>On Mon, 4 May 1998, Thomas Kruse wrote:
>
>> 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,
Hi Catherine.
>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?
It got started in reaction to a quote from our friend Judith Butler. But, further back, James Heartfield referred to unnamed i.d. theorists, and I was asking him to name some more names.
>> 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.
My first reaction is to say that's pretty cool. But my second reaction is to think of Burawoy's stuff on the games people play to get through factory work, and the similar games people play to get through school. The games may make the day-to-day experience tolerable, but they leave the intolerable situation unchanged. So, I guess I'm confused.
Doug