Synthesis Essay

468 Words1 Page

Though Chatterjee, Anderson, Kelly and Kaplan were all looking at history from different cultural, historic and personal lenses, they agree that a nation must consist of people sharing certain traits. Each author believes that nations must be homogenous, but differ as to the degree. Anderson rightly points out the necessity for a shared political goal but fails to address the need for inner unity. A group of people who only share a political goal may very well achieve this goal, but as Yugoslavia showed – they will not form a stable nation-state. As Chatterjee rightly points out, a stable nation state requires a collective inner, cultural domain. In the recent (and debatably current) post-colonial era, nations must work to define themselves on an inner level. Often, as both authors address, the political goals …show more content…

Nations that fail to address this before realizing political goals, eventually realize that their new nation-state comprises of multiple nations – as in Yugoslavia’s case when each region wanted their own autonomy. In fact, we can see this process today in Tibet. The region of Tibet has long held a firm cultural and spiritual identity, one distinct from the rest of the Chinese country. For decades, many Tibetans have claimed their independence from the Chinese state. This region, like the disputed regions of Palestine, Crimea and more, demonstrate the power of a non-political identity. It binds people and allows them to realize their need for sovereignty. But for most nations, this need must be realized first by an elite and resourced group of people. Despite Kelly and Kaplan’s claims, for the majority of history, these were the only people capable of mobilizing a group large enough to be a “nation”. Though the nation, and the mechanisms of its formation, have changed drastically over the past few centuries, these fundamental tenants hold true, time and time

Open Document