Sacred Constructs and New Forms
“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.”[1]
In his classic polemical-historical book, “Imagined Communities”, Benedict Anderson goes deep and wide to explain and explore the rise of “nationalism” as a new “imagined community.” The line often cited to sum up his work is that the nation must be, “imagined because the 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.”[2]
Since people within a nation or community can never really “know” everyone else, it is necessary that we “imagine” or “believe in” the reality of the group.
Anderson explains that historically there have been three main sacred constructs that held societies together and gave them shape. The first is the religious or sacred community (such as Christendom or the “Ummah” of Islam), along with the ontological truths that it contained and mediated. He writes that, “in Western Europe the eighteenth century marks not only the dawn of the age of nationalism but the dusk of religious modes of thought.”[3] The erosion of trust in religious, absolute “truth”, is closely tied to the second “sacred construct”, which is that all of society is built around that truth.
So, for example, the King or Monarch is in place because there is a Divine source of power, and those entrusted to a high place in society are there for a reason. As Stephen Heathorn puts it in his review, “society was naturally organized around and under high centres—monarchs who were persons apart from other human beings and who ruled by some form of cosmological (divine) dispensation.”[4] It follows that if the essential truth of religious communities (whether Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist) is undermined, then the social structures around them will also be questioned.
The third sacred construct that Anderson identifies is a changing notion of time or temporality. He writes, “the medieaval Christian mind had no conception of history as an endless chain of cause and effect or of radical separations between past and present.”[5] This meant that the “cosmic” and the “present-day” were essentially the same. However, in the 19th century and beyond, a new sense of “history” as a concrete set of events was growing. This meant that something “new” could emerge, and that the past did not have to dictate the future.
So, the mental shift that was happening, especially in the 19th century colonial world, grew out of the change that was happening with the “Great Powers” of Europe. As those European empires shifted from seeing themselves in the traditional way (ie: holding ontological truth, with society organized according to this truth, with history and cosmology tightly welded), toward the language of a “nation-state”, it opened the possibility for a kind of secular nationalism that could rise in far-flung parts of the world.
One powerful critique of Anderson’s book is brought by Partha Chatterjee. She essentially labels his perspective as overly European/American-centric in its categories. She writes, “If nationalisms in the rest of the world have to choose their imagined community from certain ‘modular’ forms already made available to them by Europe and the Americas, what do they have left to imagine?”[6] Or to put it another way, are post-colonial nations still essentially under the mental domination of Europe, if they must only “imagine” using the categories and ideas that they have inherited and been given?
In part to address these concerns and others, in 1991 Benedict Anderson released a newer edition of his book with expanded and additional chapters. One of his new findings is that while “colonial states were typically anti-nationalist, and often violently so…”[7], that beneath the surface, colonial states often used nationalism and encouraged it in a certain way.
The most compelling portion of this book to me is the chapter entitled, “Census, Map, Museum.” From Biblical times (as cited above), the census was a form of state power, not only to tax and conscript (for labor or military service), but also to categorize and identify. As Anderson shows in this chapter, the colonial states used the census to actually “create” national identities. This was a form of control and categorization, that ironically later led to “nationalistic feelings” that were part of the un-doing of colonialism itself.
This past week, I had a census taking experience of my own in my church. We were trying to gather demographic data on our church members, especially pertaining to race and ethnicity. We had submitted a denominational form last year, where all data about ethnicity was left blank, and so the conversation was around how to accurately think about the ethnic make-up of our church.
Some people within the leadership were wary of actually gathering this data, or of giving it any credence. Perhaps their fear is that once identified into a “group”, there might be “group feelings” or separation that could be artificially created. Another concern that was raised is that “race is a construct”, and we are all really just part of the “human race”, so why would we gather this kind of information?
In my own reflection, I am also aware of the propensity of those in power (ie: colonial states, or church leadership) to gather and use census data (or demographic information) for its own purposes. Anderson gives ample examples of the ways that European explorers and colonizers misunderstood their surroundings and applied artificial categories to try and make meaning of what they were seeing.
