Reimagined Communities

In Appadurai’s Modernity at Large, he outlines, among others, the dynamics that contribute to the United States as the purist example of post-nationalism. The dynamics include the belief that Americans are being split between their diasporic identities (Judeo-Americans and their relationship to Israel) and the patriotic connection to the nation-state (or its fading). One of the more interesting points that he touches on is his observation that cultural pluralism (the dominant culture being “whiteness”) giving way to multiculturalism due to globalization, through new technological achievements in information technology and new media.

I kept reflecting on Lears’ “cultural hegemony” throughout both Appadurai and Buell in that both view, due to the rise to information technology, the United States as the medium for cultural assimilation, transmission, and thus the effective agenda setter for a globalized world. Those “global problems” referred to by Appadurai (including AIDS, pollution, and terrorism), the “democracy wave” (166), tend to be those of interest to American interests more so than truly global problems. As he points out, “democracy, capitalism, free enterprise, and human rights” are “imagined (as) peculiarly American inventions.” (175) Since we can understand how America, being the world’s “high-tech strategy” nexus (170), it is not too bold to acknowledge the (nation’s, government’s, plural majority’s, and/or corporate heavyweights’) potential to shape the global agenda unlike ever before.

In Nationalist Postnationalism, Frederick Buell reinforces this claim, referencing how “the more U.S. society seemed to become divided (“disunited” as unhappy observers often pointed out), the greater grew its influence abroad.” (561) However, it is important to note that globalization and the increase in transnational associations has challenged the original ethos of America. His assertion of “Americanness” needing to be redefined, from an isolated “melting pot (able) to work its magic” to a diasporic medium, where “diasporic pluralism is now global and that American solutions cannot be seen in isolation,” (173) is particularly interesting.  This post-nationalist tug-of-war between multiculturalism and (“white”) pluralism (its increasing tilt towards multiculturalism) seems to diverge from what we have seen in McAlister’s “Epic Encounters,” popular culture which stressed the U.S.’s attempt at “Anglo” cultural hegemony. Appadurai opens the door for a reciprocal affect information technology and diasporatic identities have on the American ethos.

With these new tools of information technology, or “electronic capitalism” (Appadurai 161), we can see how these nations are “fragile abstractions” (162) of nations and more “projects.” Evocative of Anderson, they are imagined constructions, tailored to the agendas of the organizations, governments, and/or corporations, and which cultivate a cultural product for citizens to willingly choose to associate themselves with.

In Patriotism and Its Futures, Arjun Appadurai begins with a discussion in which they rethink the nation-state structure. The authors urge that we must look beyond the postcolonial nation, and towards a future in which the idea of patriotism may or may not exist. I would like to first cover a point that the author brings up very early on, and has been recurrent throughout several of my American Studies courses. The author begins with an assault on American whiteness, arguing that an examination of postcolonial America reveals a “space marked by its whiteness but marked too by its uneasy engagement with diasporic peoples, mobile technologies, and queer nationalities” (159). Whenever I come across theoretical generalizations like this, I’m not sure what to think. I for one do not think American whiteness should be on the grounds of “whiteness”, as I am a white, American male who has no uneasy sentiments regarding diasporic peoples, mobile technologies, or queer nationalities. Further, I would argue that in a global perspective, America is likely one of the most welcoming of nations to diasporic individuals and people from foreign nations. That is, after all, what has been the cause of today’s so-called “melting pot”.

