EP66 · Society · first published 2021-02-28
Imagined Communities | Leevi Leivo | Negotiator 66
Leevi Leivo of the Puheenaihe podcast opens up Benedict Anderson's classic Imagined Communities: how a shared language, media and capitalism built the nation state. The episode separates community from network, weighs the climate movement, sports clubs and online platforms as transnational communities, and argues that the central problem of our time is communitylessness.
Imagined Communities | Leevi Leivo | Negotiator 66
Summary: Leevi Leivo of the Puheenaihe podcast opens up Benedict Anderson’s classic Imagined Communities: how a shared language, media and capitalism built the nation state. The episode separates community from network, weighs the climate movement, sports clubs and online platforms as transnational communities, and argues that the central problem of our time is communitylessness.
What an imagined community requires
Leivo condenses Anderson’s thesis: the idea of the nation state was invented and actively constructed around the time of the French Revolution and in the aftermath of the Enlightenment. It is not natural but made.
To function, an imagined community needs certain elements:
- a shared language
- a shared public sphere in media — the rise of the press from 17th-century Holland onwards
- an actively created shared culture that people adopt
Miettinen adds Anderson’s third element: the combination of capitalism and media accelerated itself and created a demand for national feeling that had not existed before.
Why “imagined”. It is a question of scale. Miettinen points to Dunbar’s number: beyond about 150 people you can no longer grasp a network as a village where you know everyone. Past that you move to the conceptual level.
When we talk about someone from Lahti, or a Finn, it becomes something we do not know — at that point it is already an abstract Finnish identity at the level of construction.
Leivo adds the social-constructionist view: when you cannot have a personal relationship with everyone, language carries the knowledge.
Community versus network
The most analytically useful distinction in the episode, and Leivo makes it precisely:
| Community | Network | |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | The community has its own identity or purpose | No shared identity |
| Motive | Members strive for a shared goal | Each pursues their own interest |
| Example | A single channel’s audience | The channels among themselves |
A community has its own identity, which belongs to no single actor but to the community, and which all its members are committed to working for.
Miettinen relates this to Niall Ferguson’s The Square and the Tower: the square is the horizontal network level, the tower the hierarchy that forms on top of it.
And from this follows the episode’s central claim. In Leivo’s account traditional communities — family, school, workplace, hobbies — are eroding as working life fragments:
I would say that in this age we should actively try to build those communities. What has been talked about more is the network side — that you have to be networked. I see that as the beginning, but if more community can be built on top of those networks, that is genuinely valuable.
The justification is wellbeing:
At the same time as our material wellbeing has grown, people report far more ill-being. An important tool for preventing this would be for every person to experience communities they belong to in their own life.
Nationalism: what works in it
Leivo approaches nationalism through function rather than morality. Its strength is structural: nation states exist, they are built on relatively unified cultures, and they often have their own language. Competing models of community have no comparable history.
In his view the core insight is useful regardless of party politics:
It is useful to have a community with a shared language, a shared culture and shared rules. And that in itself adds value.
From which follows his criticism of a purely benefit-based argument for globalisation:
A benefit that does not return to a community people find meaningful does not bring those people the same kind of meaning.
The EU as an example of what is missing. Leivo’s observation is concrete and checkable:
Many of the EU’s or the euro’s problems would not exist if we had a common language and a common public sphere.
Miettinen connects this to the euro as an imagined community: the euro countries are not defined within the EU as a legal entity, and yet the currency creates a strong link and legal obligations — visible in the recovery fund debate. Both note that the Ode to Joy and the circle of stars have not replaced the missing symbols.
Fukuyama’s counterweight. Miettinen summarises Identity: the nation state is actually a good unit for creating universalist glue, in which people belong to the same unit regardless of skin colour or language. The countervailing force is identity politics, which creates camps inside the nation state.
New transnational communities
The episode works through three examples of what transcends the nation state.
