Anderson’s argument can be summarized in one basic sentence: “the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of imagined community, which in its basic morphology set the stage for the modern nation” (46). While I certainly agree that the public could be seen as an imagined community—boundless and endless in nature—I struggle with the idea that print has everything to do with national communities. Without print media, would our ability to present ourselves as a community really be impossible?
I found myself accepting Anderson’s definition of a nation (limited, sovereign, community). I nodded along as he explained the decline of script languages, the critical conception of temporality, and the society based around something other than “high centers”. I understood how the change in character of Latin, the Reformation, and the spread of vernaculars all influenced the thrust of print capitalism. However, I think Anderson ultimately jumps to the conclusion that the imagined community exists as a platform for the modern nation.
What about ancient Greece? A region characterized by fragmented geography resulted in a politically, socially, and culturally disjointed state. The geopolitics of the region led to the creation of small city-states, such as Sparta and Athens. It seems hard to imagine that a self-sufficient polis such as Athens—a state with a functional direct democracy, a strong community, and a free-learning education system had no feeling of national pride. Following his conviction, Socrates suffered and died in an Athenian prison instead of escaping to a neighboring city-state because his loyalty to Athens was more important than his life. This example of national identity seems to challenge Anderson’s idea of a nation state—most had equal access to knowledge and men were able to share their thoughts and opinions in Assembly, much like the salon and parlor forums.
Perhaps national identity is not predicated on print capitalism and the evolution of newspapers, and it is actually the other way around. Maybe when ancient Greek states were able to conquer geographical fragmentation and interact regularly with other states, national identity became boundless and sought a mode of unification. While it is possible that this thesis proves too idealistic, the ability to even form a new possibility seems to weaken Anderson’s argument in my eyes.
Peterson clearly distances himself from Anderson. He writes, “my account complicates Anderson’s model by drawing attention to the ways newspaper rituals become elements in the construction of personal and group identities” (180), it seems as though his work is more of an extension of Anderson’s thesis than a differentiation. This extension, though, is something I ultimately agree with. I do believe the printed form of language and the relation between time and space is something that ultimately dictates a societal position. People are influenced by the written word and the news to which they are privy. They grasp onto things that allow them to propel themselves into different social spheres.
An interesting synthesis of Anderson and Peterson’s work might be the concept of news stories creating patriotism. In instances of tragedy people grasp on to news and personal anecdotes written in newspapers or online and aired on television. In these cases, the newspapers are not creating a national identity, but they strengthen national ties and pride. Do you think there is a difference? In what ways do you think patriotism, nationalism, and pride relate to the news? How would Peterson and Anderson view the strengthened American pride following tragedies such as September 11th and Hurricane Katrina?
16 comments:
last post - Sarah Schulman
My last comment was a mess up, here is the real one:
I think this week’s lead commenter brings up a very interesting, compelling point when she mentions the example of Athens, as ”a self-sufficient polis” where it is difficult to imagine there being “no feeling of national pride.” Anderson’s argument about the formation of the modern nations as a result of print capitalism seems to ignore the possibility that individuals, such as Socrates, may have identified more with “imaginary communities” or “publics” that are their cities than with those that comprise their “nations”. Anderson’s sense of nationalism seems problematic for me when I think of my own personal identifications. Do I feel more like a Pennsylvanian than an American, or a Philadelphian than a Pennsylvanian? What comprises my “public”? Here, in my opinion, Peterson addresses the function of newspapers and print media more perceptively. The variety of newspapers and magazines “taken” by the subjects he studied in New Delhi, serve to distinguish individuals within a larger “modern nation state.” While they are all living in India, Shanker and his friends “take” newspapers that represent and define them differently according to preferences for content, style, language, caste, etc. The work print media does then revolves around, as Peterson says “the construction of personal and group identities,” something that contrasts Anderson’s idea of a “national identity”. However, my issues may be in the fact that as I’ve witnessed society adopt a more individualistic outlook, putting emphasis on human agency in the formation of culture and the self, print media and newspapers have become a categorizing force. It seems as though our ability now to choose among a plethora of print media options has in fact fragmented the very “nation” these media worked to build.
