Since the 1980s, Benedict Anderson's postmodern view of nationalism has pretty much taken over academia. He defines it as an 'imagined community' which is sovereign and limited. While I think its crazy to posit nations as wholly imagined, his introduction of the concept was valuable. Imagined community IS central to nationhood, and to an extent sets it apart from dynastic and other types of societies which reigned before nation-states. This approach better accounts for the fluidity of national identity, and its ability to rise and fall with surprising rapidity (for more, see Great Britain.)
The consensus among historians seems to be that no one should do Civil War history until Ken Burns is 20 years in his grave. It's just too popularized for real historians or something. However, the subject seems ripe for re-evaluation on postmodern lines. If we accept Anderson's theories, as most do, then it wasn't a Civil War at all. The Confederacy meets every aspect of postmodern nationhood -- it was an imagined community, it considered itself sovereign, it considered itself limited to a specific group of people. It also boasted all the elements of a State. The Civil War, in these terms, wasn't a war between the states, but a war between States.
This concept also has implications in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Pro-Israel types (of which I am one) often point out that there was no Palestinian nation prior to the founding of Israel. By this they mean there was no ancient, primordial people who called themselves Palestinians. This seems to be true. But does it matter? If they had no national identity before, the last several decades have certainly created one. The Palestinians are a genuine, if insane, imagined community. It really seems they should be treated with all the respect we show other genuine-but-insane nations.
Posted by Discoshaman at février 13, 2006 01:58 AM | TrackBack
Postmodernism is just too fascinating! This is an interesting perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian debate that explains some of the "interesting" logic that I have heard on my campus.
BTW, have you ever tried to explain the postmodern worldview to someone who has never heard it explained before? It is difficult not to make it sound utterly ridiculous in simplified terms.
Posted by: Rebecca Wiltberger at février 13, 2006 10:52 AM"It really seems they should be treated with all the respect we show other genuine-but-insane nations."
Which of course begs a certain question. :-)
I don't really have a problem with the proposition that a separate Palestine should be treated like any other nation. Any other nation that is insane, elects terrorists as its leaders, and vows and continually works to destroy one of our allies, that is. Whether it's an actual nation state or not doesn't seem to affect what ought to be the appropriate response to their behaviors.
Posted by: pentamom at février 13, 2006 02:34 PMpentamom-
Precisely. Which is one reason why I -want- Palestine treated like a genuine nation. I want them to be a nation-state ASAP. Because then they lose their status as a victimized group of plucky orphans and have to start living up to the behavioral standards of real countries. :)
Rebecca-
Ack! I have to run to class, talk with you soon. . .
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 13, 2006 04:08 PMFascinating concept. The Paleos have been the favorites of the Left in America and Europe for many years.
Wonder how they might feel (there's a po-mo statement...) if they knew that, using their logic, the Confederacy was a noble, if doomed victim of Yankee agression?
Stated differently: do you suppose that those who really, really seem to love those Paleos would support re-secession by my state of Virginia? Along, of course, with the other 12? Who knows, maybe this time we'd get Kentucky and make it 14...
Posted by: Jack Rich at février 21, 2006 05:36 PM