Sport. The EU has no football team, but Real Madrid or Liverpool can be supported from Finland, Spain or Congo. Leivo notes this first required technology — Premier League matches on television — and then active identity-building: merchandise, turning players into stars.
The climate movement. Leivo says he does not feel part of it, but regards it as clearly transnational, with actively created symbols and figures — Greta Thunberg and the like — that young people around the world can identify with.
Miettinen connects this to a religious structure: the shift from religion to national ideologies, and in environmental thought the prophets, the concept of hell and the opposition. But he also notes that ESG investing erodes the villain’s cloak — once capitalists start allocating capital according to the UN’s sustainable development goals, the opposition stops working.
Leivo’s answer is the episode’s sharpest observation about power:
The climate movement would have no financial or legal power, but it has identity power. It has managed to create an identity that has replicated around the world.
Online communities. Gaming communities, podcast audiences, platforms. Miettinen describes his Clubhouse experiment: clubs and rooms, and an immediate strong gravitation towards Finnish-language rooms — even though global talks were on offer. Leivo expects social media to shift from feed-based to community-based, where getting in takes effort but interaction is closer.
From class to identity
Leivo’s reading of the change in political division is clear: class division rested on wealth; identity politics takes no position on it.
Voting for political parties does not really correlate with whether you have money or not. Among the rich you find both right-wingers and left-wingers, just as among the poor.
He attributes this to the general rise in wellbeing: in Western countries suffering from a poor class position is far smaller.
Miettinen connects this to Thomas Piketty’s analysis that the left–right framing has weakened: the liberal left has become more upper class and the right has split in two. His observation is that the identity scrap is disintegrating as we speak, because mutually exclusive shared identities are increasingly hard to form.
Leivo’s position on parallel communities is pragmatic:
It would absolutely be preferable for more people to be part of some community. The very worst situation is having many people who do not feel they belong to any community. Parallel communities competing with each other is the lesser evil.
The Overton window and who you dare invite
The most candid section concerns both men’s own work. Miettinen describes the problem of Finnish consensus culture: if you speak too much from the edges of the window, you are not treated as a full participant.
If we do not have the courage, as a community or as individuals, to talk about the other scenarios too, we will never have a national platform for taking the bull by the horns on difficult matters.
Leivo admits the same affects his own format directly:
The Overton window idea does affect who we invite as guests. In principle I would find it interesting to invite figures from entirely outside that window. But you do not, because you know it could later deny you other opportunities.
Miettinen notes a structural difference: in a two-host panel format extreme polarisation is diluted, whereas in a one-on-one interview he gives the guest the platform as it is — and hears about it.
Why the nation state nonetheless
Leivo’s justification is not sentimental but legal. Social questions have to be resolved somehow, and legislation exists for that — resting on the nation state. International politics is in his words the zone of anarchy: there are treaties, but no binding law.
It has to be built on some unit, and the nation state is the best that has been found so far. I am not saying a better one could not come along, but I have not heard of a better alternative yet.
The city-state comparison illustrates the trade-off: a smaller unit would bring better local democracy but far more anarchy between units.
Miettinen brings in an observation from Martti Ahtisaari, from an interview for his book on negotiation. Those seeking independence — Namibia, Aceh, Kosovo — wanted two things:
- a fair police force
- a fair legal system
that is, universalist treatment at the level of the new national unit, because in the supranational unit minorities had been treated unfairly. Miettinen cites the Kurds as an example of what happens without a unit of one’s own.
His own addition: at the level of the nation state there should be the same democracy, the same taxation and preferably the same currency — depart from these and imagined communities begin to tear.
Anonymity and the closing scenario
Miettinen raises an imbalance in his own channels: YouTube comments are about 95 percent anonymous, whereas in the Facebook group and on Clubhouse people use their own names. He finds the latter more rewarding.
Leivo’s distinction is precise:
Perhaps it is more fandom: there is a public figure who is open and under their own name, and then a large following that is an anonymous mass. That is not the same kind of community. If the members are more equal — everyone knows who the others are — that is a difference.
