International Journal of Indonesian Studies Volume 1, Issue 3 | Page 210

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDONESIAN STUDIES
SPRING 2016
A second, more sustained criticism focuses on Anderson’s linking of
homogenous, empty time to nationalism. 122 Kelly, for example, argues that while
Anderson begins with a critical stance towards nationalism, he ends by linking the
nation intimately with modernity. 123 Greater emphasis on Messianic time, since it
ruptures homogenous, empty time and what is imagined in it, is needed in contrast
to what is taken to be Anderson’s overly positive stance towards the nation. Kelly
believes that Anderson’s decision to drop Benjamin’s Messianism (against the
nation) plays into the hands of the status quo - the ‘fictional global genealogy of
American geopolitics’. 124
Chatterjee extends similar concerns to the notions of bound and unbound
seriality, and therefore, to Anderson’s hopes (‘utopian’ according to Chatterjee) for
popular nationalism against official nationalism. 125 Chatterjee argues that the real
time of modernity is heterotopic and combines local particularities (customs,
ethnicity) with global capitalism and its utopian time (the imaginary time of capital
that makes markets, prices and nations possible). 126 The real, those customs and
ethnicities, is linked by Anderson to bound seriality. Chatterjee believes that
Anderson’s views stem from his one sided view of modernity, one which
emphasises the dominance of homogenous, empty time. 127
In the same collection of essays, Harootunian is sceptical of Chatterjee’s
claims (and we can extend this scepticism to Kelly). 128 Chatterjee misreads
‘Anderson’s view of the role played by capitalism in the serial spread of nationalism
and modernity’, by assuming identity between capitalism and modernity. 129
However, as Anderson stresses, death and linguistic diversity cannot be subsumed
by capitalism but are part of the cultural imaginary of modernity. Chatterjee
misunderstands or does not engage clearly with this point, only remaining hopeful
that capitalism will undercut postcolonial nationalism, making room for an
“authentic” alternative. However, capitalism destroys authenticity but has also
allowed for the ‘spectre of comparisons’ in which anticolonial nationalism
emerged. 130
122

In a longer essay I would elaborate how the first criticism and second criticism are complementary and
overlap to some extent.
123
For a useful definition of modernity see Matei Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity (Durham: Duke University
Press, 1987)., 42-4.
124
Kelly, "Time and the Global: Against the Homogenous, Empty Communities in Contemporary Social Theory.",
868. Kelly also believes a realist take on nationalism – the nation as collective will to power. This is not
particularly related to Benjamin, however. In contrast, Redfield sees Anderson as part of a Romantic tradition
that sees the nation as willed: Redfield, "Imagi-Nation: The Imagined Community and the Aesthetics of
Mourning.", 65.
125
Partha Chatterjee, "Anderson's Utopia," ibid., 130.
126
See generally ibid.
127
Ibid., 131.
128
H.D. Harootunian, "Ghostly Comparisons: Anderson's Telescope," ibid. See also Andrew Parker, "Bogeyman:
Benedict Anderson's "Derivative" Discourse," ibid.
129
H.D. Harootunian, "Ghostly Comparisons: Anderson's Telescope," ibid., 141.
130
Ibid., 141-144.

210 | P a g e