Benedict Anderson's presentation ("Nationalism and the ties that bind," April 25 and 26, Page 9) was received with great interest. However, Anderson's views on nationalism are bent on the deconstructionist aspects of nationalism, particularly in view of the decolonization domino after the conclusion of World War II. The emphasis on the antithetical nature of the home country vs. creole country paradigm is misplaced.
Support in Anderson's postulations are ridden with creole and centrifugal symbolisms laced with microscopic insularity, such as subcultural and dialectical distinctions.
The deterministic nature of the destined deconstruction of the home country's nationalism, and the equally destined construction of the creole country's nationalism, constitutes the fundamental failing of Anderson's hypothesis.
Anderson overlooks a common feature of successful nationalism constructs, ie, the porous nature of the amalgamation paradigm and the popular consensus on that paradigm.
A sustaining national construct strikes a balance between the amalgamation and the diversity upon which the amalgamation is based.
Anderson keenly points to historical failures of nationalism construction, such as the russification and germanification of the Poles and japanization of the Koreans.
But his postulations become befuddled and incongruent with the successful nationalism constructions of the Romans in which citizenship is conferrable upon all subjects including the barbarians, Vietnamese nationhood founded on two dozen ethnic groups and cultures, the American nation with distinctive cultural and racial diver-sity, the formation of Italy from city-states and of Germany from confederate states.
Nationalism constructions over the non-mainstream do not work, because the Poles were relegated to second class subjects and the Koreans were categorized as "sangokujin" or third countrymen.
Such imbalance causes a structural impediment to its substantive implementation.
This is why the present-day European Union is approvingly successful in integrating the historically quarrelsome European nation-states, whereas the Japanese Empire's version for Asia in the first half of the 20th century categorically failed.
In addition, the deterministic nature of creole deconstructionism causes its entrapment in the perpetual cycle of deconstruction, some ending in narcissistic tribalism.
The cycle begins in a hierarchical or centrifugal manner, commencing deconstruction of the master construct vis-a-vis creole symbolisms that distinguish the deconstruct from the master construct.
When the deconstruction process becomes incessant, it leads to the breakdown of the newly deconstructed whole into more parts.
Nationalism deconstruction manifests its worse destiny when insular (or worst yet, pure) symbolisms are resorted to as creole symbolisms are no longer sufficient to distinguish subsets of the new deconstruct.
Ya-Chiao Chang
New York
RSS