Anderson's Utopia

Author(s): Partha Chatterjee

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Diacritics, Vol. 29, No. 4, Grounds of Comparison: Around the Work of Benedict
Anderson (Winter, 1999), pp. 128-134
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566381 .
Accessed: 05/03/2012 01:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Diacritics.

http://www.jstor.org
ANDERSON'S UTOPIA
PARTHACHATTERJEE

ImaginedCommunities was,without doubt,oneofthemostinfluential booksofthelate

twentiethcentury.In theyears sinceitwas published, as nationalism
unexpectedly came
tobe regardedas an increasingly unresolvable andoftendangerous "problem" in world
BenedictAnderson
affairs, has continued to analyzeandreflect on thesubject,adding
twobrilliant
chapters tohishighlyacclaimedbookandwriting severalnewessaysand
Someofthesehavebeenbrought
lectures. together,along witha seriesofessayson the
and
history politics of SoutheastAsia, in The SpectreofComparisons. Thepublication
of thisvolumeprovidesan opportunity forotherscholarsin thefieldto reassessthe
workof,andpaytribute to,a majorintellectual ofourtime.

themostsignificant
Theoretically, additionthatAndersonhas madeto his analysisin
ImaginedCommunities is hisattempt to distinguish betweennationalism andthepoli-
He does thisbyidentifying
ticsofethnicity. twokindsofseriality thatareproducedby
themodemimaginings of community. One is theunboundseriality of theeveryday
universalsof modemsocial thought: nations,citizens,revolutionaries, bureaucrats,
workers, and so on. The otheris theboundseriality
intellectuals, of govemmentality:
totalsofenumerable
thefinite classesofpopulation producedbythemodemcensusand
themodemelectoralsystems. Unboundserialities aretypicallyimaginedandnarrated
by means ofthe classicinstruments of print-capitalism,namely,thenewspaper andthe
novel.Theyafford theopportunity forindividuals toimaginethemselves as members of
largerthanface-to-facesolidarities, ofchoosing toact on of
behalf those of
solidarities,
transcendingby an act of politicalimagination the limitsimposedby traditional
prac-
tices.Unboundserialities arepotentially AsAnderson
liberating. quotesfrom Pramodeya
AnantaToer'snovelDia JangMenjerah,whichdescribessucha moment ofemancipa-
tionexperienced by one of itscharacters:

By now,Is knewthesocietyshe was entering. She hadfounda circleofac-

quaintancesfar widerthan thecircleofher brothers,sistersandparents.She
nowoccupieda defined positionin thatsociety:as a woman,as a typistina
government as a
office, free individual.
She had become a new human being,
withnew understanding, new tales to tell,newperspectives, newattitudes,
newinterests-newnesses thatshe managedtopluckand assemblefromher
in
acquaintances.[qtd. Spectre41]

Boundserialities,
bycontrast, canoperateonlywithintegers. Thisimpliesthatforeach
of an
category classification, individual can countonlyas one orzero,neveras a frac-
which
tion, inturnmeans thatall or
partial mixed to
affiliations areruledout.
a category
One can onlybe blackor notblack,Muslimor notMuslim,tribalor nottribal,never
orcontextually
onlypartially Anderson
so. Boundserialities, suggests,areconstricting
andperhapsinherentlyconflictual.Theyproduce thetoolsofethnic politics.

