Contemporary Asian Studies Final Exam Summary
In Anderson’s text, the comment made by Ernest Gellner defines the important difference between the falsity of the national identity in contrast with the “imagined’ national identity in terms of creating a nation state. After the comment made by Gellner is critically evaluated on the semantics of nationalism in regards to the issue of nationality as a being a false basis for nationalism, yet within Anderson’s own critique of this identity as a form of creative expression of “style” that forms this basis for nationalism:
In this way he implies that ‘true’ communities exist which can be advantageously juxtaposed to nations. Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, …show more content…
This view of the formation of national identity removes the source of nationalism as a conscious act in which an individual or group made a specific choice about this cultural process. Certainly, Anderson reveals the process in which national identity is formed over a long period of time and through a slow and gradual creative process in the formation of nationalism.
On example used by Anderson to describe the “imaginative” source of Anglo culture is under the British imperialism of the East India Company during the mid-19th century. Certainly, the initial goal of the British Empire was to expand its culture and military power throughout the world, yet this was not done with a specific aim to change India into a totally British society in terms of national status. Often, the Indians were made subservient to British military and economic power, but the idea of a uniquely British nationality took much longer to emerge in the in the cultural …show more content…
Polanyi expresses the need for social protection of the commonwealth by utilizing laws, tariffs, and other measures to prevent the laissez-faire system from becoming a totally dominant form of economic system. Due to the alienating aspects of social and political divisions created by the free-market system, Polanyi defines the “double movement” as part of the clash between the greater good of the state and the destructive individualism of the ruling classes that dominate the economy. Historically, the slow rise of free market ideology created an ideological context in which the volatility of capitalist ownership forces the state to use legal measures to ensure social and political stability for the