When I read the Chapter 10—Census, Map, Museum of Imagined Communities by Anderson (1983), it reminded me of my high school history textbook in Burma, a country which was colonized by the British in the eighteen century. The name Burmese was mentioned in his book as one of the racial groups (Anderson 1983, 165). In fact, Burma was one of the colonial states in Southeast Asia between 1886 and 1948. His influential book uncovers the underlying three institutions which imagined the colonial state. They are namely the census, the map, and the museum. The ultimate purpose of census innovation was for economic purpose—“to keep track of those on whom taxes and military conscription could effectively be imposed (Anderson 1983, 168).” The map mainly serves the purpose of drawing political boundaries. The census, the map, and the museum constitute an image of any late colonial state domain. Burma became a nation-state when it gained independence from its British rulers in 1948.
Over the past 200 years, it was evident that more and more nation-states emerged and the colonial states, empires, kingdoms, city-states, and so on disappeared, according to Wimmer and Feinstein (2010). They named theories that explain the emergence of nation-states—economic modernization, political modernization, cultural modernization, world polity theory, historical institutionalism. Their study shows that today many countries have emerged as the nation-state and the nation-state has institutionalized in the United Nations.
In fact, the revolutions in the French and American gave a path way to today’s modern nation-state (Wimmer and Feinstein 2010). A nation-state that has superpower dominates and influences the other nation-states. After the World War II, the United States of America was the most powerful nation-state (Fry 2007). The country was viewed as superpower in terms of its economic position because the country’s production accounted for half of the world’s total production (Fry 2007). During the cold War, there were two superpowers, America and Russia in terms of military power and in the twenty first century, America is the only superpower nation-state (Fry 2007). Fry (2007) predicted that the United States is likely to result in the end of its superpower status within roughly three decades (2040) if the problems it faces at home and abroad are not fully addressed.
There is an uncertainty that the world’s superpower is likely to end its era in coming decades or there is another nation-state that will succeed the United States and attain superpower status. One possible prediction is that “generations to come will certainly imagine other communities than the nation and reshape the world’s political landscape according to tectonic principles that we cannot possibly imagine today (Wimmer and Feinstein 2010, 786).”
References
Anderson, B.R.O. 1983. Census, map, museum. In Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, 163-85. Verso: London.
Fry, E.H. 2007. The decline of the American superpower. Forum-A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 5(2).
Wimmer, A. and Y. Feinstein. 2010. The Rise of the Nation-State across the World, 1816 to 2001. American Sociological Review 75(5):764-790.
I enjoyed your blog this week and how you connected the idea of nation-building and identity to America's status as a "world super power." In regards to if the United States could/will maintain this status, I think not only depends on buttressing American identity that we are the protector of democracy, stability, and security. It also depends on how other countries shape/maintain their identities.
ReplyDeleteConflict can occur in places where identity clashes--at the international level in addition to the national and individual level--i.e. if other countries start to form say a global identity based on cosmopolitan norms and values and the United States maintains its protectorate title. I cannot say much on how might win this conflict as there is little to base predictions on. I can say though that the two don't seem complementary. In short, though Anderson seems to adopt the view point of the powerful in shaping identity, I think it is also important to look at the clashes of the "the other"/weak identity. Doing this might help better understand how stable an prevalent identity is and possible future changes in that identity.