The Nation (Coleen Herbert, Blog #1)

     One of Anderson's points that I found to be the most illuminating  was his discussion of Marxist historiography and how it perpetuated the misleading theory of Nationalism. He describes it as being "an uncomfortable anomaly for Marxist theory" (Anderson 3) that  "has largely been elided" (Anderson 3).  Nationhood is constructed as a binding cultural force of oppression in Marxism. Because Nationalism and Marxism shared close dates of inception, the followers of Marxist ideology rarely questioned the adjective "national". The jargon of Nationhood remains largely unquestioned today. Anderson writes in his introduction that it was the armed Marxist conflicts in Indochina in the late 1970s that inspired his book. It seems paradoxical that an ideology dedicated to social liberation uses the parameters of Nationhood to justify warfare. I have never been exposed to Marxism from this angle.
    Nationality is built upon the tenets of time, religion, and dynasty. The nation is ultimately a community.  I thought that Anderson's segment on the semiotics of sacred language pertained to Passing Through. All sacred language is a "privileged system of re-presentation" (Anderson 14) that communicates indefinite truths.  Nathan Adolfson confronts a similar type of system twice in his life. The first time that this happens is when he is adopted and relocated to the United States. In Minnesota, he is expected to learn and speak perfect English. What Adolfson learns is not a language, however. He learns the cultural semiotics of American life in Minnesota. This education becomes a translation called "English". When Adolfson travels to Korea, he enters the process again. How we learn a language depends on the nature of the entitlement to language in the given "nation". In Korea, Adolfson is American. In America, he is Korean. Nationality is limited to only one nation. Adolfson's own family appears to have trouble perceiving Adolfson as both Korean and American. Adolfson's quest to find a full familial community depends on Nationalism. It is because of Nationalism that Adolfson does not completely find what he's looking for in a family.
    We interpret cultural semiotics to distinguish the nationality of a person, yet, whoever approaches this task approaches it with pre-existing privilege. One nation is being interpreted by another. It is because people tend to look for differences before they observe similarities that ethnocentrism exists. We first discover our nationality this way. I remember first realizing that I was really an American when 9-11 happened and my school required the chorus to sing songs like "God Bless the U.S.A" without end. The weird thing was that I felt suddenly American by singing these songs. I believe that these songs illustrate the babble of Nationalism Anderson describes.
    The discussion we had in class on Thursday made it clear to me at least that a nation is primarily an appearance. Each person who listed their nationality described both of their parents, where they were from, and at what age they might have moved to the United States if they were not born in the United States. We often quantify "what we are". The nation is is not a completely homogeneous entity. It is the sum of a group of communities. Our class is a community made up of tens of communities. If we chose to acknowledge our differences, we will find our similarities. The discussion today made it clear that race is an issue to which we are hypersensitive. Being segregated by race felt both bizarre and familiar. Yet, it also pointed out our bridges to one another. A nation is full of such bridges. Although diplomacy utilizes a nation as a bridge, the Nation itself often seems unwilling to recognize the bridges within its own borders.