>We internalize the strictures of those who have
> power over us, because they're the foundation of our psychic
> cohesion. This is a rather conservative, and from my point of view
> pessimistic, analysis. I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary;
> obviously there are exceptions - people do resist, and revolutions do
> happen from time to time. But why isn't there more resistance and
> more revolution?
as i recall, isn't this process of forming a coherent subject always premised on a split and consequently its continuation as a (seemingly) coherent subject requires the constant re-assertion of such splits (or what then become divisions between 'us' and 'them', to put it too crudely...? to put it another way, isn't this process not only always contradictory but can only sustain itself through contradictions? ie., in the above it seems to me that you lay it out in a somewhat synchronic way: 'we internalise x as the foundation of cohesion', whereas i think butler and zizek are both dialecticians of sorts.
my short and crude answer to the last question would be that we need to focus on the ways in which coherent identity (specifically an acquiescent working class identity) is fashioned by way of those splits, at the 'levels' of psyche, labour process, the conditions of livelihood... none of which are easily separated into distinct levels in any case.
so then, perceptions of threat (to identity) are important to look at (which is why zizek talks about racism and nationalism) as is butler's compex siting of conservatism in the midst of rebellion in the midst of conservatism, though i confess to thinking butler is, in the end, a little too circular, probably confirming all of deleuze's complaints about the 'prison house of the idealist dialectic'.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au