GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

NATION AND NARRATION:

FROM THE IMAGINED COMMUNITY TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

GERM 510: THEORIZING CULTURE

DR. KATRIN SIEG

BY

SEAN P. MCBRIDE

WASHINGTON, DC

22 FEBRUARY 2010

AD MAIOREM DEI GLORIAM

McBride, 1

Recent attempts by the European Commission to foster a pan-European nation among

linguistically diverse peoples have demonstrated the problematic theoretical relationship of

nation with narration. In examining this relationship, Cris Shore’s anthropological study of the

European Union sidesteps the oft-discussed political and economic facets to look at the cultural

politics of European integration. While Shore notes that many EU policymakers accustomed to

technical matters found his anthropological study of “the tribes of Brussels… rather odd or

faintly amusing” (Shore, 10) his study is actually far from novel, drawing on a rich pedigree of

cultural theorists that have attempted to map the relationship between nation or narration.

Indeed, much of theoretical basis of Shore’s critical analysis of EU cultural politics is

remarkably similar to the writings of Benedict Anderson and Susanne Zantop.

While Benedict Anderson has dominated much of the theoretical discourse on this

relationship, it is important not to inflate his theoretical significance. Works such as Jonathan

Culler’s “Anderson and the Novel” have questioned the broad and uncritical adoption of

Anderon’s concept of imagined communities given certain problems in the literary basis of his

theoretical arguments. This has made it important for scholars to approach Anderson with a

more critical eye. Thus, while Chris Shore’s work quotes Benedict Anderson and borrows his

concept of imagined communities, he does selectively, primarily drawing from Anderson’s

implicit comparison of nation to empire. In order to understand this theoretical linkage between

Anderson and Shore, this paper argues that for the use of a cipher. Because Zantop’s analysis of

the German Krusoe saga explicitly explores the impact of colonialism on the relationship

between nation and narration, this work clarifies many of the theoretical undertones in Anderson

and Shore. The product of this decryption is an implicit comparison between EU cultural policy

towards the nations of Europe and the German Krusoe’s education of the “savage” Freitag.

McBride, 2

These theoretical similarities ultimately suggest that EU community building efforts represent a

sort of "colonization of Europe by itself" (Shore, 27).

Benedict Anderson characterizes the relationship of narration to nation as causal,

resulting in the formation of an “imagined community.” He identifies the development of

“national” literary languages as an important prerequisite by providing a unified written field of

exchange below universal languages such as Latin or classical Arabic and above spoken regional

vernaculars. Consumption of narratives (print media such as newspapers, novels, histories, etc)

within this field of exchange trained the literate bourgeoisie to envision an imagined community.

Anderson explains that, for the bourgeoisie reader, observing “subway, barbershop, or residential

neighbors” reading the same print media acted to reassure that “the imagined world is visibly

rooted in everyday life” (Anderson, 36). These cultural practices tied to print media thus created

a feeling of solidarity between fellow readers based around the unified field of exchange of

vernacular print language, which eventually formed the basis for the imagined national

community.

Despite the seemingly organic nature of this causal relationship, Anderson importantly

notes that the formation of imagined communities was not necessarily populist or democratic, as

it simultaneously enfranchised national elites and disenfranchised others. Expanding on

Anderson, David Lloyd colorfully wrote that “nation apes empire” when describing the role of

the Irish novel in the imagining of the Irish nation (David Lloyd, Anomalous States, 154). Thus,

the formation of nationalism appears related to colonialist and imperialist ventures. According to

Anderson, Creole elites played a leading role in this process in South America, redefining

themselves and the indigenous populations as Argentinean, etc. However, shifting the metropole

from Toledo to Buenos Aires altered the reality for disenfranchised indigenous tribes little, as

McBride, 3

their overlords simply became “fellow” Argentineans. Processes such as hispanization

apparently proceeded apace, but they were now internal matters among “fellow nationals.” For

indigenous peoples, full integration as an “Argentinean” required participation in the Creole

unified field of exchange based on Spanish print-capitalism.

In contrast to Benedict Anderson, Susanne Zantop’s study of Campe’s Robinson novels

depicts a differing relationship between nation and narration. Rather than merely serving as a

means for imagining solidarity with fellow readers, Zantop portrays the German Krusoe

narrative as explicitly serving a top-down pedagogical function. By likening the education of

German youths to colonization or "the domestication of little savages" (Zantop, 105), Zantop

brings the argument that “nation apes empire” to the forefront of the relationship between nation

and narration. Zantop’s depiction reflects a later evolutionary stage of the imagined community,

under which the qualities associated with the nation became canonized and imposed on society

as a “national pedagogical tradition” (Zantop, 105). This concept of a “national pedagogical

tradition” suggests that the role of print media had changed. Enabled by Robinson’s ability to

"serve as foil for the projection of any national, regional, or personal interest," Campe’s

Robinson serves as an archetype of the German nation: frugal, industrious, pious, Protestant, and

craving "neither material gains and luxury, nor sex and power." (Zantop, 119). In an interesting

reversal of Anderson’s causal postulation that narration causes nation, Campe’s process of

making Robinson fully eingedeutscht suggests that in later periods, a more rigid and normative

definition of Deutschtum and other imagined national communities actually shaped the formation

of narratives. Print media thus assumed a more imperialistic role, seeking to impress normative

nationalist values rather than simply building solidarity.

