Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(London, 1983). Anderson revised Imagined Communities in 1991, and then again in 2006. The page
numbers for the quotations from the book in this article are from the 2006 edition.
2 Benedict Anderson, A Life beyond Boundaries (London, 2016), 196.
3 Umut Özkırımlı, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke, 2010), 106.
4 Anthony D. Smith, Nationalism and Modernism (London, 1998), 131.
5 Aviel Roshwald, “Untangling the Knotted Cord: Studies of Nationalism,” Journal of Interdisciplin-
C The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical
V
Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail journals.permissions@oup.com.
518
Thinking the Nation 519
derson’s work, the editors noted, “The connection Anderson posits [in Imagined Com-
munities] between the nation-form and imagination is so axiomatic to contemporary aca-
demic discourse by now that it scarcely needs to be mentioned.”6
Such enormous figures and lofty words raise a number of questions. How did a
slim book of less than 150 pages become what by all measurements would seem to be
the most well-known work in the world on nationalism? How did a book by a historian
BENEDICT ANDERSON WAS BORN ON August 26, 1936, in Kunming, China. His father
was an official in the British Imperial Maritime Customs Service in China. An Irish
citizen, Anderson grew up in California and Ireland.7 “Geographically,” he later
wrote, “I was being prepared (without realizing it) for a cosmopolitan and compara-
6 Pheng Cheah and Jonathan Culler, eds., Grounds of Comparison: Around the Work of Benedict An-
dict Anderson, Comparatively Speaking: On Area Studies, Theory, and ‘Gentlemanly’ Polemics,” Philip-
pine Studies 59, no. 1 (2011): 107–139, here 108.
tive outlook on life. On the brink of puberty I had already lived in Yunnan, California,
Colorado, independent Ireland, and England. I had been raised by an Irish father, an
English mother and a Vietnamese nurse. French was a (secret) family language; I had
fallen in love with Latin; and my parents’ library contained books by Chinese, Japa-
nese, French, Russian, Italian, American and German authors.”8 He attended Cam-
bridge University, where he graduated with a degree in classics in 1957. It was during
Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World (Cambridge, 2010), chap. 2; for
a comprehensive study, see Geoffrey B. Robinson, The Killing Season: A History of the Indonesian Massa-
cres, 1965–66 (Princeton, N.J., 2018).
12 Benedict R. Anderson and Ruth T. McVey (with the assistance of Frederick P. Bunnell), A Pre-
liminary Analysis of the October 1, 1965 Coup in Indonesia (New York, 1971), 1–64, quote from vii.
13 Aguilar, Hau, Rafael, Tadem, and Anderson, “Benedict Anderson, Comparatively Speaking,” 108.
14 Benedict R. O’G. Anderson, Java in a Time of Revolution: Occupation and Resistance, 1944–1946
1949), vi. For another important early study of nationalism, see Hans Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism: A
Study in Its Origins and Background (New York, 1944). For an overview of the literature, see Geoff Eley
and Ronald Grigor Suny, “Introduction: From the Moment of Social History to the Work of Cultural
Representation,” in Eley and Suny, eds., Becoming National: A Reader (New York, 1996), 3–41.
19 Karl W. Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of
Nationality (Cambridge, Mass., 1953); Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe:
A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European
Nations, trans. Ben Fowkes (1985; repr., New York, 2000; originally published in German as Die Vor-
kämpfer der nationalen Bewegung bei den kleinen Völkern Europas: Eine vergleichende Analyse zur gesell-
schaftlichen Schichtung der patriotischen Gruppen [Prague, 1968]).
20 Benedict Anderson, “Introduction,” in Gopal Balakrishnan, ed., Mapping the Nation (London,
1996), 1–16, here 10; Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, N.Y., 1983).
21 Although there was little sustained attention among scholars to researching ways of thought
among people whom they considered to be part of a national community, some did contend that “na-
tions” were essentially the product of human belief. As Hugh Seton-Watson put it in 1977, “All that I
can find to say is that a nation exists when a significant number of people in a community consider them-
selves to form a nation, or behave as if they formed one . . . When a significant group holds this belief, it
possesses ‘national consciousness.’” Seton-Watson, Nations and States: An Enquiry into the Origins of
Nations and the Politics of Nationalism (Boulder, Colo., 1977), 5. Arnold Toynbee advanced a similar
view much earlier, in 1915: “To begin with, we already have a notion of what Nationality is. Like all great
forces in human life, it is nothing material or mechanical, but a subjective psychological feeling in living
people.” Toynbee, Nationality and the War (London, 1915), 13.
rians, such as Gary Cohen in his work on Germans in Prague, began calling attention
to in pathbreaking empirical studies of popular ethnic identification.22 Thus, by the
late 1970s and early 1980s, the main challenge emerging in the field was to better un-
derstand how people actually developed a sense of national consciousness, rather than
assuming that such consciousness developed on a mass scale as a more or less func-
tional response to large-scale socioeconomic changes.
