In and present to the people. He said an

In this book, Benedict Anderson worked to influence
the culture, political environment that gave the development to the nationalism
in the late 18th century Europe and other countries to make it such
a lively phenomenon. Exclude meaning that it should be mass in with other
political such as Marxism or Liberalism, Anderson show it from more closely and
present to the people. He said an imagined political community and imaginary so
both natively limited acknowledged. The cultural roots of the decline or
territoriality
regard the law then sacred script, the authorizing over monarchical centers as
much the natural pathway in conformity with prepare political members of the
family of space, and the link with temporarily concerning cosmology then
records such as human beings may want to at present imagine themselves in a
simultaneous, homogeneous, calendar time up to expectation connects
of us who have certainly not seen. He goes on in accordance with stumble on the
starting place over country wide consciousness at the connection on capitalism,
print, and the fatality concerning linguistic range stimulated by using the
previous two. He since suggestions their origins among observes beyond the
Americas, both Spanish yet Anglo, below their change among linguistic
nationalism concerning over the Europe, decent nationalism between situation
about the imperial nation, so far post World War II ex colonial nationalism.

B. Anderson think the origins of national consciousness
in the part between capitalism, print and that he calls the “Fatality of human
linguistic diversity”. This relationship ruled to print languages that, for
Benedict Anderson concept basic national awareness in 3 different ways:

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

1.     Created
a united mode of communication below Latin and above spoken languages.

2.     Print
capitalism gave a new fixity to language previously not achievable in the era
of copied document.

3.     Created
languages of power in administrative vernaculars, which Anderson sees as first actuality
an accidental position of capitalism, and linguistic diversity, only later
being manipulated or broken in a Machiavellian spirit.

Anderson’s analyses of the historical origin of
national consciousness in chapter 2, 3 and 4 were of fundamental theoretical
importance, for he provided the most significant and crucial social
pre-conditions that made the imagination of nations possible; and for the analyses
greatly influenced multiple disciplines like sociology, cultural studies and
media studies in later investigation of nationalism. Anderson borrowed two
philosophical notions from a famous Marxist writer Walter Benjamin to
distinguish medieval and modern time conception, which were “Messianic time”
and “homogeneous, empty time” respectively. There was no clear-cut separation
of past, present and future under medieval Messianic time because people in
that era believed that they were always near to the end of time, namely, the
time that Jesus Christ comes again. However, in modern society, since people do
not understand time by particular event or story like the coming of Christ,
implying empty of content in their conception, but by standardized measurement
like watch and calendar which led to homogeneous scale of time, the separation
become clear, and hence we always have a strong sense of “present” as opposed
to “past” and “future.” This strong sense of present and standardized time
measurement provided the basis of imagination that, someone is doing something
in somewhere similar and simultaneous to me even though I cannot really see
them. However, it was print-capitalism starting from 16th century in
Europe that brought this imagination into existence in a national manner. In
order to make more profits from larger market, print-capitalism turned from
printing Latin to the printing of vernaculars which was the prototype of
national languages, so that much more people could read printing materials. The
contributions of print-capitalism were that, on the one hand it consistent the
differentiated spoken vernaculars into written vernaculars that could be shared
by different people within a limited territory on the other, print-media like
newspapers reported unrelated but simultaneous events within the territory so
that people could have the aforementioned imagination and thus gave audiences a
sense of unified identity and community.

In previous states, where the majority of the people
speaks the official print language. The first republican nation states at the
Anglo and Spanish Americans and the other population doesn’t speak or write in
official state language which is known as ex colonial states in Africa.

Benedict Anderson give the information here about the
separation of nationalism and grew the Spanish American Empire’s creole
population, unified the grew of Angelo American as creole. He also said that
the rise of liberalism and enlightenment in every case expect Latin side like
Brazil. And European thought that if any European baby born any other side of
the world, they didn’t take them as like European baby. And they didn’t give
the opportunity to them. Coupled with early iterations of print-capitalism’s
reach through newspapers, as the prime motivator for the development of a
distinctly national consciousness for these creoles.

On the entire, Anderson’s explanation in the book resounds
usually with different ages of Irish Nationalism: The Young Ireland task of the
1840 was definitely the educated brain powers, and they made offers to the
people even however, as Brown puts it, they didn’t know the people. And the
later undertaking of 1890 to 1921, led by the cultural nationalism of Yeats and
a re-energized interest in together built-up myths and Gaelic, was also highly unfair
by the women and men of letters. Yet, in Anderson’s only two mentions of
Ireland in this chapter, both are confusing on the 78, he claims that the
English Gaelic out of Ireland as part of a development which, at least in the start,
was basically unplanned. In a note he mentions the military overthrow of the
Gaeltacht, but  doesn’t note the
systematic exclusion of Gaelic language teaching in schools. For example, that
might give someone pause in thinking the process unplanned. In a later section,
while noting that the influence of the crowds had much to do with their
relationship to the ministers of nationalism, he rights that one might point to
Ireland, where a Catholic priesthood tired from the peasantry and close to it
played a dynamic arbitrating role. But these broad blows beg for more detailed explanation,
as the priests weren’t always the prepared accessories to the often Protestant
middle class “Missionaries of Nationalism.” In the Fenian era and prior, for the
example, they often played a more awkward role than a useful one.

 

In Chapter 7, “The Last Wave,” he traces the rise
post-WWII of what I would call postcolonial nation-states, and their genesis in
the leadership of “lonely, bilingual intelligentsias unattached to sturdy local
bourgeoisies” (140) that were educated in the “Russified” educational systems
meant to produce large cadres of bilingual folks to administer the growing
colonial state. As always, he notes that the territories of these future
imagined communities are coterminous with the administrative centers of the
colonial map that marked the apex of travel for these metropole-educated
natives. So, the very education meant to produce willing servants of colonial
empire also gave folks access to nationalist ideologies and histories that they
would ultimately seek to wield against their oppressors.

In Chapter 8, “Patriotism and Racism,” Anderson
returns to the primacy of language in facilitating national feeling, and also
seeks to disprove that racism arises out of nationalism. To the contrary,
Anderson rightly asserts, it arises out of class relations. Though he goes into
other examples to prove his case, one need not go beyond the North American
colonies, where laws against white-black miscegenation far pre-date nationalism
but are meant to keep lower classes from banding together in solidarity.

In Ch. 9, “The Angel of History” we have the original
conclusion reiterating the imagined quality of the nation, the spread and
imminent pirate-ability of the phenomenon to new contexts through the
facilitation of print capitalism and–later–colonial education systems, and the
stubborn ways in which today’s revolutionary inherits the mantle of the old
regimes and ends up wielding much similar tools of “official nationalisms” to bolster
their version of the state.

In Ch. 10, “Census, Map, and Museum,” Anderson revises
his argument from Ch. 7 about the rise of post-colonial nationalisms as direct
descendants from European official nationalisms. He adds a sense of the local
colonial state’s contribution through the interweaving technologies of census,
map, and museum, both technologizing space and history in service of the
officially imagined nation.

Through depicting the historical development of
nationalism, Anderson successfully indicated the arbitrariness and illusiveness
of national identity. However, he had not suggested anything that we can learn
from the past to overcome the problems of nationalism. Nationalism is still so
powerful in nowadays that it can easily disturb the focus of other important
social problems, like economic exploitation. Thus, as most of the Marxists
would appeal, more studies and discussions are needed in order to find a
solution, so that national identity can no longer distract real social
oppressions