Dominick
Oct 19th 2008, 08:45 PM
Recuperated thread:
Another question from my historical methods class that might be intriguing to some:
How has nationalism influenced the practice of professional history?
Should historians attempt to transcend the category of the nation?
This question comes immediately after reading Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, which is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in the origins of nationalism.
I doubt I'll post my paper for this one, since I wasn't very happy with it. But in short, I feel that the category of the nation has a valuable place in works of history, or at least works of history focused on the last 400 years or so. This is true, if for no other reason, because the cultural artifact of "the nation" deserves to be examined and has held considerable sway over humanity's view of itself and the world.
Another question from my historical methods class that might be intriguing to some:
"How has nationalism influenced the practice of professional history?
Should historians attempt to transcend the category of the nation?"
This question comes immediately after reading Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, which is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in the origins of nationalism.
I doubt I'll post my paper for this one, since I wasn't very happy with it. But in short, I feel that the category of the nation has a valuable place in works of history, or at least works of history focused on the last 400 years or so. This is true, if for no other reason, because the cultural artifact of "the nation" deserves to be examined and has held considerable sway over humanity's view of itself and the world.
I read the brief review of the title at Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_Communities).
And I agree that the nation-state is certainly proven to be a whole lot stronger and more resiliant than most people give it credit for. Nationalism is surprisingly strong concept. I really like Anderson's assertion that membership is self-defined. That seems like a key element of nationalism. People choose to identify themselves such, or not, on a subjective basis.
As for historians, that's always going to be a challenge. With historians being human, I don't see how they can be expected to be above the petty emotions of nationalism - or need to. Once again it comes back to 'honesty' here I think. It is enough for a historian to be upfront (and aware) of one's own (natural) subjective biases. One can never really succeed in transcending them anyways, so one ought to drop the pretence that one is doing so.
Another question from my historical methods class that might be intriguing to some:
How has nationalism influenced the practice of professional history?
Should historians attempt to transcend the category of the nation?
This question comes immediately after reading Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, which is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in the origins of nationalism.
I doubt I'll post my paper for this one, since I wasn't very happy with it. But in short, I feel that the category of the nation has a valuable place in works of history, or at least works of history focused on the last 400 years or so. This is true, if for no other reason, because the cultural artifact of "the nation" deserves to be examined and has held considerable sway over humanity's view of itself and the world.
Another question from my historical methods class that might be intriguing to some:
"How has nationalism influenced the practice of professional history?
Should historians attempt to transcend the category of the nation?"
This question comes immediately after reading Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, which is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in the origins of nationalism.
I doubt I'll post my paper for this one, since I wasn't very happy with it. But in short, I feel that the category of the nation has a valuable place in works of history, or at least works of history focused on the last 400 years or so. This is true, if for no other reason, because the cultural artifact of "the nation" deserves to be examined and has held considerable sway over humanity's view of itself and the world.
I read the brief review of the title at Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_Communities).
And I agree that the nation-state is certainly proven to be a whole lot stronger and more resiliant than most people give it credit for. Nationalism is surprisingly strong concept. I really like Anderson's assertion that membership is self-defined. That seems like a key element of nationalism. People choose to identify themselves such, or not, on a subjective basis.
As for historians, that's always going to be a challenge. With historians being human, I don't see how they can be expected to be above the petty emotions of nationalism - or need to. Once again it comes back to 'honesty' here I think. It is enough for a historian to be upfront (and aware) of one's own (natural) subjective biases. One can never really succeed in transcending them anyways, so one ought to drop the pretence that one is doing so.