” even if we don’t know

that person. There’s that horizontal comradeship Anderson mentioned present as Filipinos

support one another. The nation of the Philippines may be limited, but it’s interesting to see

how elastic the boundary is. At a time when there are OFWs all over the world, thousands of

Filipinos still feel connected and patriotic to the motherland. This proves that a community is

imagined, but can have very complex boundaries. Lastly, we clearly have a sovereign as our

leaders have proven to be very powerful.

I think Benedict Anderson’s works remind us of how a nation should be. It has proven

to be of great importance in understanding past, present, and future societies more.

 REFERENCES

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. Revised Edition ed. London and New York: Verso, 1991, pp. 5-7.

Calhoun, Craig. “Nation and Imagination: How Benedict Anderson Revolutionized Political

Theory.” ABC, 8 May 2017,

www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2017/05/09/4665722.htm.