Nation Power and Difference for Ethics Subjectivity and Truth

Question: Write about theNation Power and Difference for Ethics Subjectivity and Truth. Answer: Question 1:What does it mean to think about nations as Imagined communities? (Anderson, Bennett, Williams) The idea or the concept of imagined communities was coined by Benedict Anderson. The advocate of this idea suggests that the nation is held together as a single community. It means that any nation can be considered as a socially constructed community that is imagined by the people who consider themselves as part of a single group. The sharing of ideas among the people is something that makes them a single community. It is important to mention that the idea of imagined communities could also exist beyond the nations (Anderson, 2006). Media can also refer to an imagined community that is based on the sharing of similar beliefs and attitudes. The imagined communities could also be created based on the lines of similar vernacular, language, etc. The media can also create the imagined communities on the lines of similar images. The concept of imagined communities are often discussed with the concepts of nationalism. Anderson defined that nation is a political imagined community where the citizens have something common that constitutes society. It is important that the citizens of the country should also contribute towards the development of society (Jessop, 2013). It would ensure that the nation could act as a single entity. It is also important that all the citizens in the society should have a single view of the society. Question 2: It is possible to think about the concept of nation without understanding and critiquing dominant discourses of race/class/gender/sexuality? (Griffin, Ken, hooks) It would be correct to say that the concept of nation is a powerful concept that spans across various discourses like class, gender, race, sexuality, etc. The nation is a collective thing that is made up of number of intangible things. It would be correct to say that it is absolutely important to understand the dominant discourses of class, gender, race, and sexuality to get a complete and holistic understanding of nation. Without knowing the intricacies of race, gender, class, etc., it may not be possible to learn about the concept of nation. In fact, the concept of nation would be narrow in nature if the intricacies were not discussed. For any individual or organization, it is important to first understand these intricacies and then only make any attempt to define the concept of nation. It is expected that different people can have different line of thoughts to define the nation as a one unit. However, the powerful definition of nation would be the one that covers the dominant disc ourses of race/class/gender/sexuality. In fact, the differences in the individuality of people are something that defines a powerful nation. Therefore, it would be correct to say that it may not be possible or practice to think about the concept of nation without understanding and critiquing dominant discourses of race/class/gender/sexuality and it is recommended that individuals or organizations must think of various small intricacies before defining the nation. Question 3: What does slavery have to do with the formation of nations and identity and difference (Hall) Stuart Hall has made significant contribution to literature by his viewpoints around race, gender and the nation and the viewpoint of slavery. Hall argued that slavery is one thing that has impacted the culture of different nations. In some form or the other, slavery has been crucial for almost all the nations in the world. It would be correct to say that slavery had an important role to play in the formation of nations (Prendergast, 2003). The basic or the fundamental grouping happened between the people due to slavery. In fact, slavery created a divide among the people and people were grouped into different class based on this divide. With slavery, the concepts of lower class people, middle class people and upper class people got appreciation and as a result the nations were defined on the line of race, render, classes, etc. As a conclusion, it would be correct to say that slavery acted as an indirect force that played a critical role in the formulation of nations. Question 4: Foucaults work on power brings together different elements of power with an emphasis on relations of power. Give an example of Foucauldian analysis of power relations (St Pierre) Foucault is the one who advocated that power is everywhere. Foucault challenges the idea that power is wielded by people or groups by way of episodic or sovereign acts of domination or coercion, seeing it instead as dispersed and pervasive. An example of Foucauldian analysis of power relations would be the power exhibited by a group of people who come together for a common cause (St. Pierre, 2000). It is possible that this power does not comes to them due to any legal law or guideline but they are able to exercise the power only because they are united and act as a single group. Foucault also advocated that people should not have negative connotations about power (Foucault Faubion, 2000. There are times, when people think and relate power to negative energy. However, power can have positive connotations also and power can be used to express positivity also. His analysis of power relations suggests that people should not be fearful of power (Foucault Faubion, 2000). In fact, power c an also be used to create a positive environment in the society. It is important that people should be able to see the bigger picture around the use of power in the society. References Anderson, B. (2006).Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso Books. Foucault, M., Faubion, J. D. (2000). Ethics Subjectivity and Truth; the Essential Works of Michael Foucault, 1954-1984. Prendergast, C. (2003). Nation/Natio: Raymond Williams and The Culture of Nations.Intermdialits: Histoire et thorie des arts, des lettres et des techniques/Intermediality: History and Theory of the Arts, Literature and Technologies, (1), 123-138. Jessop, B. (2013). Putting neoliberalism in its time and place: a response to the debate.Social Anthropology,21(1), 65-74. St. Pierre, E. A. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview.International journal of qualitative studies in education,13(5), 477-515.