128 diacritics29.4: 128-34

 I am notsurethatthedistinction betweenboundandunboundseriality, despiteits
appearance of mathematical precision, is the appropriate way to describe the differ-
encesin politicalmodalitiesthatAndersonwantsto demarcate. It is notclearwhythe
"unbound"serialities ofthenationalist imagination cannot,underspecificconditions,
produce finiteand countable classes.Explaining unbound seriality,Andersonsaysitis
thatwhich "makestheUnitedNationsa normal, whollyunparadoxical institution"[29].
But surely,at any giventime,theUnitedNationscan have onlya finitenumberof
members. Andthatis because,withitsexplicitly laid-downprocedures andcriteria of
membership, theimagining ofnationhood has beenreducedtotheinstitutional gridof
governmentality.Again,ifbyrevolutionaries we meanthosewhoaremembers ofrevo-
lutionarypoliticalparties,thenthenumber ofrevolutionaries ina country, oreveninthe
wholeworld,willalso be finite andcountable, inthesamewaythatthecensusclaimsto
providea figurefor,letus say,thenumber ofHindusinIndia.Itis also notclearinwhat
sensetheserialities of governmentality are "bound."The seriesforChristians or En-
glishspeakersin theworldis, in principle, without end,sinceto everytotalthatwe
counttodayone morecouldbe addedtomorrow. But,ofcourse,theseriesis denumer-
able,exactlylike,say,theseriesofpositiveintegers, eventhoughatanygivenpointin
timesucha setwillcontaina finitenumber ofmembers.
Some yearsago, Ben Andersonaskedme whatI thought of Hegel's idea of the
"wronginfinity." I mustsay thatI was stumpedby thesuggestion thata somewhat
quaint remark the
by long-dead German philosopher might call for some sortofmoral
response from me. After carefullyreading Anderson's of
"logic seriality,"cannowsee
I
whathe was askingme.The denumerable butinfinite series,suchas thesequenceof
positiveintegers,which is the basic form of counting used by governmental systems
likethecensus,is,forAnderson, ofthesamedubiousphilosophical statusas itwas for
Hegel.To describechangeor"becoming"bymeansofa sequenceoffinitequantities,
whichis whatthestatistical logic of governmentality wouldprescribe, is notto tran-
scendthefiniteat all, butmerelyto setone finiteagainstitsother.One finitemerely
reappearsin another finite."Theprogression ofinfinity nevergetsfurther thana state-
mentofthecontradiction involvedinthefinite, viz.thatitis somewhat as wellas some-
whatelse.Itsetsup withendlessiteration thealternation betweenthesetwoterms, each
ofwhichcallsuptheother"[Hegel,Encyclopaedia137].Thisis the"wrongornegative
Hegelmakesa withering
infinity." comment onthosewhotrytograsptheinfinite char-
acterof,say,space or timeby following in thiswaytheendlessprogression of finite
quantities:

In theattempt tocontemplatesuchan infinite,ourthought, we are commonly

informed, mustsinkexhausted.It is trueindeedthatwe mustabandonthe
unending nothoweverbecausetheoccupationis toosublime,
contemplation,
butbecauseitis tootedious.It is tedioustoexpatiatein thecontemplation
of
thisinfinite becausethesame thingis constantly
progression, We
recurring.
laydowna limit:thenwepass it:nextwehavea limitoncemore,andso onfor
everAllthisis butsuperficial
alternation,whichneverleavestheregionofthe
finitebehind.[Encyclopaedia138]'

The "genuineinfinity,"bycontrast,does notsimplynegateone finitebyitsother,but

also negatesthatother.
By doingso, it"returns
to becomes
itself," self-related.
The true
doesnotsetup an abyssbetweena finite
infinity this-worldandan infinite
other-world.

1. Hegelmakesspecificuse ofhisdistinction
betweenthetrueand thefalse infinity
tocriti-
cize Fichte'sarguments
aboutthelegal and moralvalidityofa contract[see Hegel,Philosophy
ofRight
61].

