Imagined Communities

Förra veckans korta inlägg om nationalism fick mig att börja bläddra i Benedict Andersons klassiker Imagined Communties [1983]. Nedanstående stycke tycks mig vara den mest koncisa formuleringen av kärnan i hans teori.

Man bör ha i åtanke att Anderson inte menar att det endast är nationen som är en ”föreställd gemenskap”. Alla gemenskaper som är så stora att det är omöjligt för medlemmarna att personligen känna majoriteten av de övriga i gruppen är föreställda gemenskaper. Dess motsats är inte äkta, sanna eller verkliga gemenskaper, utan konkreta: sådana gemenskaper där alla medlemmar står mer eller mindre i personlig relation till varandra. Nationen är bara en form bland andra möjliga föreställda gemenskaper. Varför och hur idén om nationell gemenskap kom att växa fram är ämnet för Andersons teori, som fokuserar på tryckkonsten, folkspråkens utveckling, och om hur det skrivna ordet möjliggör en föreställd gemenskap läsarna emellan. Förklaringen till nationalismen står att finna här: om det är skriftlig kommunikation som möjliggör en stor vid föreställd gemenskap, så kommer språkliga gränser generellt också bli gemenskapens gränser.

If the expansion of bureaucratic middle classes was a relatively even phenomenon, occurring at comparable rates in both advanced and backward states of Europe, the rise of commercial and industrial bourgeoisies was of course highly uneven – massive and rapid in some places, slow and stunted in others. But no matter where, this ‘rise’ has to be understood in its relationship to vernacular print-capitalism.

The pre-bourgeois ruling classes generated their cohesions in some sense outside language, or at least outside print-language. If the ruler of Siam took a Malay noblewoman as a concubine, or if the King of England married a Spanish princess – did they ever talk seriously together? Solidarities were the products of kinship, clientship, and personal loyalties. ‘French’ nobles could assist ‘English’ kings against ‘French’ monarchs, not on the basis of shared language or culture, but, Machiavellian calculations aside, of shared kinsmen and friendships. The relatively small size of traditional aristocracies, their fixed political bases, and the personalization of political relations implied by sexual intercourse and inheritance, meant that their cohesions as classes were as much concrete as imagined. An illiterate nobility could still act as a nobility.

But the bourgeoisie? Here was a class which, figuratively speaking, came into being as a class only in so many replications. Factory-owner in Lille was connected to factory-owner in Lyon only by reverberation. They had no necessary reason to know of one another’s existence; they did not typically marry each other’s daughters or inherit each other’s property. But they did come to visualize in a general way the existence of thousands and thousands like themselves through print-language. For an illiterate bourgeoisie is scarcely imaginable. Thus in world-historical terms bourgeoisies were the first classes to achieve solidarities on an essentially imagined basis. But in a nineteenth-century Europe in which Latin had been defeated by vernacular print-capitalism for something like two centuries, these solidarities had an outermost stretch limited by vernacular legibilities. To put it another way, one can sleep with anyone, but one can only read some people’s words.

Benedict Anderson (2006), Imagined Communities (London & New York: Verso), s. 76-77.

Lämna ett svar