On Constructs and Nations

On Constructs and Nations

                One thing I can definitely say about Graduate level classes is the discussions are very interesting and often heated debates over topics. Particularly, today, after reading Myth of Continents by Martin Lewis and Karen Wigen and Imagined Communities by Benjamin Anderson, a discussion exploded through the classroom.

                These books challenged the constructs that have been so ingrained into our education since elementary school. We are taught that there are a specific number of continents and they are Europe, Asia, North and South America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica. But the argument is made revolving around the question of ‘Why?’ Why are these the continents? How do we determine this? What are the distinguishing factors? Are they actually relevant?

                In other countries in other parts of the world, they are taught completely different things. In Russia, there is no distinction between Europe and Asia. They are the same thing. In many views, North and South America are one continent that includes Central America that is often overlooked in the American view. So who decides what continents there are? And does it even matter? Do we need continents? And if we do, then why?

                This argument can even be brought onto a smaller scale. A discussion about borders of countries or states. Essentially they are arbitrary lines drawn around a space and claimed by or given to a specific group of people. Now they are by no means imaginary as that people are often willing to die to defend these borders, but are there really any reasons for where they are?

                Imagined Communities continued this discussion about imagined constructs in society. It is even said that society itself is an imagined construct. That isn’t to say that it isn’t real. But instead that the concept that everyone in the community or society could actually know everyone else in the society is impossible. He goes on to explain that it is perceived connections to other people, things that bind them together, like language, religion, or other similarities, is what creates the sense of community.

                This led to a discussion about Nations and how you cannot be a true community because there is no way for everyone to know everyone, but they are bound together in a perceived or constructed community. From this the discussion of patriotism developed. An argument can be presented that in many ways, especially in the United States, that Nationalism and Patriotism has replaced the binding force that had been the Catholic Church in Medieval and Renaissance eras.

                During these time periods and even up until the 1800s, the argument can be made that what held societies and communities together was the connection to the Catholic Church. People were willing to die for their belief in their religion. Thousands of men traveled out of their countries in order to, as they saw it, defend their community, their religious community, from outsiders. Today, soldiers do the same thing, do they not? They travel away from their homes in order to protect their sense of community, their nation, from the ‘other,’ and they do so under the name of Patriotism. (I know that I have blogged about Patriotism before). Just as Catholics of the Medieval period were passionate about their religion being the best religion out there and that all others were wrong and were willing to die or kill to prove it, so are many today inspired by Patriotism.

                Once again, I have probably offended someone, but these are merely my thoughts after reading the books by Lewis & Wigen and Anderson and after the discussion presented in my class.