Benedict Anderson’s imagined communities: a communities_2016.pdf  Benedict Anderson’s Imagined

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Benedict Anderson’s imagined communities: a communities_2016.pdf  Benedict...

John Breuilly

Benedict Andersons imagined communities: a symposium Article (Accepted version) (Refereed)

Original citation: Breuilly, John (2016) Benedict Andersons imagined communities: a symposium. Nations and Nationalism . ISSN 1354-5078 DOI: 10.1111/nana.12236 2016 The Author This version available at: Available in LSE Research Online: August 2016 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL ( of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the authors final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publishers version if you wish to cite from it.

Benedict Andersons ImaginedCommunities: a symposium


London School of Economics, UK


Benedict (Ben) Anderson died in Java on 12 December 2015 at the age of 79.His book Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread ofNationalism (henceforth IC) is the best known single work in nationalismstudies. In this symposium six academics consider the impact of IC upondifferent disciplines. Here I establish background with brief remarks onAndersons life and academic career and about IC.

Anderson was born in August 1936 in Kunming, south-west China, on theeve of the Japanese invasion of northern China.1 His father, James CarewOGorman Anderson, was a senior official in the Chinese Maritime Customs.2

In 1941 Anderson, his wife and their three children started back for his nativeIreland but were stuck in the USA until 1945 when the journey home was com-pleted. His father died in 1946. Schooling in Ireland was followed by Eton andthen Cambridge where Ben Anderson took a degree in classical studies. Hemoved to Cornell University in Ithaca, NY initially as a teaching assistantwhere he soon found his vocation as a political scientist specialising in thestudy of Indonesia. After he and colleagues wrote a (not very) confidential anal-ysis of General Suhartos 1965 coup, Anderson was barred from Indonesia(with one short unauthorised visit in 1972) until after Suharto fell from powerin 1998. Anderson shifted his attention to other countries such asSiam/Thailand and the Philippines. In his autobiography he ironically thanksSuharto for compelling him to research more than one state in the region, thustaking him into comparative studies.

Until 1983 Anderson was known mainly to the specialised academiccommunity working in the field of Southeast Asian Studies.3 The regionacquired a more than specialised interest in the USA with the Vietnam War,though most of Andersons work focused on countries allied to the USA.

There is a connection between Andersons specialised field and the writing ofIC, as he asserts that it was war between the socialist states of Vietnam, Chinaand Cambodia in the late 1970s that made him become aware of the importanceand little understood nature of nationalism. He adds, both in IC and hisautobiography, that debates between UK intellectuals at that time clarified

Nations and Nationalism (), 2016, 135.DOI: 10.1111/nana.12236

The author(s) 2016. Nations and Nationalism ASEN/John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2016





his ideas. Anderson sympathised with how TomNairn (a close collaborator andco-author on New Left Review with Perry Anderson) took up a pro-Scottishposition in The Break-Up of Britain (1978) and disagreed with Eric Hobsbawmsassault on that book, including the assertion that a Marxist could not be anationalist. Anderson also took against the Eurocentric bias of writing onnationalism. ICs first set of cases are drawn from late 18th century colonialAmerica on the grounds that nationalism originated there and subsequentlyspread to Europe. Later chapters use Southeast Asian examples, distinguishingIC from most general studies of nationalism with their European focus.

It was with the publication of IC in 1983 that Anderson came to the atten-tion of a wide readership. With about 64,000 citations to date (May 2016) onGoogle Scholar, IC is the fifth-most cited book in the social sciences and by farthe most cited text in the study of nationalism.4 The book has gone throughthree English language editions (1983, 1991, 2006) which have sold a total ofabout half-a-million copies to date, an extraordinarily high figure for anacademic book.5 This excludes sales for the many translations.

The 1991 edition was expanded by two chapters: one on maps, censuses andmuseums; the other on memory and forgetting. The 2006 edition added anafterword chronicling the translations of the book into 29 different languagespublished in 33 different countries. In our contemporary academic culture withits fixation on metrics to estimate the impact of outputs, such figuressuggest an enormous impact. A UoA (Unit of Assessment) that could layclaim to Ben Anderson and IC in the REF6 would be very happy.

However, such measures raise more questions than they answer, even at themetric level. Take translations, for example. There were none before 1987.Between then and 1991 came four translations of the first edition (Japanese,Portugese, German, Serbo-Croat) plus a 1992 Korean pirated translation.Between 1992 and 1999 there were 15 further translations from the secondedition. These include a surge in the late 1990s of east European translationsmade possible by financial support from the billionaire Georg Soros. Therewere nine further translations between 2000 and 2006. Sometimes there wasa second translation into a particular language, especially if the first wasunauthorised and/or bad.7

This suggests that the biggest impact came in the late 1980s and through the90s. Unfortunately Verso do not have information on sales of each of the threeEnglish editions, let alone annual figures that could enable us to plot a salestrajectory. However, my guess would be that the peak period was in the decadefrom the late 1980s. This tallies with the rise of nationalism studies measuredin other ways. Social scientists in the 1960s, 1970s and the early 1980s were notinterested in nationalism as a distinct subject. The slow decline and then rapidcollapse of the Soviet Union and communist regimes throughout east andcentral Europe is the most obvious reason for a surge in interest. Certain academicspecialisms (Cold War studies, Kremlinology) were suddenly marginalised.The shift to hot wars following the end of super-power imposed peace wasaccompanied by ethnic conflict and violence (e.g. former Yugoslavia, Rwanda,

Breuilly et al2

The author(s) 2016. Nations and Nationalism ASEN/John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2016

the Middle East). Even where change came about fairly non-violently, as inmost of the former Soviet Union, it led to the replacement of one empire bynumerous nation-states. The supranational divisions of the Cold War andclass divisions of nation-states were apparently displaced by those betweennation-states and between ethnic groups in many of those states.

Academics and others turned to existing studies to help understand thesenew subjects. A clutch of books published in the early 1980s had advancedtheories of nationalism. 8 The outstanding year was 1983 in which along withIC was publishedNations and Nationalism by Ernest Gellner and The Inventionof Tradition, edited by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. These were keytext within a new field of debate centred on whether nation and nationalismwere modern phenomena and whether nationalism was an expression of priornational identity or distinct from, even a determinant of nation-formation.The debate polarised into one between primordialists/perennialists andmodernists.9 Most of the political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists,policy analysts and others moving into the nationalism studies field were drawnto the modernist position.10

These 1983 books became the main ones to cite, plus Hobsbawns 1990book on nationalism. Repeatedly the holy trinity of Anderson, Gellner andHobsbawm are invoked, and Anderson far more frequently than the others.11

One superficial explanation is the title: Imagined Communities captures theimagination in a way Nations and Nationalism does not, although this is lesstrue of Invention of Tradition. Many citations of Anderson do little morethan quote the title. However, the huge disparity between citations of IC andothers in that cluster of theories of nationalism texts surely goes beyond this.We must consider Andersons distinctive arguments and why these haveattracted so much more attention than any others.

In this symposium we do this by relating IC to distinct disciplines. One out-standing feature of IC and of Andersons academic life and writings generallyis that these have been lived beyond boundaries. A political scientist who didethnographic fieldwork, including studies of dance and theatre; a master ofmany languages, European and Asia