![]() ![]() The inclusion of the “Other” category is somewhat unintentional because it does make it seem vague, but I think it’s only to highlight the fact that since everyone has to be something, if one didn’t fit in any of the given categories, then they were thrown into “Other” just to keep the census “organized”. To answer the first part of your second question, Anderson definitely believed that it was limiting in the sense that census makers had a passion for completeness and unambiguity, meaning that everyone can only be one thing, but they must all be something. ![]() Is Anderson suggesting that these consensus-makers are both too limiting and too vague? Is Anderson recommending the use cosmographs rather than maps? Is any specificity or division acceptable to Anderson and to what extent? ![]() How do Anderson’s imagined communities/nations differ from and relate to Said’s imagined geographies?Ģ. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |