Ciao!

You're reference to myth is timely. I was debating an issue on Steph's weblog recently having to do w/this issue. I may have been wrong; I wasn't familiar w/this theme, not being a political scientist.

thanks for the referred article. Ignites a few light bulbs.

"Imaginary" is not really synonymous with "myth," as I think this book makes clear.

Wade:

I wish you'd gone into more detail (merely citing a book gives me little to go by). Yes, "imaginary" is not purely equal w/ "myth" (otherwise, why have two words?). But "myths" are an essential part of "imaginaries" in the sense that a variety of collective myths make up part of what is a social imaginary. For example, the "Bolivian imaginary" contains a collection of different myths (e.g. the Chaco War). So. Synonymous? Perhaps not. But certainly closely related.

I think myths are narrative by definition--or, at least, much more obviously so. Also, "myth" is pejorative in a sense that "imaginary" isn't. It suggests some kind of illusion, one that a society might as well dispense with, whereas imaginaries are supposed to be basic to any society.

I think you're using only a limited definition of "myth" (that is, as some commonly shared, but "false" belief). In the sense that I'm using (and the sense that Anderson & other nationalism scholars use it), it tends to instead mean a commonly shared story -- particularly an origin story.

Again, in that sense, "myth" is part of an collective imaginary -- which contains one or more myths, as well as other commonly shared values, ideas, etc.

I understand that political theorists mean "myth" in a more neutral sense. The point I was more interested in making, and which you've already covered by now, was that imaginaries as a category are not limited to myths--the idea of human rights, for example, or of the rational economic actor, belong to some other kind of imaginary.

As for that link, I was just pointing out some interesting (and fairly new) reading material on the subject.