Читать книгу Between Lenin and Bandera - Anna Kutkina - Страница 11

Finally, when it comes to examining the process of nation-building and the construction of the ‘other,’ for Benedict Anderson, the point of departure is that of “nationality, as well as nationalism and its cultural artifacts of a particular kind” (Anderson 1983: 6). The creation of such artifacts is an outcome of spontaneous abstraction of aggregated historical forces that eventually merge into ideological or physical entities for defining socio-cultural and political context of the state. In an anthropological spirit, Anderson defines a nation as “an imagined political community,” where the majority of its members will never intersect or meet during their lifetime, and where yet “in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” Though indirectly, the nation is also imagined as limited due to its “finite, if elastic, boundaries” (Anderson 1983: 8). Within the scope of my research, I addressed the ‘imagined communities’ as the construction of both physical and cultural (discursive) space, as well as the result of the meaning-making process.

Anderson’s concept of ‘imagined communities’ has become a major reference point within a broad spectrum of studies including sociology, nationalism, political science and geography (Anthony D. Smith 1991; Crang 1998; Gupta and Ferguson 1992; Massey and Jess 1995). In his analysis of Anderson’s work, Anthony Smith pays particular attention to the general theoretical implication of Anderson’s theory, where he argues that the discursive selection of the article ‘the’ instead of ‘a’ particular nation is what lays the primary foundation for the ‘nation’ as a theoretical, broadly applied concept (Smith 1991: 16). Articulation of social space as ‘the’ imagined community, therefore, “provides the foundation for addressing specific nationalist imaginings within both regional and international politics” (Derian 1993: 7). Finally, another step forward in providing the hypothesis for Anderson’s use of the term ‘nation’ instead of ‘state,’ according to Smith, is the premise for Anderson’s use of the term ‘nation’ instead of ‘state.’ For Smith, “it is not intended to suggest that the nation is the most definitive feature of the international system, but rather that it is an important one” (Smith 1991: 12). In such a stance, the nation ‘grants’ the basis for theoretical examination because it embodies individuals of diverse cultural or socio-political backgrounds who are to be represented by the state. The term is also constructing a broader spatial and time domain, where examination of a particular political system and its members could be conducted based on multiple identities shaped within a wide range of historical contexts.

Within the scope of international relations, Nikos Papastergiadis (1992: 2) refers to the work of Homi Bhabha (1990: 4), who addresses the concept of the ‘nation’ as to also underline the existence of cultural differences and construction of otherness in the post-colonial realm. In broader terms, according to Bhabha, the nation serves as an arena for expression of multiple forms of power relations, be it class or gender, as well as political principles, such as democracy or sovereignty. Within its physical and discursive scope, the nation is also the space for articulation of “hybrid identities” that are expressed via articulation of cultural supremacy or sovereignty (Bhabha 1990). Such “hybrid identities,” Bhabha argues further, “deploy the particular culture from which the identities emerge to construct visions of a [modern] community, and versions of [the state’s] history” (ibid: 212). If being juxtaposed to Anderson’s definition of nation as being confined due to its “finite boundaries,” Bhabha’s conception of a nation, therefore, is a ‘soft’ one: it challenges Anderson’s rendering of ‘nation’ and the ‘imagined communities’ by addressing ‘nation’ as a political and cultural space that is rather liquid and is open for diversity or “negotiation” of meanings of nation.

Upon further analysis of the existing critiques of Anderson’s work, extensive ‘geographical’ application of his assertions is few. For instance, Blaut (1989) does not address Anderson’s work in his analysis of Marxist theories of nationalism, and Short’s (1991) Imagined Country refers to Anderson’s Imagined Communities as an additional reading (Barnes 2001: 16). One of the major criticisms of Anderson’s work comes along the lines of his “failure to fully acknowledge or develop the implications of mobility, space and nation” (Radcliffe and Westwood 1996: 118). One of the most vocal critics of Anderson’s arguments are also the postcolonial scholars who assert that Anderson is ‘too linear in his explanation [of how] the political structures and institutions change from dynasties to sovereign nations through the standardized influence of print capitalism’ (Said 1993; McClintock 1995). To add to existing debates, an Indian political scientist and anthropologist, Partha Chatterjee addresses the limitedness of the imagined communities by primarily European colonialism (Chatterjee 1993: 24). Nationalism and nations, Chatterjee argues, “operate only within borders articulated in Europe, and thus can only be conceptualized within the European structures.” Following such a narrative, anti-colonial nationalisms oppose colonial nationalism using similar nationalist arguments. According to Chatterjee, anti-colonial nationalism could only be imaged through cultural practices. While acknowledging its importance, he challenges Anderson’s definition of the processes of print capitalism as a standardized language, and argues on limitations of using such approach within the context of rather multilingual, diverse societies of the post-colonial space.