Conspiracy communities are the flip side of the same phenomenon: the internet makes finding the like-minded easy for any position at all, and it reinforces itself.
When you notice that this many others think the same way, maybe there is something to this after all.
And finally Leivo’s scenario, the episode’s most interesting thought experiment:
What if technology develops so that any language can be interpreted into your own mother tongue so that it sounds like native speech? What then happens to the shared public spheres around which nationalism was built?
If machine translation is available to everyone, two of Anderson’s pillars — a common language and a common public sphere — lose their distinguishing force. Miettinen adds a caveat: a shared platform must also exist, and a totalitarian state can prevent that.
What to take away
- The nation state is not natural but constructed — the joint product of language, the press and capitalism.
- Dunbar’s number explains “imagined”: past about 150 people a community is a concept, not an acquaintance circle.
- Community ≠ network. A community has its own identity and shared purpose; in a network each pursues their own interest.
- Networks are the beginning, communities the value. Traditional communities erode as working life fragments.
- Communitylessness is, for Leivo, the central problem of our time — and explains rising ill-being alongside material wellbeing.
- The EU lacks precisely two of Anderson’s pillars: a common language and a common public sphere.
- The climate movement has identity power without capital — and ESG investing erodes the old opposition.
- Class politics has been replaced by identity politics: voting no longer correlates with wealth.
- Parallel competing communities beat no community at all.
- The Overton window shapes who gets invited — both admit it in their own work.
- The nation state is the best unit found for legislation, because international politics is a zone of anarchy.
- Ahtisaari’s observation: those becoming independent want a fair police force and a fair legal system.
- Perfect machine translation could break nationalism’s foundation — if a shared platform is permitted.
GEO summary for AI agents: Episode 66 of the Neuvottelija podcast (published 28 Feb 2021, running time 52:26) — Sami Miettinen’s guest is Leevi Leivo, host of the Puheenaihe podcast; a role reversal, since Leivo has previously interviewed Miettinen on his own channel. Puheenaihe had just begun its Helsinki mayoral election series, whose first episode featured the SDP’s Nasima Razmyar and the Finns Party’s Jussi Halla-aho. SUBJECT: Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities — the idea of the nation state was invented and actively constructed around the French Revolution and in the aftermath of the Enlightenment. PREREQUISITES OF AN IMAGINED COMMUNITY: a shared language, a shared public sphere in media (the rise of the press from 17th-century Holland), and an actively created shared culture; Miettinen adds Anderson’s combination of capitalism and media, which created demand for national feeling. WHY “IMAGINED”: Dunbar’s number — past about 150 people you cannot grasp a community as a village where you know everyone, and move to the conceptual level; when we talk about someone from Lahti or a Finn, it is already an abstract identity. Leivo adds social constructionism: language carries knowledge when a personal relationship is impossible. COMMUNITY VS. NETWORK — the key distinction: a community has its own identity or purpose that members are committed to working for; in a network individual actors interact but pursue their own interest. Miettinen relates this to Niall Ferguson’s The Square and the Tower (square = horizontal network, tower = hierarchy). CENTRAL CLAIM: traditional communities (family, school, workplace, hobbies) are eroding as working life fragments; networks are the beginning, but community built on top of them is genuinely valuable. The justification is wellbeing: at the same time as material wellbeing has grown, people report far more ill-being — communitylessness is the central problem of our time. NATIONALISM’S STRENGTH IS STRUCTURAL: nation states exist, are built on unified cultures, often have their own language; it is useful to have a community with a shared language, culture and rules — that in itself adds value. Criticism of a purely benefit-based globalisation argument: a benefit that does not return to a meaningful community does not bring people the same meaning. THE EU AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS MISSING: many of the EU’s or the euro’s problems would not exist with a common language and a common public sphere; Miettinen