Nationalism a pathology?
In Ford’s “Theology: A very short introduction”[1] an insightful concept was offered that should be considered here. In his discussion on salvation, Ford used the word ‘intensification’. After setting a pattern of discussing theology from an academic, broad-minded, critical and historical perspective, he indicates that with some topics there is an intensification of thought, passion, and commitment to one’s doctrinal position. It seems to me that Benedict Anderson brings that same kind of intensification to his discussion on nationalism.
Anderson’s survey of nationalism, called “Imagined Communities,”[2] is somewhat of an academic, historical survey shaped by his theory that nationalism is little more than a cultural artifact; a nation is fundamentally an imagined community. In his analysis we see a steady intensification of his Marxist theory. Nationalism as “imagined?” Yes. He argues, “It is an imagined political community—and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because 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.”[3] From the beginning the author is undermining nationalism, eroding one’s presumably unjustifiable commitment to it. How could one commit to an entity, a community of people that you really don’t know, nor have you met?
In the historical treatment of nationalism during the early modern period, Anderson shows that the spread of publishing in the vernacular language as well of the erosion of Latin as the ruling, or sacred language played a significant role in the weakening of religious communities and the eventual strengthening of sovereign communities. Print languages then allowed for an exchange of information and communication that strengthened those burgeoning communities, precursors to nations. It is also interesting to consider the role that newspapers had in Latin America; in the eighteenth century they “created an imagined community among a specific assemblage of fellow-readers, to whom these ships, brides, bishops, and prices belonged.” [4] These newspapers offered the inspiration to some of the liberation movements. In much the same way Europe saw a steady growth of nationalism between 1820 through 1920. Why? The nation “became something capable of being consciously aspired to from early on,” which was inspired by what was happening in Latin America.[5] Furthermore an expansion of books, periodicals, and newspapers along the lines of common languages enabled greater growth in European nationalism.
What I found most challenging about Anderson’s theory isn’t that nations are “imagined communities,” or by his reasoning that so, too, are churches; it was his proposition that because they are little more than an imagined thing why then would anyone do the illogical thing of dying for it, or killing for it? He recognizes that people do this, and they do around the world. He points out that every successful revolution since WWII has defined itself in national terms. Again, the nation, a wholly imagined entity, calls upon its sons and daughters: real people, part of real families, toward making ultimate sacrifices for itself. The author makes the point that national identity has become so ingrained into our psyche that we treat it like a given: I’m Caucasian, I’m male, I’m 48, I’m an American. There is no choice in the matter “it just is,” and, as such, it has about it “a halo of disinterestedness.”[6] And “just for that reason, it can ask for sacrifices.”[7] In this, Anderson’s convictions display their greatest intensification; here he views a sacrifice for one’s nation as a pathology. Nationalism, to the author, is a disease to be treated.
While I believe the author made many good points, and caused me to think deeply about my own nationalism, my own sense of being American and specifically if I believe one can be called upon to offer one’s life, for me and for those in my imagined community of Christ followers, I believe sacrifice isn’t a pathology but rather a sign of fidelity. Jesus said “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”[8] Jesus had an imagined community of followers, for whom He laid down His life, and thus set an example that such martyrdom isn’t pathology but an honor. It’s not too much of a stretch to apply this theological perspective to nationalism and to thus offer such high sacrifices to one’s nation. On the other hand, I can also make the argument that Jesus’ example and teaching was about voluntary sacrifice and wouldn’t be applicable to killing others, or to forcing one to sacrifice their lives involuntarily.
[1] David Ford, Theology: a Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions), 2 ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 109-115.
[2] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections On the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Revised Edition, Revised ed. (New York: Verso, 2006), 1.
[3] Ibid. 6,
[4] Ibid. 62,
[5] Ibid. 67,
[6] Ibid. 143,
[7] Ibid. 144,
[8] John 15:13 (NIV).
About the Author
Dave Young
husband, dad, friend, student of culture and a pastor.9 responses to “Nationalism a pathology?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dave, stinkin’ great work man! It is wise to read Anderson’s “reflections” with a clear view of his orientation towards collectivism and “community-of-humanity” perspectives. If there is truly only one community, then all others must be imagined, right?
I particularly enjoyed your statement “Jesus had an imagined community of followers, for whom He laid down His life, and thus set an example that such martyrdom isn’t pathology but an honor.” It put me in mind of the passage of scripture where we see that Jesus was willing suffer for the benefit of receiving the “joy set before him.” That is, he was imagining what community might look like once he had finished the work of atonement.
Great stuff!
J
Thanks Dave. It’s good to get back at it and start a new semester. Thanks for starting us off well.
After posting mine I read yours and see some similarities in how we read Anderson. If we view ones decision to lay down ones life as institutional and disconnected then we miss the important act of love. I really appreciate you bringing John 15:13 into the conversation. I don’t think that’s something Anderson imagined much.
Good thoughts Dave. I was also wondering about Anderson’s agenda through his writing. For whatever reason I was picking up on a pro-nationalism voice as an end all, be all belief system about beliefs systems that I could not agree with. I think a brought a bit of my own definition of nationalism into the mix that is possibly not allowing me to fully hear what Anderson is saying but I found myself not agreeing with the depth to which he feels nationalism plays in social organization. Am I completely off thinking Anderson has a pro-nationalism voice?
Phil, I read a position from Anderson that accepted that nationalism is inevitable and because if that, he accepts it. However I don’t read a “nationalism” in the sense of celebrating it as the highest and best for humanity. I think his view that nationalism is the net result of capitalism, which he holds at arms length at very best (capitalism I mean), and anything resultant from capitalism is not preferred. So, you may be interpreting his acceptance of capitalism to be pro-capitalism…
I am looking forward to Jason’s take on this matter!
J
Dave,
Like you, Anderson made me think about my own nationalism and what being American means to me. I’m not sure how I feel about laying down one’s life for their country. Your inclusion of John 15:13 caused me to reflect on who I consider my friends worthy of “laying down my life”. If sacrifice is fidelity, then I must ask myself “who am I willing to make a sacrifice for?” It is in this tension that I make daily decisions that demonstrate my loyalty to Christ.
What Jon said…
Great reflection Dave and insight. As a pastor it is important to me to make sure that the church understands that we are a city from God. And that are real belonging is from above. It is more real than imagined. We live in the greatest community, the community of God and that is something real great in a country with different religions!
Travis,
I have found that many people in American churches are very quick to define their role as americans and express great patriotism but have a hard time understanding that we are a part of a much greater city that will outlast the good ole US of A. Keep teaching your parishioners about their true citizenship.
Dave,
As I already wrote in my comments to Jon’s post, in reading both yours and Jon’s words, I feel like I missed the point of Anderson’s book. Somehow I didn’t catch that he was “judging” nationalism as much as demonstrating the reality of it. And as a result, I found that Anderson’s words, without every intending to do so, illustrated how God has created an “imagined” community as a place where we operate spiritually, superseding any physical boundaries. Only problem with nationalism is that it is short-sighted.
I do see that we both agree with the way Jesus has called us into community, willing to give our lives to something bigger than ourselves.