Finally, prominent critique of Anderson’s work is presented by Don Mitchell who pays particular attention to definition of the concept of ‘nation’:

The questions that [arise] are ones about who defines the nation, how it is defined, how that definition is reproduced and contested, and, crucially, how the nation has developed and changed over time…The question is not what common imagination exists, but what common imagination is forged (Mitchell, 2000: 269).

In his work on discourse theory, Torfing (1999: 193) argues that “the homogenization and substantialization of the national space will take the form of a number of predicative statements defining what the nation is.” At the same time, he continues, “the true essence of the nation escapes predication” (ibid: 194). The process of homogenization of the nation is taking place through discursive construction of the ‘enemies of the nation,’ which are simultaneously outside and inside the nation. Within the political and cultural context of (post)Euromaidan Ukraine, not only the symbols of ‘the other,’ or the oppressor, such as monuments of the communist regime, but also the concept of the ‘nation’ is being re-articulated. As I examine further in more detail, the homogenization and substantialization of the ‘nation’ includes reduction of difference to sameness, and this is what Torfing argues to be a defining feature of the nationalist discourse.

Countries such as Ukraine, in other words, could be seen as the example of homogenization of the nation, where both present and historical context of the state contains multiple instances of institutional reduction of cultural, linguistic or political distinctions to uniformity. If read within the theoretical framework of Bakhtin’s ‘monologism’ theory (or single-thought discourse), the state is the ‘voice’ that articulates one transcendental perspective into the entire field, or the ordinary public. The socio-political consequences of such practice are often aggravated by the nationalist rhetoric, and vary from civic discontent to arrant military activities, or the legislative policies of decommunization.

The revolutionary events of countries in transition bring us abruptly face to face with the significance and applicability of Anderson’s theory within the context of political evolution of the post-Soviet states. For instance, when it comes to explaining enthusiasm of the ordinary citizens’ willingness to die for territorial integrity of their country (e.g. Ukrainians and the military conflict in Donbas), Anderson argues that “secular transformation of fatality into continuity, contingency into meaning is what justifies and promotes the salvation” (Anderson 1983: 11). If, as Anderson points, “nation-states are widely conceded to be ‘new’ and ‘historical,’ the nations to which they give political expression always loom out of an immortal past, and, still more important, glide into a limitless future” (ibid: 12). Though unofficially, such logic of turning chance into destiny—construction of meanings for present and future that is either based on the ‘glorious’ past or is liberated from the ‘oppressive’ elements of the present is what composes the backbone for justification of sacrifice for countries involved in armed conflict.

As Debray recounts, “yes, it is quite accidental that I am born French; but after all, France is eternal” (Debray 1988: 16). The same statement could be applied to any other state. Such narrative, endowing of uncontrolled elements of life such as place of birth, for instance, with power of predetermination of one’s destiny, is commonly used by the governments as means of hegemonic establishment. The process of articulation is taking place in order to create a solid order and meaning of social institution that is fixed (Laclau 2005). Through multiple forms of articulation—political posters, toppling of the communist monuments or re-naming of the streets, for example, the ‘new’ political formation is being created, be it the local community or the nation as such. While the process of actual meaning-making that leads to construction of hegemony involves real acts of physical interaction with objects of political art, architecture, or cities’ topoi, the final outcomes of such manipulations coin a rather phantomic, illusionary formation or the ‘imagined community(ies).’ Within this process, “tracing the specificity of the particular discourses introduced into the city-text” (Palonen 2018) could be one of the modes of analysis of the hegemonic formation. Another would be to identify specific mechanisms that transform the process of meaning-making into that of an ongoing compromise—the emergence of dialogism as means of producing socio-political alteration.