diacriticsI winter1999 129

Rather, itexpressesthetruth ofthefinite, which,forHegel,is itsideality. It encapsu-
latesin itsidealitytheinfinite variability ofthe finite.
I havenotbrought upthisabstruse Hegelianpointmerely toobscurethedistinction
betweenunboundandboundserialities on whichAndersonhangshis argument about
theresidualgoodnessofnationalism andtheunrelieved nastiness ofethnicpolitics.On
thecontrary, I thinkHegel'sideaofthetrueinfinity is an exampleofthekindofuniver-
salistcriticalthought characteristic oftheEnlightenment thatAndersonis keento pre-
serve.Itis themarkofwhatis genuinely ethicalandindeed-I use thiswordinsincere
admiration-noble inhiswork.
Hegel'strueinfinity, as I said,is onlyan example.One willfindsimilarexamples
inKantor(atleastinthestandard readings)inMarx.Facedwiththeindubitable factsof
historical conflictandchange,theaspiration hereis to affirm an ethicaluniversalthat
doesnotdenythevariability ofhumanwantsandvaluesorcastthemasideas unworthy
or ephemeral butrather encompassesandintegrates themas therealhistorical ground
on whichthatethicaluniversal mustbe established. Muchphilosophical bloodwas spilt
inthenineteenth century overthequestionofwhether therewas an idealistanda mate-
rialistversionofthisaspiration and,ifso, whichwas themoretruthful. Few takethose
debatesseriouslyanymore.But as thesciencesand technologies of governmentality
havespreadtheirtentacles throughout thepopulatedworldinthetwentieth century, the
criticalphilosophical mindhas beentornby thequestionof ethicaluniversalism and
cultural relativism.Thegrowing strength ofanticolonial nationalist politicsinthemiddle
decadesof thiscentury contributed greatly to the recognition thisproblem,even
of
the
though very successes of nationalism may also have ledtothechimerical hopethat
theculturalconflicts weremerelythesuperficial signs of the of
production a richer,
moreuniversal, modernity. Decolonization, however, was soon followedbythecrisis
ofthethird-world state,and the culture wars became identified with chauvinism, ethnic
and
hatred, cynicallymanipulative corrupt and regimes. To all intents and purposes,
nationalism becameincurably contaminated byethnicpolitics.
BenAnderson hasrefused toacceptthisdiagnosis.He continues tobelievethatthe
politicsof nationalism and thatof ethnicity on
arise different sites,growon different
nutriments, travelthrough different networks, mobilizeon different sentiments, and
fightfordifferent causes.Butunlikemanyin theWestern academy,he has refusedto
soothetheliberalbad consciencewiththebalmof multiculturalism. He has also re-
mainedan outspoken criticofthehard-headed developmentalist ofthe"realist"school
whoserecipesforthird-world countries flowoutofa cynicaldoublestandard thatsays
"ethicsforus,economicsforthem."Anderson closesTheSpectreofComparisons with
an evocativelistingof someof theidealsand affective moments of nationalism and
remarks: "Thereis something ofvalueinall ofthis-strangeas itmayseem.... Eachin
a different butrelatedway showswhy,no matter whatcrimesa nation'sgovernment
commitsand itspassingcitizenry endorses,My Country is ultimately Good. In these
straitened millennial times,can suchGoodnessbe profitably discarded?"[368]. Ideal-
ist?I thinkthequestionis quitemeaningless, especiallysincewe knowthatAnderson,
morethananyoneelseinrecentyears,hasinspired thestudyofthematerial instruments
ofliterary andcultural production thatmadepossibletheimagining ofmodempolitical
communities invirtuallyeveryregionoftheworld.Romantic? Perhaps,butthenmuch
thatis good and noblein modemsocial thinking has beenpropelledbyromantic im-
pulses.Utopian?Yes.Andtherelies,I think, a majortheoretical andpoliticalproblem,
whichis also thechiefsourceofmydisagreement withAnderson.

130
 2

Thedominant strandofmodern historical thinking imaginesthesocialspaceofmoder-

nity as distributed in emptyhomogeneous time. A Marxistcouldcall thisthetimeof
capital. Anderson explicitlyadopts the formulation from WalterBenjaminandusesitto
brilliant effect inImaginedCommunities toshowthematerial possibilities oflargeanony-
moussocialities beingformed by the simultaneous experience reading dailynews-
of the
or the
paper following private lives of popular fictional characters. Itis thesamesimul-
taneity in
experienced emptyhomogeneous time that allows us to speakofthereality of
suchcategoriesofpoliticaleconomyas prices,wages,markets, andso on. Emptyho-
mogeneoustimeis thetimeof capital.Withinitsdomain,capitalallowsforno resis-
tancestoitsfreemovement. Whenitencounters an impediment, itthinks ithasencoun-
teredanothertime-somethingout of precapital,somethingthatbelongs to the
premodern. Suchresistances tocapital(ortomodernity) arealwaysthought ofas com-
ing out of humanity's past,something people shouldhave leftbehindbutsomehow
haven't.Butbyimagining capital(ormodernity) as an attribute oftimeitself, thisview
succeedsnotonlyinbranding theresistances to itas archaicandbackward, butalso in
securing forcapitalandmodernity their ultimate triumph, regardless ofwhatsomepeople
believeorhope,becauseafterall,as everyone knows,timedoes notstandstill.
Itwouldbe tiresome topileonexamplesofthissortofprogressive historicistthinking
becausetheyarestrewn all overthehistorical andsociologicalliterature ofat leastthe
lastcentury anda half.Letmecitehereoneexamplefroma Marxisthistorian whowas
justifiably celebrated forhis antireductionist viewofhistorical agency and who once
leda bitter attackagainsttheAlthusserian of
project writing "history without a subject."
In a famousessayon timeandwork-discipline in theeraofindustrial capitalism, E. P.
Thompsonspoke of the inevitability of workers everywhere having to shed their
precapitalist workhabits:"Without time-discipline we couldnothavetheinsistent en-
ergies of the industrialman; and whether thisdiscipline comes inthe form of Methodism,
orofStalinism, orofnationalism, itwillcometo thedeveloping world"[399].
I believeBen Andersonhas a similarviewof modernpoliticsas something that
belongstotheverycharacter ofthetimeinwhichwe nowlive.Itis futiletoparticipate
in,orsympathize with,oreventogivecredencetoefforts toresistitssway.InImagined
Communities, he wroteofthemodularforms ofnationalism developedintheAmericas,
in Europe,and in Russia whichthenbecameavailableforcopyby theanticolonial
nationalisms ofAsia andAfrica.In Spectre,he speaksoftenof "theremarkable plan-
etaryspread,notmerelyofnationalism, butofa profoundly standardized conception of
politics,in partby reflecting on theeverydaypractices, rootedin industrial material
civilization, thathavedisplacedthecosmosto makewayfortheworld"[29]. Such a
conception ofpoliticsrequiresan understanding oftheworldas one,so thata common
activity calledpoliticscan be seento be goingon everywhere. Politics,in thissense,
inhabits theemptyhomogeneous timeofmodernity.
I disagree.I believethisviewof modernity, or indeedof capital,is mistaken be-
cause itis one-sided.It looksat onlyone dimension ofthetime-space ofmodernlife.
Peoplecanonlyimaginethemselves inemptyhomogeneous time;theydo notliveinit.
Emptyhomogeneous timeis theutopiantimeofcapital.Itlinearly connects past,present,
and future, creatingthepossibility forall of thosehistoricist imaginings of identity,
nationhood, progress, andso onthatAnderson, along with others, havemade familiarto
us. Butemptyhomogeneous timeis notlocatedanywhere in realspace-it is utopian.
The realspace of modemlifeis a heterotopia (mydebtto MichelFoucaultshouldbe
obvious).Timehereis heterogeneous, unevenlydense.Here,evenindustrial workers
do notall internalize thework-discipline ofcapitalism, andmorecuriously, evenwhen