-Sarah Schulman
I also believe that Peterson's proposal on how newspapers affect a population or community seems to contradict what Anderson argues about the relationship between a nation or "imagined community" and "print-capitalism." Peterson draws attention to how there a multiple types of newspapers, not just one for every nation. Peterson discusses how newspapers have their own "jaati" or "categories constructed on the basis of perceived similarities and differences," and so the newspaper you "take" for yourself reflects which similarities and differences best categorize you and your beliefs/perceptions. Newspapers may provide readers with national news, but the way in which the news is presented, which news lines the newspaper focuses on, and the tone of the articles in each "brand" of newspaper are all factors of this print media that shape different "imagined communities" connected through a common background, style, or perspective. Newspapers bring together sub-groups within a nation, while also serving as a form of self-expression, depending on which newspaper you take, argues Peterson. I believe that newspaper content however, usually does propel a sense of nationalism. When 9/11 happened, there were feelings of national pride, national grief, and national hope inspired through articles in newspapers across the nation. Still, I believe the actual event of 9/11 was what brought together our nation, we just would not have been informed of such an event if it weren't for the news, especially as it was presented in newspaper print. After reading both Anderson and Peterson's work, I believe that newspapers help spread national news, while allowing individuals to express their own personal/group identities, and also serve to document the relation between time and space, that is document the history of a nation, rather than creating the nation itself.
I agree with Sarah Schulman that “our ability now to choose among a plethora of print media options has in fact fragmented the very “nation” these media worked to build.” I believe this can even be seen in Peterson’s work as he emphasizes the difference between “buying” and “taking a newspaper throughout the piece as well as his mentioning that certain prints attract different types of people. In this case, the “jatti” of the print is often what attracts people to it. But Peterson also mentioned how the people there will take certain newspapers almost traditionally because they were raised with them. He remarks essentially how your class and social views partly dictate what you read. This leads to separation among the nation, essentially leading to several imagined communities within a nation, as opposed to an individual one. I can not help but notice the similarities in our own culture. Doctors are likely to read medical journals while investors are more likely to read The Wall Street Journal. This is just a minor example, but one can see how distinct groups with different ideologies will read the numerous prints available to their specific ideology. Such varying amount of print might lead to an imagined community of peers with similar ideology where one still does not have a sense of national identity. I also believe Ms. Schulman made an excellent point in regards to personal identification. An interesting example I noted was when I traveled in Europe. When I met people who asked where I was from, I often would tell them the state I was from as oppose to the country. Such identification shows that a national identity may not really exist at the level Anderson suggests.
-Kyle B
I completely agree with the comments emphasizing Peterson’s portrayal of group cohesion as more apt and applicable to a contemporary world saturated with options for news media, the comparison of “taking” versus “buying” a newspaper being an indication of individual preference for the imagined community to which he or she wishes to align themselves. However, I do not find this idea of inserting oneself in a more specialized imagined community at odds with Anderson’s rendering of the concept of nationalism. Anderson describes a time when “a fundamental change was taking place in modes of apprehending the world, which, more than anything else, made it possible to ‘think’ the nation” (Anderson 22). The cultural shift occurring at this historical moment allowed subjects to identify as citizens and religious order to be superseded by other forms of group cohesion. The change which allowed people to “think” as a nation is the same change which allows us to “think” as a member of a particular political party or interest group for instance. In this way it seems Peterson’s suggestion that “contexts of consumption constitute social fields in which people engage in narrative and performatory constructions of themselves, reinforce social relations with other actors, negotiate status, engage in economic transactions, and imagine themselves and others as members of broader imagined communities” is not at odds with Anderson’s notion of nationalism but rather constitutes its extenuation (Peterson 181).