This is a powerful takeaway for me from this book. That any community, whether a nation-state, an ethnic group, or a church, has to be “imagined” into existence. The ways we talk about ourselves and think about who we are will matter for how we act and treat each other and the kinds of things we will do. I wonder whether I am too eager of a census-taker? Is there still a “colonial-mindset” that is in me, which seeks to categorize and control the people in my midst? Are the fears and feverish-imaginings of my fellow leaders, like those of Pharaoh in the Exodus story, as he looked out and saw the numerous Hebrew people?
In a way, every generation of the Church must do the work to imagine itself in a new way. And yet, this is also a self-conscious task. Where we build on the legacy of what has come before, where we see ourselves more truly and clearly for who we are, and where we seek to be faithful into the future. And in all of this, we trust the God who is able to do immeasurably more than we could ask or imagine.
[1] Luke 2:1 (New International Version (NIV)).
[2] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991), 6.
[3] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991), 11.
[4] Stephen Heathorn, review of Imagined Communities: Reflections n the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, by Benedict Anderson, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 6, no. 1 (1994): 105, http://web.b.ebscohost.com.georgefox.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=25555597-bca0-47ac-ad93-4531e1e98f7d%40sessionmgr102.
[5] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991), 23.
[6] Partha Chatterjee, review of Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, by Benedict Anderson, Journal of International Studies 20, no. 3 (1991): 216, http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~sj6/Chatterjee%20Whose%20Imagined%20Community.pdf.
[7] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991), 163.
About the Author
Dave Watermulder
10 responses to “Sacred Constructs and New Forms”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Dave! Loved the connection of imagined community and social construct. “Another concern that was raised is that “race is a construct”, and we are all really just part of the “human race”, so why would we gather this kind of information?”. In an ideal world, race could be assumed to be “human race”. However, the imagined communities we’ve created lead to racism, sexism, etc. Unfortunately the idea of thinking we are just the human race works for the white majority – those who are a minority live and understand the oppression. It’s only when we recognize and acknowledge the difference that it can be changed. Great critical thinking!
thanks, Jean, and yes!
Dave
Great post. You have a really strong understanding of his topic and you use its points masterfully.
For some reason your post brought out to me my frustration with the word “imagined”. In this sense “imagined” makes it seem like it’s not actually there. It’s like saying that I have imagined community with Natnia. It’s not real of course.
But with Anderson’s context I think “perceived” might be more accurate, although less catchy.
Kyle,
Yea, it kind of gets old using this one term so much, as he does. It’s a good word, but we need some more synonyms to mix in there as well!
Dave,
Your post reminds me of the conflict in Rwanda in the 90s where it was often nearly impossible to distinguish between the Hutu and Tutsi yet the colonial government had established distinctions that did not exist prior in order to use those differences for their own ends. Once the colonial government was withdrawn the artificial lines remained to a murderous degree.
I understand the reticence of your eldership to make what seem to be superficial distinctions, yet this may be a way to develop your imagined community around lines of worship and fellowship rather than ethnicity, age, gender or any other external distinction.
Dan,
Yea, totally! Good connection with Rwanda in the 1990’s–that’s really a case study for what we’re talking about, right?
Great post Dave! The following summary you gave at the end of your post was absolutely brilliant: “In a way, every generation of the Church must do the work to imagine itself in a new way. And yet, this is also a self-conscious task. Where we build on the legacy of what has come before, where we see ourselves more truly and clearly for who we are, and where we seek to be faithful into the future. And in all of this, we trust the God who is able to do immeasurably more than we could ask or imagine.” What a beautiful way of bringing the concept of imagined communities into the framework of the church, which I am so grateful God imagined for us to enjoy!
Thank you, Jake!
Excellent post Dave. The ways we try to categorize and control people through census-taking or labeling others is fascinating and something we should all try to overcome. I admire your elders who are resisting categorization of your church, choosing instead to say we are all one body. We all belong.
Thanks, Mark!