Nation-State Building (1):Successful/Unsuccessful
National Symbols
Multi-Ethnic Society (3)（May 1, 2014）	
1

Necessity and Danger ofCategorization/Classification• Why is it complicated: non-exclusiveconcepts• It is Necessary to be careful about how tocall others (and yourself): right to definition
can be power to dominate others• Colonization and globalization of “races”:
global hierarchical relation which has
made Europe reference standard + local
context2

Why Symbols?
• How can a political unit and a national unit
be congruent?
• How can a nation/state create unity(oneness)? How can symbols function?
• (How are the ethnic majority-minority
relations?)3

What are the “ImaginedCommunities”?	
• “It is imagined because the members ofeven the smallest nation will never know
most of their fellow-members, meet them,or even heard of them, yet in the minds ofeach lives the image of theircommunion.” (Anderson 1991: 6)→He does not take it for granted that people
share the same sense of belonging.
Therefore, how is it possible?
4• “Modular”: “capable of being transplanted, with varying
degrees of self-consciousness, to a great variety ofsocial terrains, to merge and be merged with acorrespond-ingly wide variety of political and ideologicalconstellations” (Anderson1991: 4)→Nishikawa (1995: 31)’s modification of modular=Nationalization of (1) space(2) Time(3) Customs(4) Body	5• Globalized nationalism• Pirate nationalism (Niikura 2008) = nocopyright, inter-imitation = “technologytransfer”

6Case 1: Bosnia	
• “The divisions in society come first.” (p.
697)• Sovereign state of Bosnia-Herzegovina
consists of:– Republika Srpska– Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina: its coat ofarms abandoned in 2007 http://p.tl/YcAA	
7

Cases 2 and 3: Russia andNorway	
• Russia: memories of tsarist regime andsocialist regime → why nostalgic anthem(lyrics) and coast of arms got popularity
http://p.tl/LExe• Norway: division before WWⅡ was
between bourgeoisie and working class,potential present division aroundparticipation in EU
8

Discussion (1)	• If I compare Anderson with Kolsto, Anderson’s
approach may be more functionalist (if ‘modular’
successfully functions for nation building,members of the nation are just objects who are
influenced from the top), while Kolsto’s approach
may be more ‘interactive’ (there are possibilities
of both success and failure of nation building
depending on the reactions of peoples).
→It is interesting that Kolsto sees both function
and dysfunction in one article.	
9Discussion (2)	• What is lacking in Kolsto, is the point that
there might have been possibility of failure
even in established state.
→ There is still room for remembering
Anderson.
• Making of majority is one side of the same
coin: the other side is making of minorities.	
10References	• Anderson, Benedict, 1991, Imagined Communities:Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism(revised edition), Verso• Niikura, Takahito (新倉貴仁)，2008，「海賊版としてのナショナリズム®――ナショナリズムとメディアをめぐる理論的視座の構築」『マス・コミュニケーション研究』73• Nishikawa, Nagao (西川長夫)，1995，「日本型国民国家の形成」西川・松宮編『幕末・明治期の国民国家形成と文化変容』新曜社	

11

【Email assignment】
When and how do you have a sense of belonging
to your country/nation (how have you identified
yourself as a member)? (if you do not have thesense of belonging, why and how?)【Preparation】
We will deal with “assimilation” as one of the key
concepts when we think about national unity.
What does “assimilation” mean, how does
“assimilation” take place?
12