I agree with Sarah Schwarzschild in that newspaper content can propel nationalism, but that it is not necessarily delivered via the news’ message. There may be feelings associated with the way the article from which we received the news was written, but it is often overshadowed by the feelings regarding the news itself. Peterson writes otherwise, but it seems as if there is not nearly as much difference between American newspapers compared to Indian ones. In the face of tragedy, especially, it seems that we as Americans are more likely to assume validity and neutrality in our sources of news (regardless of which source) than the people in Peterson’s piece. Unfortunately, much of the content we are exposed to is tragedy, and we are left pondering how deep our connection is to the tragedy and the nation-members involved. When that tragedy happens on a national level, as with September 11th and Hurricane Katrina, a much greater proportion of the nation feels affected than, say, a local convenience store robbery. That, to me, is how nationalism builds- because more of the community feels connected all at once.
I found this blog post fascinating because I myself pondered about the ancient Greek civilization as evidence to counter-prove some of Anderson’s arguments and even some of the arguments that were made in lecture yesterday. Like Sarah and Kyle, I also agree that over-mediation has undoubtedly caused a fragmentation to occur within our society. However, I am curious as to whether the fragmentation that has resulted from this pseudo-partitioning of media (particularly of print and televised news) has created closer-knit subnational communities (with some different identification as a subset of the national identity) than compared to a unified media that did not necessarily express agree with opinions or beliefs.
The Peterson article would seem to support this in the fact that each person could have a paper and skim over it without truly ‘taking’ it as their own—according to that article, newspapers served as a form of strong self-identity even within the nation of India itself. I wonder to what extent this has actually reinforced nationalism as opposed to undermined it; if one is able to find people with such similar thoughts (such as the people who write the paper one ‘takes’), then one’s sense of patriotic unity could actually increase (we tend to feel comfortable in a place where people think and speak like we do). Speaking from personal experience of having lived and traveled to foreign countries, I have observed that people travelling abroad who have a language in common different from that of the country they are visiting form an instantaneous bond that seems to comfort them—I wonder if the same thing could be true (on a smaller scale) for people who read the newspaper that they ‘take’.
-Ian
Though I understand the argument that newspaper does not have such a strong role in the building of a national identity, I think Anderson’s discussion of the newspaper and the novel have less to do with the medium itself, and more about the accessibility to communal information that they provide. Though today newspapers are not necessarily the makers of our patriotism and our nation identity, they enable a sense of a shared experience for those who read it regularly. We don’t think about how disconnected we would feel from those around us had, and as we discussed in lecture, these media create a shared space and time.
Take Baltimore as an example. We live a campus community disconnected from the roughest areas of the city. Though most of us probably don’t have time to watch the news or read a local paper everyday, the fact that this information is available to us makes our membership in the Baltimore community stronger. We hear about problems and events that are happening within miles of the Homewood campus, and though we may have never seen it first hand, our perception of Baltimore is shaped by the knowledge of these events and the problems of the city.
While the fact that the NYTimes exists does not make us “more” American, all of these forms of media help us to identify in an abstract way with some larger community outside of our daily interactions. As Dr. Pandian mentioned in class, these “nations” are can mean many different things and can be made up of very different communities. Just as Peterson describes of the different papers, we all have our preferred news source, favorite blog or site. As these media have evolved, especially with the internet, we can find many different “imagined communities” that we wish to be a part of. We can begin to find a combination of communities to be a part of that accurately speaks to the multiplicity of our identities.
I agree with Kyle in finding that the "jatti" of the newspaper print is what attracts certain people to it. Growing up my parents always had a newspaper on the table to read with their coffees, and looking at what Peterson said that being raised up on traditionally reading newspapers. This example and idea doesn't apply for me as I do not like or need to read the newspaper, something I disagree with about Petersons idea.
Most people mentioned the culture of newspapers and the people that read certain types of newspapers, an example being that a middle aged person who plays competitive basketball may get a newspaper strictly for the sports section or completely forget about the newspaper and go straight to a sports illustrated.