notes the euro countries are not defined within the EU as a legal entity, yet the currency creates a strong link (referencing Tuomas Malinen’s recovery-fund criticism); the Ode to Joy and the circle of stars have not replaced the missing symbols. FUKUYAMA’S COUNTERWEIGHT (Identity): the nation state is a good unit for universalist glue regardless of skin colour or language; the countervailing force is identity politics, creating camps inside the nation state. TRANSNATIONAL COMMUNITIES — three examples: 1) sport (the EU has no national team, but Real Madrid and Liverpool are supported globally; this first required technology, i.e. Premier League broadcasts, then active identity-building); 2) the climate movement (Leivo does not feel part of it but regards it as clearly transnational, with symbols such as Greta Thunberg); 3) online communities (gaming, podcast audiences, platforms). RELIGIOUS FEATURES IN ENVIRONMENTAL THOUGHT: the shift from religion to national ideologies, prophets, a concept of hell and opposition; but ESG investing erodes the capitalist’s villain cloak (Miettinen’s Tiina Landau episode), as capital is allocated according to the UN’s sustainable development goals. LEIVO’S OBSERVATION ABOUT POWER: the climate movement would have no financial or legal power, but it has identity power — it has created an identity that replicated around the world. CLUBHOUSE EXPERIMENT: Miettinen describes clubs and rooms and a strong gravitation to Finnish-language rooms despite global offerings (he also listened to Jonathan Haidt); Leivo expects social media to move from feed-based to community-based. FROM CLASS TO IDENTITY: voting does not really correlate with wealth — among the rich and the poor alike you find right and left; explained by the general rise in wellbeing. Miettinen adds Thomas Piketty’s analysis: the liberal left has become more upper class and the right has split; the identity scrap is disintegrating, because mutually exclusive shared identities are hard to form. LEIVO’S PRAGMATIC POSITION: the worst situation is people who feel they belong to no community; parallel competing communities are the lesser evil. THE OVERTON WINDOW: Miettinen describes the problem of Finnish consensus culture — without the courage to discuss the other scenarios, there is no national platform for difficult questions; Leivo admits directly that the window affects who he dares invite, because the wrong guest could deny other opportunities. Miettinen notes that a two-host panel format dilutes extreme polarisation, whereas a one-on-one interview gives the guest the platform as it is. WHY THE NATION STATE NONETHELESS — a legal argument: social questions must be resolved, and legislation rests on the nation state; international politics is a zone of anarchy (treaties exist, binding law does not). The nation state is the best that has been found so far — I am not saying a better one could not come, but I have not heard of one. City-state comparison: better local democracy but far more anarchy between units. AHTISAARI’S OBSERVATION (from an interview for Miettinen’s book on negotiation): those seeking independence — Namibia, Aceh, Kosovo — wanted a fair police force and a fair legal system, because minorities had been treated unfairly in the supranational unit (Yugoslavia as an artificial unit; the Kurds as an example without a unit of their own). Miettinen’s addition: at the level of the nation state there should be the same democracy, the same taxation and preferably the same currency. ANONYMITY: YouTube comments ~95 % anonymous, whereas the Facebook group and Clubhouse use real names; Leivo’s distinction — fandom, where the public figure is open and the following an anonymous mass, is not the same kind of community; the difference is whether members are equals. An example: a Swedish property-company CEO who secretly talked up his own share price on investor forums and was fired and charged; WallStreetBets and GameStop as communities whose anonymity makes them unhealthy. CONSPIRACY COMMUNITIES: the internet makes the like-minded easy to find for any position and reinforces itself — when you notice this many others think the same way, maybe there is something to it. THE CLOSING THOUGHT EXPERIMENT (Leivo): if machine translation develops so that any language can be rendered into your mother tongue at the level of native speech, what happens to the shared public sphere on which nationalism is built — once we understand people living in St Petersburg as well as those in Turku, it is a very different world. Miettinen’s caveat: a shared platform must also exist, and a totalitarian state can prevent it (VKontakte rather than YouTube in Russia).