Anderson talks about nationalism alongside the devaluation of religion and the rise of print-capitalism rather than alongside ideology. While ideology highlights difference and exposes the mediations of how we view the world, religion and print-capitalism emphasize exclusivity and solidarity. On page 49-50 Anderson describes the seemingly strange phenomenon that colonized lands were more quick to adopt nation-ness than the much older, stable lands of Europe. He attributes this to a tightening of control by the colonialists and to the spread of liberalizing ideas from the Enlightenment. When colonized lands are pushing back against an identifiable controller, such as Madrid, than how do they identify the “enemy?” If Madrid and the rest of Spain did not identify yet with nationhood and nationness, then how were the colonized lands identifying their oppressors? Was it the ideology that the people from Madrid held over issues such as the slave trade or land ownership that the colonized peoples attributed to Madrid-ness? Or did they establish the Madrid-ness as an opposition to their own nation-ness and thus establish nationalism for Madrid before Madrid even had thought of the notion?
Is the collective push-back against opposition today what defines modern nationalism? Is this why 9/11 seemingly united America? Is this why Americans was quick to equate Al Qaeda with Iraqi or Afghan? I’m still parsing through the relation of Anderson’s argument to Citizen Kane, but I want to discuss how Kane’s acquisition of the land and Florida, and subsequent half development, as well as his use of print-media relate to establishing an idea of nationalism. Also how does nationalism relate to ego?
No comments:
Post a Comment