Culture » February 13, 2006
Radicals Without Borders (cont’d)
Anderson’s analytical focus and investigative bent are in sharpest relief in his textual analysis of Rizal’s novels: tracing the origins of a single compelling phrase, “el demonio del las comparaciones,” reveals a nest of questions about Rizal’s reading habits, linguistic aptitude, friends, sympathies and use of allusions. Here Anderson, abetted by his historian brother Perry, is more archaeologist than astronomer, to terrific effect. As in his other works, Anderson prefers to provide his own translations—and except where specifically noted, he offers both the original and the translation of all quoted passages, however lengthy. Moreover, he critiques extant translations, uncovering their biases and inaccuracies, as a useful (if sometimes catty) exercise in intellectual history. He aptly uses archived manuscripts (most notably, of Rizal’s El Filibusterismo), masses of personal and official correspondence, and carefully selected secondary sources, and holds it all together with a lifetime’s accumulated grasp of the subjects at hand. Given the significance of facility in language to the sort of cross-border fertilization Anderson describes, his scope and methods both reinforce his scholarly authority and highlight his affinity with the clever cosmopolitans he is describing.
At home and away
Anderson calls this period “the Age of Early Globalization.” However, one might contest just how “early” the globalization Anderson examines is. Pramoedya, for instance, frames his discussion of the anticolonial ripples launched by Douwes Dekker and Indonesia in an overview of a much earlier phase, one of religious missions and the quest for spices. The mercantilist political economic order that vindicated colonial expansion itself represents the cross-border spread of transformative ideas, not just of coercion and exploitation. The intellectual processes and transcontinental political trends Anderson depicts thus do not represent the early phase of globalization, though they are part of that long sequence.
What Anderson’s narrative does embody, though, is the multilayered context implied by the book’s title. Anderson complicates his own notion of the “imagined community.” Early nationalists may have felt as much affinity to their co-ideologists abroad as to their erstwhile co-nationalists at “home”—and indeed, many were the sort of itinerant, cosmopolitan, linguistically agile global citizens so often presumed unique to our current stage of globalization. These were men and women of multiple loyalties—followers of several flags. But nowhere in the book does Anderson specifically address the notion of the flag as nationalist symbol. We are left to deduce for ourselves that the flags on the book’s cover are those of the Filipino revolutionary organization Katipunan (in one of its many iterations), anarchism (the Black Flag), and independent Cuba. (It is intriguing that despite the book’s title and cover art, not one of the many illustrations within features a flag.)
In fact, none of the activists in Anderson’s account was likely to be following these three flags in tandem, but all did or could negotiate multiple overlapping loyalties—to transnational intellectual currents, to local ethnic or family groups, to newly-imagined nations, to real friends and apparent compatriots in the metropole, to subjects of colonial power elsewhere.
Unfortunately, we run up against a pesky problem of causality in sorting out the significance of these various potential allies and influences. Rizal, for instance, was an unwilling icon of the Katipunan and assiduously distanced himself from its insurrectionary shenanigans. He moved in radical Left circles but seemed to care little for political theory. He was willing to offer Spain his medical services during Martí’s revolution in Cuba and was dubious of the latter’s revolutionary potential. Meanwhile, Andrés Bonifacio and Emilio Aguinaldo—respectively, the Katipunan’s founder and the man who upstaged him to declare Filipino independence—were relatively provincial local boys, who followed events in Cuba largely in terms of what they meant for Spain’s ability to cope with revolutions on two fronts simultaneously. They may have operated amidst a global context of anarchism, but were apparently not subscribers themselves.
In other words, we see the global spread of ideas, yet observe the relative isolation of so many of the localized (however globally inspirational) actions that could be informed by those ideas. This disconnect is neither original nor damning—”think globally, act locally” and “all politics is local” have achieved the status of inanity because they are so obviously true. Still, it does suggest that Anderson could go further to convince us of anarchism’s “gravitational force” as an ideology, rather than as an emblem of the escalating levels of swashbuckling political violence and boldness.
A grand dollhouse
At times, reading this book gives one the sensation of looking into an elaborate, timeless, placeless dollhouse—a feeling only compounded by the sprinkling through the text of photographs, maps, and other artwork, some more clearly germane than others. We peer into a room, exult in the gorgeous details, nod toward the stylized inhabitants, then move on to the next room. We note doorways and corridors connecting the rooms, but suspect most are little-used. We sense that somewhere to the right of this rarefied world is an ogre.
The impression is of a dangerous and vulnerable world, but a rather glamorous one. At the end of our tour, we are left to our own devices to imagine the community that might people such an edifice: Of the books in the library, which would they read? Does the motley crowd in the servants’ quarters find common cause? The unimaginative reader might crave more of a back-story.
But one surmises that Anderson is not writing for the unimaginative reader. Those who will most enjoy this book are readers who enjoy a bit of hands-on excavation, not pat summation. Here we have a chance to follow tangents, investigate coincidences and reconstruct a grand dollhouse of the mid-to-late-19th century world, posing artists and journalists, demagogues and bystanders, kings and captains-general, revolutionaries and reactionaries all within the same broad schema. We understand the temporal and ideological interconnections of that world from Anderson’s account, even if some of the precise ties remain hazy.
Most of all, Anderson’s latest book is about possibilities. Today, we have currents and we have comrades. We have novels. We have media far more extensive, varied, and widely-disseminated than the amazing propaganda rags, literary magazines and vernacular newspapers of anarchism’s heydays. We have quick, easy transoceanic transportation. We have long known that nationalism is not exclusive of a transnational left (or right), that citizenship is institutionally and symbolically important but culturally mutable, that our affinities and inspirations as political actors are—and should be—multifarious. In short: Why wave just one flag?
Through this compelling, if necessarily inconclusive study, Anderson helps us interrogate “globalization.” He pushes us to move beyond the knee-jerk assumptions of cultural imperialism and crass corporate exploitation that so color contemporary discussions of the topic, and instead see the potential of a world in which, more than ever before, we are mobile, we are informed, and we have the capability of applying shared ideas to distinctive causes through cross-border, collaborative engagement.
More information about Meredith L. Weiss
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments
-
register a new account »Posting Security
Appeared in the February 2006 Issue
Also featured
Paradigm Shift
Walking to Guantnamo
When Red Goes Green
Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!
RSS Feed