I would like to posit my own idea of a post national world in which patriotism still has a functional space. Much of the discussion of this class, and in this reading, focuses on notions of nationalism and patriotism as they relate to the present condition. Often, it feels as though what’s forgotten is the historic legacies and ties that individuals may or may not have to the nation and associated symbols. For example, I have a tie to being an American (national state), yet understand the importance of living in a global world in which borders and nationalities are more fluid (post national state). Moreover, my patriotic roots may lend me to favor what is best for my country, but given today’s global climate, this is only natural (and is what someone from England, or China, or France, or Brazil would do, thus not making it a function of whiteness or Americaness). The author argues that the modern “nationalisms involve communities of citizens in the territorially defined nation-state who share the collective experience…[and] imagine themselves to belong to a national society” (161). The argument is that artificial linkages, like media and books, have replaced natural facts, like lineage and blood. Again, I’m not sure why there is not room for all to exist. Looking once more at myself, I have ties to the American nation for both natural and artificial reasons: members of my family were here 300 years ago, and I share common media with 300,000,000 Americans, many of whom haven’t been here for 300 days. My influences for why I consider myself an American have been shaped by both these national and post national factors. Further, I do not feel as though my connection to America is simply imaginary. If so, couldn’t I just imagine myself as part of the French community? The answer is no: even if I learned the language and adopted shared cultural artifacts, I would still lack French heritage, and thus would not feel fully French. Relatedly, this is not to say I could not be a member of French society, I just wouldn’t assume a fully French identity. I guess I don’t see the problem with all of this… Why must we exist beyond the nation when there is a way to maintain nationhood while simultaneously acting as a member of a fluid global community? Further, relating once more to practical terms, if there is no nation, how else does one govern 7 billion people? Many argue the US has grown too large, and we only have a small fraction of the world’s population. While I know much of the reading may be theory, a lack of practical application makes it difficult to imagine seriously.

Arjun Appadurai and Frederick Buell analyze the place of postnationalism in a society structured around the nation. Appadurai argues that nations are being replaced by imagined worlds, a transition facilitated by an emerging “electronically mediated global system”. Buell, while he also believes that the world is constantly shrinking due to increasing technology, claims that the nation is simply being restructured to fit in the postnational context.

Like Hannah mentioned, the idea of print as a creator and preserver of the nation is mentioned by both authors, but new to neither. Benedict Anderson coins this idea as “print capitalism”. The Internet – just one of many new information technologies – is less bounded and more accessible, tearing aware at the solidarity created by, say, shared literature. Owned and regulated by no single nation-state, the Internet has become a medium for organizations other than nations to connect with a wider audience. Appadurai discusses the rise of non-governmental organizations, calling them “more diverse, more fluid, more ad hoc, more provisional, less coherent, and simply less implicated in the comparative advantages of the nation-state” (Appadurai 168). These organizations, through the Internet, provide individuals with an opportunity to interact with this new “imagined world”.

Despite the emergence of new identifying structures and organizations, I agree with Buell in that the nation is still a significant construction. Nations have been the form of societal organization for half a millennium. For that reason alone, they continue to play a considerable role in current society. Furthermore, new structures such as the Internet and NGOs are simply “too ad hoc” and “too incoherent” to supplant our imagined communities.

The Internet is, arguably, the most powerful non-state actor – non-state actors being increasingly important players in the globalized (perhaps postnational) world. Considering this, Secretary Hillary Clinton recently attended a conference to discuss Internet regulation. Buell discusses the “freeing of information” on the Internet, “a project that evokes the enlightenment goal of freeing people” (Buell 18). This sentiment has characterized American foreign policy as it concerns the Internet, raising questions about how nations interact with forces much larger and less constrained then themselves. Can any one national personality be superimposed onto these global forces? If not, is the nation condemned?

Though Appadurai and Buell conceptualize postnationalism differently, both articles make it clear that our imagined communities and our imagined world are stuck in a transition period, one characterized by efforts to reconcile differences in inter/trans/post/national realities.

Appadurai is quick to declare his wish that he thinks that post nationalism should not be defined by simply space related to former colonies, but rather believes, that as a result of what our modern day world looks like post nationalism should focus on whiteness. We wants to alter the focus of post nationalism to whiteness in an effort to concentrate his study on America and its engagement with “diasporic peoples, mobile technologies, and queer nationalities.” (159)

Appadurai believes that classic definitions of patriotism and nationalism have become diluted. He emphasizes the importance of “collective imagination” as he claims that today’s nation-state is no longer reliant on “language, blood, soil, and race” to help its identity grow and distinguish itself from other countries. (161)

Similarly to Anderson, Appadurai argues that, “minorities in may parts of the world are as artificial as the majorities they are threatened by.” (163) There is a vicious cycle of sorts that Appadurai is presenting for us as he helps us notice that many minorities don’t really have a defined agenda for their needs and ultimate objectives but rather often think and act in imagined terms. Similarly to the praise he later gives to America in regard to their national consciousness, so much of what today people associate with nationalism or nation is essentially imaginary and really pushed forward and ingrained into individuals through cultural forms of media and communication

This is perhaps just one reason that supports Appadurai lowly view of organizations. He argues that the organizations that are initially created and financed to help minorities, ultimately focus more on their own developments and organization structures rather than actually helping minorities. He uses these same organizations to help define his vision of post nationalism as these organizations in theory take on a very similar form and composition as countries or nations do. At the end of the day they rely more on their founding ideology and structural organization than on the people and individuals they are meant to represent.