Also, in looking at a point made by sarah about Anderson's sense of nationalism. In talking to certain people from different states around the country, it does seem that people see themselves as more New York than American, as if it were its own state and it was a completely different culture. This can be found in the media of newspapers as articles are consistently being written about another state or another area and downgrading it. It is all part of America and this is where Nationalism is created through the newspaper as well. On September 11th main news headlines around the world were all reporting it, which brought the country together.
Zach P
I agree with Sarah Schwarzchild and the other bloggers on the idea that print is directed towards certain "imagined communities" or audiences. Peterson's argument that print media creates "personal and group identities" is true: newspapers and magazines are directed towards specific audiences whether it be social, economic, religious, or political status or age, race, gender, or sexual orientation. For example, "The Wall Street Journal" and "The Economist" are directed towards the educated and/or upper-middle class group whereas the "Old Farmer's Almanac" is more synonymous to rural America. Like Ian said, this dividing up of the nation as a whole does create subnations with their own personal identities. In a country where people have always been encouraged to think and believe freely, this division seems almost inevitable. So then, is national identity lost? I believe the definition of national identity is a person who thinks of himself as part of the nation he lives in; the answer then is no. Even though people may be divided, "we" (in reference to a nation's people) all live in a country. However, when a catastrophic event such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina occurs in that country (which is, in theory, divided), the division is lifted. Though we do still return to our favorite brand of print media, we all have a sense that "our" nation has been affected, "our" people have been affected, "our" families and friends have been affected. Because the people are able to relate to that specific event, national identity remains intact no matter what age, race, or social status.
In response to Rachel’s post, I agree with her idea of the “sense of a shared experience.” Print, along with other media, enables people to empathize and place themselves in another person’s world, whether it be a nearby world like West Baltimore or across the world in China. In either case, newspaper evokes a feeling of a distant connection with others. In reading articles about Baltimore, I might more closely identify with Baltimore and in reading articles about China, I might more closely identify with humanity as a whole. Anderson, I believe, would agree that the so-called nation begins with the realization of this outside world. The submission to the fact that we cannot be aware or experience it all creates our appreciation and respect for others and “shapes public identities” as Peterson said.
Like Rachel mentioned, we live in an isolated section of Baltimore. Newspaper and other various media sources allow students to be aware of what occurs in the city. Although we live differently, the information that we take in about the city not only alters our perception of Baltimore, as Rachel pointed out, but also shapes our identity with Baltimore. By living in the city, we are inevitably linked to it. The newspaper can either reinforce this “imagined” link or community, discourage association, or cause further stratification from the general public. For example, after reading an article about heroin use in pregnant Baltimorean women, a student might associate him or herself with Hopkins or Charles Village, more than Baltimore. So, like Kyle and Zach emphasized and Anderson highlighted, newspapers have the potential lineate social distinctions by targeting a specific population, blurring the idea of a general public and stratifying the nation into interested sub-populations.
-Kate Appel
I also agree with Sarah’s assertion that perhaps newspapers play a more indirect role in rousing nationalism than is suggested by Peterson in his essay. However, I would like to point out that there are some modern countries with their own national identities that do not have newspapers or did not get them until very recently (last ten years), which conflicts with some implications made by Anderson in his essay that contend that “almost all modern self-conceived nations .. have ‘national print-languages’ ”. For example, Equatorial Guinea did not have newspapers as of 2003 due to heavy governmental censorship (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3098007.stm), and although under a dictatorship, the average per capita income is 21st highest in the world as ranked by the CIA World Factbook. Countries that are undoubtedly modern nations but with a limited range of legal print media options, such as Equatorial Guinea, demonstrate that the type of government a country possess is relevant to the role of newspapers in the sense of nationhood of the country in question. Consideration must be given to other possible avenues of the creation of a nationalistic consciousness in a nation with a developed cultural and national identity, but no major print media to express or record it.