McBride, 4

This normative process of becoming eingedeutscht is exemplified by Krusoe’s patriarchic

and one-sided education of Freitag. Krusoe stands as the archetype of the German Landesvater,

representing "enlightened bourgeoisie paternalism, Protestant ethic, religious and cultural

tolerance, and the perfectibility of all humans" (Zantop, 117). By presenting Krusoe as “a

literary figure whose adventures would entertain and stimulate the youthful readers into complete

identification and imitation” (Zantop, 103) Campe seeks to subject his audience to a pedagogical

process similar to Freitag, through which the reader transforms from Unmensch to Untermensch

to Untertan to Krusoe’s equal as an Übermensch. Zantop classifies this process of

Germanification as “thinly disguised cultural annihilation," in which Krusoe's actions result in

not just "the erasure of the Savage... but the erasure of the individual, his conflicts, passions, and

aspirations" (Zantop, 117). Krusoe and Freitag therefore lose their individuality, becoming

subsumed into the German nation. Zantop’s analysis of Campe’s work suggests a far more

hierarchical and static conception of an imagined German national community. In contrast to

Anderson’s characterization of the literate classes communally participating in the imagining of

one’s nation, Campe’s work suggests that the process of accepting Germany as Vaterland is

much more demanding on the individual. Equating individuality to savagery, the creation of an

Übermensch ultimately requires the subordination of individual conflicts, passions, and

aspirations to the needs of the national community.

In contrast to Benedict Anderson and Susanne Zantop, Cris Shore depicts the relationship

between nation and narrative as fundamentally different due to the multilingual nature of the

European Union and the modern technological advances in visual media. Challenging the

applicability of Anderson’s presupposition that nation-building requires linguistic unity, Shore

downplays the importance of print culture by adopting a wider anthropological view of symbols

McBride, 5

as the dominant element of nation building. Likening the EU’s use of visual media to the

medieval church’s use of stained glass to communicate religious stories to linguistically diverse

audiences, Shore suggests that the European Commission uses images like the Euro to

communicate common narratives of European progress across a unified symbolic field of

exchange. Nevertheless, by quoting an EU official charge that “Europe must speak with one

voice," Shore emphasizes the difficulty of creating a unified field of exchange across linguistic

barriers.

Expanding on Anderson’s comparison of nation and empire, Cris Shore characterizes the

cultural politics of European integration as "the colonization of Europe by itself" (Shore, 27).

Theoretically and rhetorically, Shore’s analysis thus resembles Zantop's equation of a national

pedagogical tradition to colonization or "the domestication of little savages." Considering the

similarities of the new EU transnational elites to the Creole elites in South America, such a

characterization is apt. Anderson demonstrates that the creation of national imagined

communities in South American empowered the Creole elites vis-à-vis the peninsulares, which

in turn transformed the colonial process of hispanization into a domestic process between

“fellow nationals.” As Zantop showed through the Robinson saga, this process was later

replicated in Europe. Just as natives were forcibly transformed into members of the imagined

community of Argentineans, the education of German youth was likened to the “domestication

of little savages.” Natives became nationals under pressure of the Creole elites just as German

youth became eingedeutscht through emulation of Krusoe.

This analogy with colonialism causes Shore to express concern about the European

Commission’s cultural policies. Zantop classifies the sort of Germanification expressed in the

Krusoe stories as “thinly disguised cultural annihilation" that seeks "the erasure of the Savage...

McBride, 6

but the erasure of the individual, his conflicts, passions, and aspirations" (Zantop, 117). Is this

analogous to Europeanization? Shore indeed identifies similar strains in the EU’s cultural

politics. By characterizing “the continuing presence of the nation-state and its allied ideology of

nationalism” as “the antithesis of peace,” (Shore, 16) nationalism seems to be to the EU

technocrats as “the savages” were to the European colonialists. Shore’s further discovery that

Commission officials liken the argument for or against European integration to a choice between

“civilisation [sic] or barbarism” (Shore, 100) further seems to confirm this suspicion. Concepts

such as the white man’s burden postulated that colonialism (and slavery) was necessary to

protect natives from their savage (and possibly cannibalistic) nature. Do EU technocrats

envision carrying out similar heavy-handed measure to ensure the destruction of “savage”

nationalism? After all, even genocide is considered “an exercise in community building” (Philip

Gourevitch, We wish to inform you…, 95). This analogy is clearly overblown, but by quoting EU

officials saying “the view is that the dogs may back, but the caravan will move forward

regardless“ (Shore, 106), Shore appears vindicated as characterizing the European Union as

having a “cavalier disregard for public opinion” (Shore, 101), suggesting that European

integration represents yet another form of “bourgeoisie paternalism.”

The conceptual evolution between these authors ultimately demonstrates that nation and

narration have a Janus-faced relationship. For elites, such as the Creole administrators, the

German author Campe, and EU technocrats, narration initially serves the democratic function of

allowing a communal national imagining within a unified field of exchange. Concepts, such as

Deutschtum, are more conceptually fluid and contested, allowing the elites to participate in a

conceptual give-and-take over the process of constructing “imagined communities.” As this

process calcifies, the other face of “imagined communities” emerges in attempts to impose

McBride, 7

normative cultural values on others through colonialism or top-down pedagogical exercises. The

elites communally realize Deutschtum through print-capitalism, but thereafter the others must be

eingedeutscht through the national pedagogical tradition. The intensity of this imposition can

range from “bourgeoisie paternalism” to “thinly disguised cultural annihilation." Cultural

practices, such as the reading of novels or newspapers, move from being part of a debate over

public opinion to being an imperial tool aimed at the “domestication of little savages.” Cris

Shore accurately identifies similar trends occurring within the cultural politics of the European

Union, begging the question: At what cost Europeanization?