Whose+Imagined+Community?


 * =Title= || Whose Imagined Community? ||
 * =Author= || Partha Chatterjee ||
 * =Date= || 2005 ||
 * =Summary By= || Sonja Kelly ||
 * =Summary= || “Here lies the root of our postcolonial misery: not in our inability to think out new forms of the modern community but in our surrender to the old forms of the modern state. If the nation is an imagined community and if nations must also take the forms of states, then our theoretical language must allow us to think about community and state at the same time” (412).

Chatterjee critiques Anderson’s //Imagined Communities//, asserting that Anderson makes two large errors:
 * He focuses on the material, outside domain of the state and ignores the spiritual, inside domain.
 * His concept of nationalism is “modular” insofar as it was developed in Europe and the Americas, and then is adopted by colonies, leaving nothing left for the colonies to “imagine.”

Chatterjee introduces a new idea of nationalism: that it is also inner and spiritual, and positions itself //against// the imposed outer and material nationalism of the state.

The example he offers is of Bengal, which asserted its own:
 * Language (Bengali), which held fast despite the imposition of English as the language of the state. The cultural elite subsequently took steps to bring Bengali into modern usage.
 * Drama, which continued to promote the language and sustain Sanskrit traditions.
 * Schools, which originally promoted nationalism before the modular English imposition on them.
 * Family norms, which resisted legislation and maintained its traditional inner nationalism.
 * Role for women, which was new insofar as she had a role in the public sphere, but against the “Western” woman, she maintained ties and the appearance of the national traditions.

The difference between the inner and outer nationalism became a contested space, with the tension being held by the elites.

However, Chatterjee asserts that it is possible for us to develop a new theory of nationalism that takes into account both the “community and the state” (412). ||
 * =Discussion points= || In one sense, Chatterjee is talking about colonies versus colonizers. In another sense, however, he is discussing the state versus the community (or, perhaps, civil society?). Is his theory applicable beyond a colonial context (he does not assert that it is, but I wonder if perhaps it could be)?

Chatterjee seems to agree with the application of Anderson to the outer, material realm of the state, but that Anderson cannot be broadly applied to the inner, spiritual realm. How much would this change Anderson’s argument? How much does Anderson anticipate this criticism in his chapter on “Census, Map, Museum”?

One of the criticisms of Western feminism is that it does not travel well to places that do not have the same intellectual history. How does this parallel Chatterjee’s project, and what would Chatterjee have to add to the debate on the applicability of Western feminism to broader contexts? || = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

= =