“The reality is quite plain: the ‘end of the era of nationalism,’ so long prophesied, is not remotely in sight. Indeed, nation-ness is the most universally legitimate value in the political life of our time.” 

Imagined Communities grows out of Anderson’s attempt to explain the origin of the modern idea of the nation and the continuing appeal of nationalism in the late 20th century. Many nation-states find themselves increasingly contending with ‘sub-nationalisms’ within their political borders, while wars between Communist regimes such as the Peoples’ Republic of China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, have an undeniably nationalist basis. Marxism envisioned an international, classless, social order that would displace nationalism, yet it has been unable to account for the enduring influence of national identity and nationalism as political forces.

“Theorists of nationalism have often been perplexed, not to say irritated, by these three paradoxes: 1) the objective modernity of nations to the historian’s eye vs. their subjective antiquity in the eyes of nationalists. 2) The formal universality of nationality as a socio-cultural concept—in the modern world everyone can, should, will ‘have’ a nationality, as he or she ‘has’ a gender—vs. the irremediable particularity of its concrete manifestations, such that, by definition, ‘Greek’ nationality is sui generis. 3) The ‘political’ power of nationalisms vs. their philosophical poverty and even incoherence.”

Nationalism involves several significant contradictions, which have made it difficult to define and theorize. While the modern “nation-state” is a relatively recent historical development, nationalists perceive their nationality as ancient. Moreover, everyone has a national identity; thus, the idea of nationality is ubiquitous across the globe. However, each nationality is thought to be unique and to possess its own exclusive characteristics. Finally, nationalism as an idea and political reality has substantial power, yet what actually constitutes one’s nationality is murky and incoherent. Anderson believes that these paradoxes have caused academics to treat nationalism, somewhat contemptuously, as an “empty” concept and an unhealthy political reality.