In response to the lead commenter’s statement about examining news stories that generate patriotism, I would like to bring up an example that I was thinking of perhaps incorporating into my video project, which was the viral use of the already several-years-old but famous theme song for the film Team America: World Police after the news spread of the death of Osama bin Laden. A clear illustration of this is in this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BN1jSpiyIM&feature=related. When looking at the video statistics graph, there is a significant spike in views on May 2nd and May 3rd, which is when America was abuzz with the news. I find it interesting that strongly positive nationalistic feelings can cause the popularity of a satiric song that pokes fun at the American worldview to skyrocket.
Discussion Summary
Some of the main points that were brought up were as follows:
-Is it necessarily true that print media influences the perception of so-called 'national communities'? Not everyone seemed to agree with this claim, and arguments were made to support the hypothesis that print media might actually fragment society instead of creating a sense of 'national community'. It was said that at one point this may have been true, but with the partitioning of pring (eg. 'jatti') this could be decreasingly true
-Ancient Greece was repeatedly cited as an example that could counter-pose Anderson's argument that "imagined community exists as a platform for the modern nation".
-It was argued that in nations where an individualistic attitude is favored, such as the United States (see Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions if you are more interested in this), the imagined communities that Anderson alludes to might not be as applicable at a national level.
-Newspapers were seen by several people to be methods to unite a nation with a sense of patriotic unity, particularly when they address national tragedies and disasters (eg. given was 9/11). In these instances, newspapers could create a simultaneity-in-time by which the nation can develop patriotism
-The question was raised as to whether partitioning of print media has developed stronger subnational communities or simply just reduced the sense of national unity
-It was argued that our national identities could be in fact formed from combinations of these fragmented print media, the collection of which we use to define ourselves (and not a single newspaper we 'take', but the entire collection we read and associate with)
-It was also argued that fragmentation of media could actually have increased patriotism due to the fact that it serves as a strong indicator that freedom exists within a given country
Because we had no section meeting for this week, I am going to add some of my own thoughts.
First of all, I encourage everyone, when you're thinking about the readings and writing your comments/posts to keep your own project in the back of your mind. Do the concepts or issues raised in these readings have anything to contribute to how you are thinking about your project. This week the readings dealt with so-called “print media” (newspapers and novels) and they explored issues around such things as nations, politics, community, imagination, production, consumption, circulation, form and content. Some of you might be thinking about doing projects that delve into similar issues even if they don't involve print media.
One of the things that is interesting about the Anderson piece that didn't really get explored here is the emergence of the novel as a literary genre and it's relation to nationalism. It is much easier to see how something like a newspaper might be a form of nation building or national propaganda but the novel is not often considered in this light outside of certain academic circles. I found Anderson's close reading of the opening of Noli Me Tangere to be really insightful. This kind of reading could be (and has been) applied by scholars within the humanities, political science and anthropology to a whole host of writers.
Anderson takes care to point out that there is a difference between the nation as a political entity and other entities such as religious or dynastic empires. He describes how these forms of governance are based on different premises. His analysis of print media puts it in light of the rise of the nation as a project. His argument is that the rise of print media and the rise of nation are related. I'm not sure that he is saying that one necessarily causes the other but that the two are linked in form and function.
Two things stand out to me about Peterson's work. First, for Peterson, form and content are not easily separated and should be looked at together. All two often, the idea of media analysis does not go beyond and analysis of content. The second thing is Peterson's attention to practice. I really enjoyed how Peterson showed how the newspaper moves through a lived world and how the newspaper became a means by which people identified themselves.
In response to Rachel’s post, I agree with her idea of the “sense of a shared experience.” Print, along with other media, enables people to empathize and place themselves in another person’s world, whether it be a nearby world like West Baltimore or across the world in China. In either case, newspaper evokes a feeling of a distant connection with others. In reading articles about Baltimore, I might more closely identify with Baltimore and in reading articles about China, I might more closely identify with humanity as a whole. Anderson, I believe, would agree that the so-called nation begins with the realization of this outside world. The submission to the fact that we cannot be aware or experience it all creates our appreciation and respect for others and “shapes public identities” as Peterson said.
