>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?
Is it always only a priviledge? I would be the last to distract attention from the all too real contstraints, which you rightly note many identity theorists just gloss over. But, however constrained certain folks (subject positions) may be, does this mean they don't think about or "play" the game? My experience would seem to suggest otherwise. One historical example from here: under the colonial regime, after the Toledan reforms more and more people jumped census (visita) categories from "indigenous" to "forastero", in an effort to avoid odious colonial head taxes and labor obligations. This was, if you will, an "everyday form of resistance" (as opposed to collective action, rebellion) that very definitly entialed what we might call a willful "fucking-with-identity".
I guess (muddling through here) the idea is this: In addressing identity issues, more effort must be put on addressing the constraints. And certain highfalutin "fuckings-with-identity" are most certainly the academic/intellectual equivalents of groomed toy poodles being led about by proud owners. But, at the same time I do see people, especially those very constrained, day to day doing some very astute thinking and negotiating of multiple possible identities.
Tom
Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242 Email: tkruse at albatros.cnb.net