IN THE FIRST PAGES OF IMAGINED COMMUNITIES, Anderson laid out a set of ideas that
would change the field of nationalism studies. “I propose the following definition of
the nation: it is an imagined political community—and imagined as both inherently
limited and sovereign. It 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.”25 His introduction of hu-
man cognition into the study of nationalism required further elaboration: “Com-
munities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style
in which they are imagined.”26 For Anderson, the search to account for how “the
shrunken imaginings of recent history (scarcely more than two centuries) generate
such colossal sacrifices” in the name of the nation was to be found in the cultural roots
of nationalism.27
To shed light on this subject, Anderson advanced a set of arguments, at the heart
of which was his attempt to explain a major cognitive transformation. “A fundamental
change was taking place in modes of apprehending the world, which, more than any-
thing else, made it possible to ‘think’ the nation.”28 This change took the following
form: thinking the nation became necessary because older identities, which were asso-
ciated with the pre-nationalist ancien régime, began to lose their credibility. Three cen-
tral elements had eroded by the eighteenth century: sacred languages and scripts
(e.g., Latin), which were believed to be the sole keys to truth; the primacy of divine
22Gary B. Cohen, The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861–1914 (Princeton, N.J., 1981).
23See Anderson’s response to the essays about his work in Cheah and Culler, Grounds of Compari-
son, 226.
24 Anderson, A Life beyond Boundaries, 126.
25 Anderson, Imagined Communities, 6.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid., 7.
28 Ibid., 22.
monarchs; and a cosmological sense of past time. The invention of mass printing and
capitalism were the new factors that helped erode these elements and laid the path
for new “imagined communities” of nations. These two forces together (what Ander-
son famously called “print capitalism”) created modern vernaculars through which
nations could be imagined—suppressing some dialects while exalting others, and loos-
ening the hold of the older sacral languages. In the eighteenth century, newspapers
argument. Anderson also sought to de-center what had been up to the early 1980s a very Eurocentric ap-
proach to the study of nationalism. He devoted an entire chapter (chap. 4) to what he called the revolu-
tionary “creole nationalisms” of the New World in order to explain why nationalism triumphed in the
Americas before it did in Europe. He found the answer in the conflict between “creole” functionaries
and their aristocratic European overlords, and in the role of newspapers and administrative career struc-
tures in creating the boundaries of “national” consciousness.
30 Conor Cruise O’Brien, “How Old Empires Still Hold Sway,” Observer, August 21, 1983, 7.
31 Edmund Leach, “The Idea of the State,” New Statesman, August 26, 1983, 22–23, here 22.
32 Anthony Reid, review of Imagined Communities, Pacific Affairs 58, no. 3 (1985): 497–499, here 499.
33 David G. Marr, review of Imagined Communities, Journal of Asian Studies 45, no. 4 (1986): 807–808.
34 George M. Wilson, review of Imagined Communities, American Historical Review 90, no. 4 (Octo-
issue of the political science journal International Organization, Ernst Haas concluded
that Imagined Communities “is more evocative than systematic. It relies more on
highly subjective interpretations of nationalist poetry than on statistics of social mobi-
lization.”35 One element of the book stood out: “The best thing about Anderson’s
Imagined Communities,” Haas wrote, “is the title.” He did not, however, elaborate
why.36
Tamir, “The Enigma of Nationalism,” World Politics 47, no. 3 (1995): 418–440.
