Can you tell me any flaws or false assertion made by the essayists in the book Nation and Narration, edited by Homi K. Bhabha?
As with much of postcolonial theory, there are a some serious limitations to the ideas set forth in the essays in Nation and Narration, edited by Homi K. Bhabha. Perhaps the greatest flaw is that it tends to offer up sweeping generalizations about the concept of nationhood, often without precise analysis of either the historical and linguistic characteristics of the term. Often setting up straw man arguments about the nature of the "Enlightenment", it tends to define itself as an oppositional discourse, often not seeking to understand the model it so blithely dismisses. Although there are many important insights about the ways colonial powers imposed artificial boundaries on the colonized nations, and created origin myths to justify them, it neglects some of the factors that led European countries to evolve notions of nationhood, in particular resistance to the hegemony of the Roman Catholic Church; both Gallicism in France and the English Reformation were grounded in this.