Jonno Marlton Blog 3: Understanding My Identity in English

The impact of capitalism on the process of imagining nations is Anderson’s starting point in discussion the importance of literacy and print in evaluating the creation of nations.  If we think about the functions of a nation to be divided into the two spheres we discussed in class, the state and civil society, we can begin to determine the role that print and literacy has in a society.  The lengua franca transitioned away from Latin as many states (or realms) began to transition to vernaculars for administrative purposes.  The post-Reformation religious sphere also began to adopt vernacular, rejecting the increasingly antiquated Latin language.  The splitting away from Latin into independent administrative languages contributed to national sentiment, as it increasingly distinguished people under one regime from another.  Once print-capitalism arrived, the uniformity of a state’s language made popular due to its now easy access.  The shared experience that a uniform print language gives to a mostly literate society contributes directly to nationalistic sentiment.

I do speak English.  And because of this ability, I feel more connected to my imagined nation(s) because I can relate using the language of my government(s.)  But I have only spent two years in Australia, and there are people over there who may not speak English who consider it more their nation than I consider it mine.  Language is a unifying factor, but it is also an exclusive one.  We gauge national identity in large part based on one’s language or even accent because the use of a national language in some ways marks the commitment to the national government.  However, the US is a nation that where people speak the language of the government.  As Anderson asserts, there are and have been many nations (or states) with official print languages not used by the people.

As an English speaking American, the idea of my imagined nation is stronger than I imagine it would be if I did not speak English or if it were my second language.  In my experience, the English language has been a unifying factor, but it could also serve as a division.  An American who does not speak English suffers in a few ways.  One, he or she is probably viewed as being un-American by those citizens who speak English, and two, navigating outside of a non-English community in the U.S is difficult as product labels, laws, and instructions are written in English.  Because, as Anderson states, “there…is no possibility of humankind’s general linguistic unification,” we English speakers are permanently distinct from most of the non-English speaking nations.  However, my ability to read and write in English allows me to relate in terms of literacy to other English speaking nations.  Print language not only unifies groups within the same nation, but it also draws nations that speak the same language closer together and pushes those who do not further apart.  Can you think of some instances that disprove this final point?  Colonialism probably does.  

In response to class on Thursday:

         We watched a clip from an episode of Roots, and I posed a question asking if the students who identify as black related in any way to the characters in the episode.  I want to apologize because I did not mean to draw an unnecessary racial barrier.  The bystander affect that Sam mentioned and that was demonstrated on screen knows no race, and therefore I imagine any student could relate to the action of the show.  I am curious to know if the active rejection of the white slave owners carried over to an active rejection to the oppressed black slaves.  What were your reactions to what we saw?  What are some contemporary parallels we can draw to what was happening in the clip?  I am thinking of other forced relinquishing of aspects of identity.