Coming back to Appadurai’s praise of America, his reasoning for such praise lies in his view of the post national world. He writes that in today’s world, “diaspora runs with, and not against, the grain of identity, movement, and reproduction. ” He continues by saying that “America may be alone in having organized itself around modern political ideology in which pluralism is central to the conduct of democratic life. Out of a different strand of its experience, this society has also generated a powerful fable of itself as a land of immigrants. In today’s postnational, diapsoric world, America is being invited to weld these two doctrines together, to confront the needs of pluralism and of immigration to construct a society around diasporic diversity.” (173)

With this quotation in mind it is now interesting to bring in Frederick Buell and his concepts on globalization and the nation-state.  The main contrast between these two authors lies in the fact that Buell does not see post nationalism as signifying the end of a nation, but rather the as a form that inevitably effects a nation, specifically the US, to revisit its notions of cultural nationalism.

Throughout Buell’s writings there is a strong emphasis on the “global.” Where at one point in American history integrating a global identity was not welcomed, in recent times “global” discourse and acceptance has entered many and varying spheres of American life and ideology. (552-553) However Buell’s stresses the importance of not taking the term “global” or “globalism” for granted. It is as important to be aware of this term and it’s varying and evolving meanings, as it is to be aware of our own identities and the nations we live in.

When thinking of globalization, we must remain very wary of the unavoidable truth that one’s perception of globalization can be significantly different than another’s. More specifically a nation’s conception of what globalization really means and how to integrate   it into their society can significantly differ from other perspectives of globalization. It is for this reason why being able to adequately define it and speak of it with a determined conviction is very difficult and ultimately dangerous.

In the second half of Melanie McAlister’s Epic Encounters, I was particularly drawn to her discussion of Iran, Islam, and the threats of terrorism.  McAlister begins her analysis with the Iranian hostage crisis of the late 70s and early 80s.  Within the context of this class, terrorism presents new means for understanding nationhood and transnationalism.  McAlister begins chapter five with a quote from Senator Daniel Moynihan stating that, “Terrorism denies the distinction between state and society, public and private, government and individual, the distinction at the heart of liberal belief.  For the terrorist, as for the totalitarian state, there are no innocent bystanders, no private citizens” (McAlister 156).  This statement rings true today, as terrorist cells operate within state borders as non-state actors.  In fact, the ambiguity of terrorist organizations roots is a main factor in why they are so difficult to contain and dismantle.

Analyzing the Iranian hostage crisis with modern day terrorist attacks reveals telling information about the nation itself.  In the wake of the Iranian crisis, America grew increasingly unified.  Similarly, following September 11, aspects of the American nation were reified through the actions of non-state terrorists.

McAlister’s examination of how media disseminated information regarding the hostage crisis reminded me of my own project that I am working on for this class.  During the crisis, news outlets like ABC began to heavily broadcast programming regarding the crisis.  Millions of Americans tuned in and were influenced by how networks delivered storylines and information regarding the hostage crisis.  While not explicit propaganda, the media took clear sides, stressing “the innocence of the hostages, their captivity, and their national identity” (McAlister 164).  Thus, the media played a clear role in affecting the American national identity.  Similarly, during WWII, all sides used media (in those days film and new reels) to influence a sense of national identity.

The ability of media to affect greater societal change is only growing stronger in today’s socially connected world.  Considering this, is it ‘dangerous’ that news outlets (who are influenced by individual opinion) are crafting larger societal identities?  While the patriotism that followed in the wake of 9/11 (that was further inspired by media outlets) was widely positive, recent cases like that of Trayvon Martin present a more difficult challenge.  In my opinion, the media’s coverage of the case is creating sides in an issue that should in no way have sides.