民族主义亚马逊上的review

In this timeless and enduring book, Hobsbawm dispels the sentiment that national identity as we perceive it today is natural, primary or essential as to be apart from history -- in effect his stance is anti-primordial. For Hobsbawm, who, at least it appears to this reader, as a Marxist, the rise of "world communism" will transcend the petty provincialism of nationalism. Taking a page out of Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities"... a new world order will emerge. Is this Francis Fukuyama in sheep's clothing? OK, fair enough, where is there a space for the prevention of tyranny that Hobsbawm speaks of in this book? My guess is that a dynamic tension is formed around the Fukuyama notion of a new world order centered on a liberal democracy and capitalism while Hobsbawm is still dreaming of a world order around the notion of "people of the world unite!" The notion of "Nationalism" seems to be a hindrance in terms of the new world order by both writers. Hobsbawm wishes us to come to the conclusion that nationalism is wrong, dangerous and ugly. Nationalism is based on myth. Effectively, he sees that the "imagined community" or the myth of the nation is used "to fill the emotional void left by the retreat or disintegration of real human communities. As if to contradict himself, he does not flesh out what these "real" communities are. Are they real or are they "imagined"? If this is all much ado about nothing, then why do people spend so much time, energy and resource to arrange themselves in this fashion? According to Hobsbawm, a particular group of people, an intelligentsia of some nebulous configuration forced nationalism on everyone else. It seems to me that he is suggesting that it is a result of an agenda. The core of this new imagined community has to reach back to a form of ancient or imagined past that will bind those in the hear and now. The new "community" is constructed around the ruins of the past. What is important to consider when it comes to Hobsbawm is the triviality with which he attaches the notion of "imagined" as if it is doomed to fail. As if not making the distinction of when nationalism becomes chauvinism, he lumps them together as a phenomenon whose dusk is approaching. The book is extremely relevant with the rise of globalization. Hobsbawm is particularly keen when he asserts " A world of nations cannot exist," he posits "only a world where some potential national groups... excludes others." It is insightful that Hobsbawm points this out, however, must we throw away the baby with the bathwater and look instead for some notion of pan-nation that will see the end of diversity? If Hobsbawm is right, then his book is usefull to help us work toward some accommodation of diversity. Do we just become "people" then? If the cross migration continuous, are we "determined" by forces outside our control to decide who we are and what we become? Hobsbawm must be read and analyzed and I am grateful for experience and highly recommend this to all readers interested in the area of nationalism -- an idea that people use but rarely fully understand. This is your first step. Miguel Llora