diacritics/winter1999 131
theydo,theydo notdo so in thesameway.Politicsheredoesnotmeanthesamething
to all people.To ignorethisis, I believe,to discardtherealfortheutopian.
Obviously, I can makemycase morepersuasively bypickingexamplesfromthe
postcolonial world. Foritis theremorethananywhere elseinthemodemworldthatone
could show,withalmosttheimmediacy of thepalpable,thepresenceof a denseand
heterogeneous time.In thoseplaces,one could showindustrial capitalistswaitingto
close a businessdeal becausetheyhadn'tyethad wordfromtheirrespective astrolo-
gers,orindustrial workers whowouldnottoucha newmachineuntilithadbeenconse-
cratedwithappropriate religiousrites,or voterswho could set fireto themselves to
mourn the defeat of theirfavorite leader, or ministers who openly boast of having se-
curedmorejobs forpeoplefromtheirownclanandhavingkepttheothersout.To call
thisthecopresenceof severaltimes-the timeof themodemand thetimesof the
premodern-isonlyto endorsetheutopianism ofWestern modernity. I prefertocall it
theheterogeneous timeofmodernity. Andtopushmypolemicalpointa littlefurther, I
willadd thatthepostcolonial worldoutsideWestern EuropeandNorthAmericaactu-
allyconstitutes mostofthepopulatedmodernworld.
Having said this,letme return toAnderson'sdistinction betweennationalism and
thepoliticsofethnicity. He agreesthatthe"boundserialities" ofgovernmentality can
createa senseofcommunity, whichis precisely whatthepoliticsofethnicidentity feeds
on.Butthissenseofcommunity is illusory.Intheserealandimagined censuses,"thanks
to capitalism,statemachineries, and mathematics, integral bodies become identical,
andthusseriallyaggregableas phantom communities." [Spectre44]. By contrast,the
"unboundserialities" of nationalism do not,one presumes, needto turnthefreeindi-
vidualmembers of thenationalcommunity intointegers. It can imaginethenationas
having existed in identicalform from the dawn of historical timetothepresent without
requiring a censuslike verificationof itsidentity. Itcan also the
experience simultaneity
oftheimagined collectivelifeofthenationwithout imposing rigidandarbitrary criteria
ofmembership. Can such"unbound serialities" existanywhere exceptinutopianspace?
To endorsethese"unboundserialities" whilerejecting the"bound"onesis,infact,
toimaginenationalism without modemgovernmentality. Whatmodernpoliticscan we
havethathas no truckwithcapitalism, statemachineries, ormathematics? Thehistori-
cal moment Andersonseemskeento preserveis themoment ofclassicalnationalism.
Referring totoday'spoliticsofethnicity intheUnitedStatesandotheroldnation-states,
he callsit(perhapsoverlooking thedeepmoralambivalence ofDostoyevsky's charac-
terizations)"a bastard Smerdyakov toclassicalnationalism's Dmitri Karamazov"[Spectre
71]. Whenhechastisesthe"long-distance nationalism" ofIrish-Americans forbeingso
outoftouchwiththe"real"Ireland,he ignoresthefactthat"Ireland"heretrulyexists
onlyin utopianspace,sincetherealspaceofthispoliticsis theheterotopia ofcontem-
porary American sociallife.
Anderson's posingoftheopposition between nationalism andethnicity canbe traced,
therefore, to the distinctionbetweenpopularsovereignty, enshrinedin classical
nationalism's equationofthepeoplewiththenation,andgovernmentality, whichreally
cameintoitsowninthesecondhalfofthetwentieth century. But how are we tounder-
standthisopposition? As an opposition betweenthegoodandthebad?Betweensome-
thingthatshouldbe preserved and something else to be abjured?Or shouldwe say,
following the course of modernity twentieth
capitalist in the century, thattheopposition
betweenpopularsovereignty andgovernmentality expresses a new set ofcontradictions
in a capitalistorderthatnowhas tomaintain classruleunderthegeneralconditions of
massdemocracy?
I believeitis no longerproductive to reassert theutopianpoliticsofclassicalna-
tionalism. Or rather, I do notbelieveitis an optionthatis availablefora theorist from

