Is exclusion (whether it takes sexist, ableist, racist, or other forms) necessary to nationalism according to Anderson and McClintock? How do their definitions of nation help you make sense of your own national community?
In my perspective, exclusion is necessary to nationalism. For Anderson, “The nation is an imagined political community — and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.” By saying this, it means that people in a nation have certain kinds of definition to define who would be a part of their nation and who would not. This is a kind of inclusion and exclusion. For McClintock, “All nationalisms are gendered, all are invented, and all are dangerous…in the sense of representing relations to political power and to the technologies of violence.” She defines nationalism by using the word “gendered” showing that she believes exclusion is a part of nationalism. I am not sure if I have read Anderson’s work before, but I totally agree with his definition of nation. I believe that people have kinds of imagination and definition for people in their nation. For me, a girl from China, it is impossible to meet every people in China since there are more than 1.4 billion Chinese. However, I do have my own definition of Chinese, which helps me not confuse American or Korean as Chinese. More than that, this definition and imagination of Chinese makes me have a sense of belonging and be proud of my identity. Even though there are many differences among us, but I do believe we are the same and we are united.