> 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.
Well I've only just joined Hi Doug, Hi Tom, but I'd like to know who's being thrown around as exemplifying this failing of "identity theorists". If you don't mind back tracking a little, who (if anyone) is being referred to here?
> 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.
Your example seems an excellent one, and I can't wait to hear Doug's reply.
Catherine