>But the defining characteristic of all of these relations is that they
>are forged in the realm of consumption. The relationship that cannot be
>so challenged in this theoretical approach is the relationship that
>underpins all the others, the relationship of Capital itself.
>
>We can see this blind spot in the writings of Judith Butler. For Butler
>identities are always unstable, never fixed:
>
>"If there is, as it were, always a compulsion to repeat, repetition
>never fully accomplishes identity. That there is a need for repetition
>at all is a sign that identity is not self-identical. It requires to be
>instituted again and again, which is to say that it runs the risk of
>being de-instituted at every interval" (1991: 645).
>
>But Butler’s desire to de-institute identity rests on an assumption that
>the surplus provides the basis for the experimentative performance of
>identity. In the next breath she asks, but fails to answer, the right
>question: ‘So what is this psychic excess, and what will constitute a
>subversive or de-instituting repetition? First it is necessary to
>consider that sexuality always exceeds any given performance,
>presentation, narrative...’ (1991: 645).
>
>The excess is simply there. It does not need to be explained. Like
>Georges Bataille’s erotic uselessness, Butler’s sexuality naturalises
>the surplus that makes it possible. This is a theory that assumes what
>it ought to explain, the excess, not relegate it to the theory-blind
>realm of always.
You're right that theorists who focus on identities formed around consumption rarely show much interest in how one's place in production constrains and shapes the possibilities of the other realms. But there's more than a little truth to the Butler bits you quote - people form their identities by playing with a set of possibilities they're presented with. The set of possibilities is too constrained, and constrained in ways Butler & Co. aren't very interested in investigating. Besides, to say that identity is a performance doesn't mean that every performer even knows s/he is drawing on scripts already written: I'd have thought that making that process explicit was a way to loosen some of the bonds of constraint.
And what about this surplus? In capitalist societies, that surplus is very unevenly distributed, and fucking-with-identity, or even thinking about it, is a marker of privilege. But wouldn't you like to see that privilege spread around a bit?
Doug