Expanding the 'Imagined Community'

In class we debated on Anderson’s suggestion of ‘imagined communities’ and what constitutes such a community today. The concept of electronic or internet groups became a favoured example for the present day. Specifically so, Facebook seemed to provide a prime example. Groups here can consist of people from all over the world who have a shared interest and who may join or leave at their own free will. It was argued in class that these communities provide a voluntary aspect to them that doesn’t necessarily fit with Anderson’s idea of an ‘imagined community’. With the immense advancements in information and communication technology I believe we need a more detailed definition between the ‘imagined communities’ of the past and those of the present in order to better conceptualize the idea in modern society.

Anderson’s community was as a result of an inescapable connection between people. For example, I envision myself as an individual with a unique Canadian identity. Being a Canadian citizen links me with individuals of the same heritage in that we make up the people of this nation. Albeit, I do not know each individual, but if I envision the citizens of Canada I imagine myself to be a part of a larger group with the same national background. On the contrary, online groups are voluntary in the sense that I may join, leave, or associate myself with at my own discretion. Here, a community is constituted by the place where groups form (chat room, Facebook group, etc). Furthermore, members all share a similar interest. I would usually only participate if I identified with the topic and the other members.

It seems as though the two different communities present an issue of identity vs. identify. Anderson’s ‘imagined community’ is as a result of one’s identity; unavoidable components of a person, whether they be events, or individual features. Internet communities arise out of identification with a subject or a group of individuals. This can be thought of on a ‘space vs. place’ account as well. Space is better represented through Anderson’s ‘imagined community’, which is fluid and cannot necessarily be signified physically. In turn, place represents the internet community, which has a ‘physical’ gathering spot.

This week’s lecture notes pose two questions, (a) what are the phenomena we should look at in order to understand how communication systems spread across borders and (b) how, in the process of crossing borders, are these phenomena changing the way nation states relate to the creation and maintenance of ‘imagined communities’? I think the first question can be addressed by Anderson’s idea of print capitalism, which can now be expanded to include all media forms. Capitalism is really what has led to the development of communication technology across borders – expanding internationally to exploit new markets.

As a result, perhaps we need to merge the two understandings I mentioned earlier into a more modern interpretation. It’s not that we can’t think of online communities as ‘imagined communities, but rather we can’t think of them in the same way Anderson once did. We need to expand our definitions to match continually expanding information and communication technologies. Therefore, this idea of print capitalism has moulded the way different nations and thier people relate to one another, with the expanding interpretation of 'imagined community' being a prime example.

Is There a Best Pick?

In reviewing this past week’s lecture/readings I find myself swarmed by a multitude of different opinions on the theories of international communication – which perspective would benefit the country the most? Is there a best option? Etc.

Specifically, I see modernization theory as an aloof perspective that is neither in touch with its country of origin nor those it is trying to modernize. Thussu states that “in the 1970s, modernization theorists started to use the level of media development as an indicator of general societal development” (44). I hardly believe that a countries societal development can be gauged by their degree of media development. This statement presents media as a liberator or savior to a country. While I don’t discount the benefits of new advances in technology, I cannot necessarily see communication technology as a savior. I think there is both pros and cons to the issue. I think we run the risk of homogenizing Western culture with other distinct cultures of the world. Western culture possesses an extremely black or white opinion of modernization – as Thussu also states “one major shortcoming of the early modernization theorists was their assumption that the modern and the traditional lifestyles were mutually exclusive…” (45). All I am saying is, how can we be sure we’ve got it right? We can’t begin to impose upon another until we’ve walked in their shoes.

On the ideas of dependency thoery, I wish to take a different standpoint. I think it's inevitable that a certain degree of hierarchy emerges among countries - just as it does throughout the food chain. The more powerful countries are going to come forth as dominant in all sectors and are therefore able to delineate the 'rules of the game'. As is the case with a chain of command or hierarchy, it would make sense for Western culture to want to maintain thier position as powerful and keep third world countries dependent.

I feel as though we experience facets of both perspectives today. With the current amount of third world debt, it would seem as though many countries clearly owe a lot to the more developed nations. At the same time, there are many international situations in which I feel Western culture has butted it's way into when it should not have necessarily done so. This leads me to believe that we cannot narrow down international communication to a few different theories. If any theory is to take the place of the 'best pick' I feel it would be an amalgamation of all of them.