132
thepostcolonialworld.Let me endbycommenting on Anderson'sperspective
briefly
on comparisons.
AndersonbeginsTheSpectreof Comparisons witha reporton an experiencein
1963whenhe actedas an impromptu interpretera speechbySukarnoin whichthe
of
Indonesianpresident
praised Hitlerforbeingso "clever"in arousingthepatriotic
feel-
ingsof Germans bydepicting theidealsofnationalism.Anderson

felta kindofvertigo.For thefirsttimeinmyyounglifeI had beeninvitedto

see myEuropeas through an invertedtelescope.Sukarno. .. was perfectly
awareofthehorrors ofHitler's rule.But he seemedtoregardthesehorrors..
. withthebriskdistance
from which my schoolteachers hadspokenofGenghiz
the
Khan, Inquisition, or
Nero, Pizarro. It was fromnow
going be difficult
to
to
on think of "my"Hitler in theold way.[2]

This "doubledvision,"looking"as through an inverted telescope,"is whatAnderson,

borrowing fromJos6Rizal,so felicitously calls"thespectreofcomparisons." Itforced
himto lookat "his"Europeand"his"Hitleras through theeyesandmindofSukarno,
justas Sukamrno himself had learntto lookatEuropeas through theeyesandmindsof
hisDutchteachers. Thisis thecriticalanthropologist's vision,whichdoesnotshyaway
fromhavingto come to termswitha fundamental relativismof worldviews.Ben
Anderson'swork,includingall of theessayscontainedin thisbook,is a wonderful
exampleofthestruggle tograpplewiththisdoubledvision,carriedoutinhiscase with
acuteanalyticalskillandoutstanding intellectual andpoliticalintegrity.
WhatAnderson does notseemtorecognizeis thatas comparativists lookingupon
theworldinthetwentieth century,theperspective oftheIndonesian can neverbe sym-
metrical tothatoftheIrishman. One's comparative visionis notthemirror imageofthe
other's.To putitplainly,theuniversalism thatis availabletoAnderson tobe refinedand
enriched his
through anthropological practicecould never have been availableto Sukarno,
regardlessof thepoliticalpowerthelattermayhave wieldedas leaderof a major
postcolonial nation.The universalistidealthatbelongstoAnderson as partofthesame
inheritance thatallowshimtosay"myEurope"cancontinue toencompassitsothersas
itmovesfromoldernationalrigidities tonewercosmopolitan lifestyles.Forthosewho
cannotsay "myEurope,"thechoiceseemsto be to allow oneselfto be encompassed
withinglobalcosmopolitan hybriditiesor to relapseintohatefulethnicparticularities.
ForAnderson, andotherslikehim,upholding theuniversalism ofclassicalnationalism
is stillan ethicallylegitimate privilege.For those who now live in thepostcolonial
nationsfoundedby theBandunggeneration, charting a course that steersawayfrom
bothglobalcosmopolitanism and ethnicchauvinism meansnecessarily to dirtyone's
handsin thecomplicated businessofthepoliticsofgovemrnmentality. The asymmetries
producedand legitimized by theuniversalisms of classicalnationalism have notleft
roomforanyethically neatchoice.Eventhepatriotic absurdities ofdiasporiccommuni-
ties,whichAndersonso dislikes,will seem,by thisreckoning, less theexamplesof
perversenationalism andmorethoseofa failedcosmopolitanism.
At a recentmeetingin an Indianresearchinstitute, aftera distinguished panelof
academicsandpolicymakers hadbemoanedthedeclineofuniversalist idealsandmoral
valuesin nationallife,a Dalitactivistfromtheaudienceaskedwhyitwas thecase that
liberaland leftistintellectuals
wereso pessimistic aboutwherehistory was movingat
theendofthetwentieth century. As faras he couldsee,thelatterhalfofthetwentieth
century hadbeenthebrightest periodin theentirehistory oftheDalits,sincetheyhad
gottenridoftheworstsocialformsofuntouchability, mobilizedthemselves politically
as a community, andwerenowmakingstrategic allianceswithotheroppressedgroups

