>Then why does everyone I know
>identify themselves as a unified, stable type--race, gender,
>religious affiliation, political affiliations, and so on? This is
>like that infuriating psychodynamic idea of repression--If the
>client says no, it must mean yes.
Not always. Depends on the question, the context, and the vehemence of the denial.
> The social fact is this: we
>are socially constrained to be unitary subjects.
That's what The Man wants us to be, but that doesn't mean we feel or think or act that way. People may profess identity of a "unified, stable type," but then you list 4 possible axes of identity. Push any of them, and people will wobble: race is very plastic, gender is notoriously at odds with biological sex, Catholics often practice contraception (and may even dabble in wicca), and what's stable or unitary about self-identifying as a Marxist?
Why don't more people rebel? Why do working class people say Bill Gates deserves his riches? Why do people believe in god? There's plenty of room for fantasy in politics.
Doug