Reimagined Communities

Anderson’s Imagined Communities presents a very interesting way of seeing the formation of communities, and primarily of nations. However, considering the variety of different types of communities to which a person can belong, some of his points may take on a different dimension when discussing a community other than the nation. Additionally, I think that the topic would more appropriately be termed Expanded Communities since humans, as social animals, have always identified themselves with a community. The topics that Anderson discusses have exponentially expanded the communities to which people feel an attachment, but did not create the feelings of attachment.
For instance, religious faith has built communities ranging from tiny sects to monasteries to entire nations. Anderson claims that these religious communities were “distinct from the imagined communities of modern nations” (13) While some religions place a good deal of emphasis on using a particular language, such as Latin for Roman Catholics or Arabic for Muslims, some nations, notably France, place a heavy emphasis on the maintenance of the purity of its language as well. Also, religions and nations both are sources of loyalty, and exclusionary or inclusionary tactics. Wars have been fought over religion and nationalism. The languages that impart feelings of “unique[ness]” to fortify the community can be sacred or national(13).
Anderson’s section on “The Dynastic Realm” posed two significant problems for me. First, the idea that dynasties’ “legitimacy derives from divinity, not from populations” suggests that populations have no control over who receives legitimacy. After all, legitimacy, like power and right-of-way, must be given, not taken. The kings may have claimed that their gods put them on the throne, but without the people’s consent, the ascension never would have happened. Many different societies have seen divinely appointed rulers torn down by their subjects when they lose their legitimacy due to famine or disease. Though the next ruler often claimed that his predecessor’s divine right had been transferred to him, the transfer of power and legitimacy would not have occurred without a public uprising. Second, the topic of dynastic marriages does not prove that combining people under one ruler makes them feel like a community. Rulers just tacked a few more nations onto his title instead of creating a new national title. After the empire dissolved, the nations would roughly regain their previous standings and borders. Therefore, the individual nations had not combined into a larger community to the extent of foregoing national loyalties.
In Lears’ Cultural Hegemony, he seems to illustrate that line to which I inferred earlier between the imposition of culture (or legitimacy as before) by the ruling class and the acceptance of that culture by the lower class. This concept is seen frequently in American society. The names that wealthy people are giving to their children now will be used by poor people in twenty years. No one is forcing people to adopt certain names or spellings, but the desire to move up in social ranks urges people to emulate upper class culture. Often, as with the illiterate miner, people may not understand why they hold certain values or opinions, even when those values or opinions are contradictory to their lifestyles.
The aspects of their culture that allows them to identify with their community are often retained. For instance, people often keep the same church and find the same foods comforting after having moved to a higher social strata. However, one of the first aspects to change is language. Material goods can be bought, but language is learned at such a young age that it is ingrained in the mind. It is not as reflective of to which class a person belongs as it is reflective of from which class a person came.