diacriticsI winter1999 133

inordertogeta shareofgovernmental power.All thiscouldhappenbecausethecondi-
tionsofmassdemocracy hadthrown openthebastionsofcasteprivilege toattackfrom
therepresentatives ofoppressedgroupsorganizedintoelectoralmajorities. The panel-
istsweresilencedbythisimpassioned intervention,although one ortwo could be heard
muttering something about the inevitablerecurrence of theTocquevillianproblem.I
cameawaypersuaded oncemorethatitis morally illegitimatetoupholdtheuniversalist
idealsof nationalism without simultaneously that
demanding thepoliticsspawnedby
governmentality an
be recognizedas equallylegitimate partoftherealtime-space of
themodern politicallifeofthenation.Without it,governmental technologies willcon-
tinuetoproliferate andserveas manipulable instruments ofclass rulein a globalcapi-
talistorder.By seekingtofindrealethicalspacesfortheiroperation, theincipient resis-
tancesto thatordermaybe allowedto inventnew termsof politicaljustice.As the
counterpoint towhatI believeis a one-sidedviewofcapitalist modernity heldbyAnder-
son,I continueto adheretoMarx'smethodological premise:

... capitaldrivesbeyondnationalbarriersandprejudicesas muchas beyond

natureworship,as well as all traditional,
confined,complacent, encrusted
satisfactionsofpresentneeds,and reproductions
ofold waysoflife....
Butfromthefact thatcapitalpositseverysuch limitas a barrierand
hencegetsideallybeyondit,itdoes notbyanymeansfollowthatithas really
overcomeit,and,sinceeverysuchbarriercontradicts itscharacter, itspro-
ductionmovesin contradictions whichare constantlyovercomebutjust as
constantlyposited.Furthermore. Theuniversality
towardswhichitirresistibly
strivesencounters barriersinitsownnature,whichwill,at a certainstageof
itsdevelopment, allowittobe recognized
as beingitself
thegreatestbarrierto
thistendency, and hence will drivetowardsits own suspension.[Marx,
Grundrisse 410]2

WORKS CITED
Anderson,Benedict. ImaginedCommunities: Reflectionson theOriginand Spreadof
Nationalism. London:Verso,1983.
. TheSpectreofComparisons: Nationalism,SoutheastAsia and theWorld.Lon-
don:Verso,1998.
Dipesh."TwoHistories
Chakrabarty, ofCapital."Provincializing
Europe:Postcolonial
Thought and HistoricalDifference. Princeton:Princeton
UP,forthcoming.
Hegel,G. W. F. EncyclopaediaofthePhilosophicalSciences.Part1. Trans.William
Wallace.Oxford:Clarendon,1975.
. Philosophy ofRight.Trans.T. M. Knox.London:OxfordUP, 1967.
Marx,Karl.Grundrisse. Trans.MartinNicolaus.Harmondsworth: Penguin,1973.
Thompson, E. P. "Time,Work-Discipline andIndustrialCapitalism."Customsin Com-
mon.London:Penguin,1991.352-403.

2. I amindebted
toa recentreading
ofDipeshChakrabarty's"TwoHistoriesofCapital"
whichremindedmeofthisaptcitation Marxas wellas ofthearticle
from byE. P Thompson
cited
earlier

134