37 Anderson, A Life beyond Boundaries, 130.
38 Ibid., 127. One important effect of Anderson’s global approach was that Imagined Communities
became a book that could (and eventually did) capture the engagement of scholars working in diverse
geographical and temporal contexts, including those working outside what had been up to the 1980s the
largely Eurocentric field of nationalism studies. On non-European studies that derived inspiration from
Anderson’s work, see, for example, Thongchai Winichakul, Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a
Nation (Honolulu, 1997); Claudio Lomnitz, Deep Mexico, Silent Mexico: An Anthropology of Nationalism
(Minneapolis, 2001). Although inspired by Imagined Communities, this body of work also produced pro-
ductive criticism of Anderson’s book, such as Lomnitz’s work on Mexico, in which he noted: “My first
and most fundamental amendment to Anderson is thus that nationalism does not form a single fraternal
imaginary community, since it systematically distinguishes full citizens from part citizens or strong citi-
zens from weak ones (e.g., children, women, Indians, the ignorant). Since these distinctions are by nature
heterogeneous, we cannot conclude that nationalism’s power stems primarily from the fraternal bond
that it promises to all citizens. The fraternal bond is critical, but so are what one might call the bonds of
dependence that are intrinsically a part of any nationalism.” Lomnitz, “Nationalism as a Practical System:
Benedict Anderson’s Theory of Nationalism from the Vantage Point of Spanish America,” in Miguel An-
gel Centeno and Fernando López-Alves, eds., The Other Mirror: Grand Theory through the Lens of Latin
America (Princeton, N.J., 2001), 329–359, here 337, emphasis in the original. For a pathbreaking study
that explores the heterogeneous nature of nationalism’s supposed fraternal imaginary community, see
Edin Hajdarpasic, Whose Bosnia? Nationalism and Political Imagination in the Balkans, 1840–1914 (Ith-
aca, N.Y., 2015).
work on nationalism had catapulted him into the spotlight because of events during
the early 1990s:
I vividly remember receiving a frantic telephone call from a high official at the Kennan
Institute, one of the key centres for Soviet studies. He begged me to fly down and give a
talk at his institute. When I asked why—since I knew very little about the Soviet Union or
Russia—he astonished me by saying, ‘Soviet studies are finished, money is not coming in
Despite Anderson’s reluctance to use his knowledge of nationalism to help save the
supposedly imperiled field of Soviet studies, Imagined Communities continued to gain
in influence throughout the 1990s. This was due in part to some aspects of the book
that became widely referential and inspirational for many historians of nationalism.
AMONG THE FIRST TO PRAISE AND critically engage with Anderson’s contribution was
the political theorist and historian Partha Chatterjee. For him, Anderson’s originality
lay in the fact that he “subvert[ed] the determinist scheme” that many scholars of na-
tionalism had put forth, in which they portrayed nations as products of specific socio-
logical conditions (e.g., industrialism), by “asserting that the nation [was] ‘an imagined
political community.’”40 Chatterjee, however, felt that Anderson did not adequately
extend agency in this process of imagining to all parts of the globe: “If nationalisms in
the rest of the world have to choose their imagined community from certain ‘modular’
forms already made available to them by Europe and the Americas, what do they
have left to imagine? History, it would seem, has decreed that we in the postcolonial
world shall only be perpetual consumers of modernity . . . Even our imaginations must
remain forever colonialized.”41 Notable in Chatterjee’s reflections was his acceptance
and appreciation of the notion of “an imagined community.”
Other historians followed suit during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Eric Hobs-
bawm argued in Nations and Nationalism since 1870 that the modern nation “is, in
Benedict Anderson’s useful phrase, an ‘imagined community,’ and no doubt this can
be made to fill the emotional void left by the retreat or disintegration, or the unavail-
ability of real human communities.”42 The influence of Anderson’s emphasis on cogni-
tive perspectives was clear in Hobsbawm’s introduction, in which he stressed that un-
derstanding nationalism now urgently required analysis of “the assumptions, hopes,
needs, longings and interests of ordinary people.”43
Historians of Europe, with interests in contexts as diverse as France, Spain, Great
Britain, and Germany, drew inspiration during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s
39 Anderson, A Life beyond Boundaries, 150.
40 Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse? (1986;
repr., Minneapolis, 2001), 19.
41 Partha Chatterjee, “Whose Imagined Community?,” in Balakrishnan, Mapping the Nation, 214–
225, here 216. See also Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories
(Princeton, N.J., 1993), 5–6.
42 E. J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1870: Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge,
in various ways from Anderson’s notion of the “imagined community.” Peter Sahlins be-
gan his 1989 study of national identification in the Pyrenees by noting that Anderson’s
definition of the nation as an imagined community “usefully corrects the positivist con-
ception of national identity as a product of ‘nation building,’ focusing our attention in-
stead on the symbolic construction of national and political identities.”44 In her 1992
book Britons, Linda Colley wrote of Anderson’s “invaluable definition of a nation as an
cago, 1995).
