Nationalism and Nation-state: what are they? and how do they relate to my immediacy of the moment?
The right wing invests on the emotional quotient of an imagiNation, the left wing on the economic relationships and positions that emerge from a political, economic unit called state. Now I - a commoner, as Nasrudeen shah reflects in 'a wednesday': a stupid common man, without a face - can i relate with these concepts?
we live in our 'own' localized problems and solutions. we need a structural crisis to feel with the nation. for instance, we need a 26/11 or an Indo-pak war to feel what is to be an Indian. Primarily, through emotions and feelings, we shun our localities to participate in the larger structural conformities. It is always good to feel that we are part of a larger group: a group that always stays in the imagination.
i have read somewhere 'the theory of evolution' structurally works through an assumption. This assumption works on the imagination of time. hence, Can we materially know 10000 years. No, It can only be imagined. it's always imagined - It cannot be realized nor observed.
Hence, the monolithic national public is always an imagination. what is considered a national conscience is actually a dominant 'local' conscience. the Nation, perhaps is a conspiracy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There is a difference between the nation and the state. The nation, as it were, is an 'imagined community' that is borne out of a shared history. While, the state is a political construct often accomodating more than one nation. This is a distinction that must be kept in mind to understand the present day nation-states that exist. The process of division and amalgamation is fundamental to the polities that we are a part of. The nation may not be a conspiracy, as you posit, rather, it is the creation of political states that must be examined. History, as always, stands witness.
thanks for the explanation, Dev. yes,it is pertinent to keep the differences in mind.
however, my contention - if there were any - was not to distinguish or to analyse the definition or the reality aspect of nation and state(s).
besides, water has passed under the bridge since Benedict Anderson theorized his 'imagined community' for a 1980 america depressed by economic crisis. we are in 2009 India(s).
'shared history' in India has always been imperative and mono-logical, therefore contentious. hence, it is pertinent to account the multiple voices of 'histories,' now.
with a supportive 'subaltern' theoretical baggage, i suggest that 'the nation' has always been an 'imagination' of a particular 'community'. hence, i posit, perhaps the nation is a conspiracy.
anyways, thanks for distinguishing the concepts pal - one a culturo,historical entity and another politico-economical construct. however, post post-modern contamination, i can't see nation and state(s) as polarities. how can we not see politics in culture and history?
Nationalism and Nation-state:
thinkin bout this a lot. often feeling betrayed. mostly, disillusioned. honestly, u n i have more in common with a student studying the same courses under similar economic conditions in say, Uganda or Sweden than we have in common with a person who lives next door selling carrots. after nearly a hundred years, isn't it time to redefine what a nation stands for? Geography is definitely not adequate any more.
Thanks for that introspection Sara. the anxiety of the piece was well reflected upon. It disturbs when people turn back and demand, 'so you are sceptical. Then tell us a solution... Now' with a stress on the immediacy of the moment - 'the now'.
When I think about it, i see conditions of immediacy and result-oriented pre-cautions. Is there a solution? i just feel, people just wish to look at the products, not the process.
yes, it is high time not to re-define (because it's another defining moment that limits) but to open out the boundaries and question/introspect: what is the idea of the nation to me?
Post a Comment