Nationalism

I found Benedict Anderson’s article “Western Nationalism and Eastern Nationalism: Is There a Difference That Matters?” to be very fitting today, as we closed the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games earlier this afternoon. The Olympic Games always brings out the nationalism in people as they cheer on the Olympians from their country. However there are many different ways to express or create nationalism, as Anderson reveals in this article. He goes through different types of nationalism, such as creole nationalism, official nationalism and linguistic nationalism. These types of nationalism can all be disputed as being “real” nationalism and can vary from nation to nation.

I found the way Anderson compared different nations’ nationalisms to be very interesting. He finds similarities in nationalisms from nations most would think to be completely opposite from one another. Yet to Anderson, Cuban nationalism is very similar to Philippine nationalism in its origins and in its looks. Morphologically, Indian nationalism is analogous to Irish and Egyptian nationalism. These comparisons put the world into perspective and make you think about nationalism in a different way. If these nations that, on the outside, appear to be very different from each other, what is it that is making their citizens act the same way nationalistically?

I am very happy that Anderson addressed the East-West dichotomy in this article. He makes it clear that he does not compare nationalisms along these lines and notes that what is considered the East and the West continues to vary over time. This whole dichotomy has always made me quite uncomfortable. I never feel comfortable referring to places in Europe and North American as the “West” and places in Asia and in Africa as the “East”. To me, these terms are synonymous with “First World” and “Third World”. They invoke a certain image and a certain meaning to people. The “West” is “developed” and “advanced” technologically. The “East” is “primitive” and “under-developed”. At least this is what I feel these terms have come to mean. Even using the more appropriate terms of “developing” and “developed” countries makes me uncomfortable because they make it seem that the “developed” countries will not continue to develop. Which I think is false as all countries are constantly developing and evolving and will continue to do so.

I also want to address the Past and Future dichotomy discussed by Anderson, using Taiwan as an example. The minority groups, like the aborigines, are considered to be part of the Past whereas the Han people are considered to be the Future. In this discourse, the older the Past, the nationalism should be stronger. However, this seems contradictory to me as the aborigines’ identities are not considered the national identity of Taiwan and the Han identity is. The aborigines traditions date back farther than the Han traditions, therefore their national identity should be more significant than it is. These identities are belittled and are considered minorities when compared to the Han people.

Reference:
Anderson, Benedict. 2001. “Western Nationalism and Eastern Nationalism.” New Left Review 9: 31-423