49 There are historians who have written important studies of nationalism who do not appear to have
been significantly influenced by Anderson’s notion of the “imagined community.” They seem to have re-
duced Anderson’s main contribution to his being one of several influential authors (who published stud-
ies during the 1980s) who argued that nationalism emerged in response to large-scale socioeconomic
change in the eighteenth century, and thus was a distinctly modern phenomenon. See, for example, Da-
vid A. Bell, The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680–1800 (Cambridge, Mass.,
2001); Jeremy King, Budweisers into Czechs and Germans: A Local History of Bohemian Politics, 1848–
1948 (Princeton, N.J., 2002); Brian Porter-Sz} ucs, “Beyond the Study of Nationalism,” in Tomasz Kamu-
sella and Krzysztof Jaskułowski, eds., Nationalisms Today (Oxford, 2009), 3–15.
cognition in the emergence of nationalism, that has attracted by far the most attention
among historians. In this sense, it was Anderson’s conceptual originality and evocative
theoretical formulations, rather than his historical arguments, that ultimately influ-
enced the historiography of nationalism in significant ways in the decades following
the 1983 publication of Imagined Communities.
Seroussi, and Levy, eds., The Collective Memory Reader (Oxford, 2011), 3–62, here 21; Olick, Vinitzky-
Seroussi, and Levy, introduction to Part I, ibid., 63–64, here 63; Ernest Renan, “From ‘What Is a
Nation?,’” ibid., 80–83, here 80.
51 Anderson, Imagined Communities, 6.
52 Ibid., 209.
53 On the history of the field of collective memory, see Olick, Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Levy, “Intro-
duction.” For important critiques of that field, see Alon Confino, “Collective Memory and Cultural History:
Problems of Method,” American Historical Review 102, no. 5 (December 1997): 1386–1403; Kerwin Lee Klein,
“On the Emergence of Memory in Historical Discourse,” Representations, no. 69 (Winter 2000): 127–150.
54 For a sampling of historical studies on diverse aspects of collective memory, all of which have
drawn on Anderson’s Imagined Communities in various ways, see John Bodnar, Remaking America: Pub-
lic Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, N.J., 1992); John R.
Gillis, ed., Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity (Princeton, N.J., 1994); Jay Winter, Sites of
Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History (Cambridge, 1995); Marita
Sturken, Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the Aids Epidemic, and the Politics of Remembering (Berke-
ley, Calif., 1997); Confino, The Nation as a Local Metaphor; Daniel J. Sherman, The Construction of
Memory in Interwar France (Chicago, 1999); Robert G. Moeller, War Stories: The Search for a Usable Past
in the Federal Republic of Germany (Berkeley, Calif., 2003); John R. Neff, Honoring the Civil War Dead:
Commemoration and the Problem of Reconciliation (Lawrence, Kans., 2005).
tinues to influence historians of that subject today? The study of nationalism has moved
in new directions during the past decade, with concepts such as “national indifference”
becoming a focal point for innovative research. Tara Zahra, a main proponent of this
approach, has argued that “historians who analyze nations as ‘imagined communities’
risk remaining imprisoned within nationalists’ own discursive universe, analyzing the
contested content of nationalist ideologies and cultures without questioning the extent
Review 69, no. 1 (2010): 93–119, here 111–112. On how historians can become imprisoned in the discur-
sive world of nationalist activists, see Duara, Rescuing History from the Nation. On “national indiffer-
ence,” see also Tara Zahra, Kidnapped Souls: National Indifference and the Battle for Children in the
Bohemian Lands, 1900–1948 (Ithaca, N.Y., 2008); Pieter M. Judson, Guardians of the Nation: Activists on
the Language Frontiers of Imperial Austria (Cambridge, Mass., 2006).
56 For a pathbreaking argument about the need to adopt “eventful” perspectives in the study of na-
tionalism, see Rogers Brubaker, “Rethinking Nationhood: Nation as Institutionalized Form, Practical
Category, Contingent Event,” in Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question
in the New Europe (Cambridge, 1996), 13–22. For examples of empirical studies that have sought to take
account of, and account for, eventful nationhood, see Max Bergholz, “Sudden Nationhood: The Micro-
dynamics of Intercommunal Relations in Bosnia-Herzegovina after World War II,” American Historical
Review 118, no. 3 (June 2013): 679–707; Bergholz, Violence as a Generative Force: Identity, Nationalism,
and Memory in a Balkan Community (Ithaca, N.Y., 2016).
57 On the need to more closely research human cognition in the study of nationalism and ethnicity,
see Rogers Brubaker, Mara Loveman, and Peter Stamatov, “Ethnicity as Cognition,” Theory and Society
33, no. 1 (2004): 31–64.