Like Rachel mentioned, we live in an isolated section of Baltimore. Newspaper and other various media sources allow students to be aware of what occurs in the city. Although we live differently, the information that we take in about the city not only alters our perception of Baltimore, as Rachel pointed out, but also shapes our identity with Baltimore. By living in the city, we are inevitably linked to it. The newspaper can either reinforce this “imagined” link or community, discourage association, or cause further stratification from the general public. For example, after reading an article about heroin use in pregnant Baltimorean women, a student might associate him or herself with Hopkins or Charles Village, more than Baltimore. So, like Kyle and Zach emphasized and Anderson highlighted, newspapers have the potential lineate social distinctions by targeting a specific
population, blurring the idea of a general public and stratifying the nation into interested sub-populations.
-Kate Appel
I also agree with Sarah’s assertion that perhaps newspapers play a more indirect role in rousing nationalism than is suggested by Peterson in his essay. However, I would like to point out that there are some modern countries with their own national identities that do not have newspapers or did not get them until very recently (last ten years), which conflicts with some implications made by Anderson in his essay that contend that “almost all modern self-conceived nations .. have ‘national print-languages’ ”. For example, Equatorial Guinea did not have newspapers as of 2003 due to heavy governmental censorship (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3098007.stm), and although under a dictatorship, the average per capita income is 21st highest in the world as ranked by the CIA World Factbook. Countries that are undoubtedly modern nations but with a limited range of legal print media options, such as Equatorial Guinea, demonstrate that the type of government a country possess is relevant to the role of newspapers in the sense of nationhood of the country in question. Consideration must be given to other possible avenues of the creation of a nationalistic consciousness in a nation with a developed cultural and national identity, but no major print media to express or record it.
In response to the lead commenter’s statement about examining news stories that generate patriotism, I would like to bring up an example that I was thinking of perhaps incorporating into my video project, which was the viral use of the already several-years-old but famous theme song for the film Team America: World Police after the news spread of the death of Osama bin Laden. A clear illustration of this is in this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BN1jSpiyIM&feature=related. When looking at the video statistics graph, there is a significant spike in views on May 2nd and May 3rd, which is when America was abuzz with the news. I find it interesting that strongly positive nationalistic feelings can cause the popularity of a satiric song that pokes fun at the American worldview to skyrocket.
I also believe that Peterson's proposal on how newspapers affect a population or community seems to contradict what Anderson argues about the relationship between a nation or "imagined community" and "print-capitalism." Peterson draws attention to how there a multiple types of newspapers, not just one for every nation. Peterson discusses how newspapers have their own "jaati" or "categories constructed on the basis of perceived similarities and differences," and so the newspaper you "take" for yourself reflects which similarities and differences best categorize you and your beliefs/perceptions. Newspapers may provide readers with national news, but the way in which the news is presented, which news lines the newspaper focuses on, and the tone of the articles in each "brand" of newspaper are all factors of this print media that shape different "imagined communities" connected through a common background, style, or perspective. Newspapers bring together sub-groups within a nation, while also serving as a form of self-expression, depending on which newspaper you take, argues Peterson. I believe that newspaper content however, usually does propel a sense of nationalism. When 9/11 happened, there were feelings of national pride, national grief, and national hope inspired through articles in newspapers across the nation. Still, I believe the actual event of 9/11 was what brought together our nation, we just would not have been informed of such an event if it weren't for the news, especially as it was presented in newspaper print. After reading both Anderson and Peterson's work, I believe that newspapers help spread national news, while allowing individuals to express their own personal/group identities, and also serve to document the relation between time and space, that is document the history of a nation, rather than creating the nation itself.
-Matt Levine
Post a Comment