I don't think you could characterize my position as one of being an 'ardent fan of Walter Benn Michaels'. I mentioned in my first post here on the subject that I found both the manner and content of some of his articles problematic. I also clearly don't think that we are headed for a post-racial capitalism. Rather, I posited a position that focuses on the shifting nature of the relationship between capitalism and racialization where it becomes possible for the bourgeoisie to both push racialization and anti-racism and that this contradictory position needs to be further analyzed and understood. My only debt to WBM is in the fact that he gets people talking (sometimes past each other) and thinking. I myself have shifted my position considerably since the debates around his work have surfaced.
Not sure if you meant to but you seem to be arguing that history and culture can be reduced to consumption, or at least, my rejection of consumption (not what I said by the way) means that I also reject history and culture in total. Come on, this is an extreme misrepresentation and reduction, unless you really do believe that history and culture are simply consumption.
Consumption research that tries to connect class positions to consumption patterns is the specific analysis that I was disparaging. I think that in contemporary capitalism it is the actual way that people can purchase beyond their class location that makes neoliberal ideology so strong. We have the success of things like iphones, starbucks and cruise lines, which can give average income people extremely bourgeois experiences. Sure, maybe one can connect consumption patterns to voting but I think we all have major critiques of the shoe-horn effect of a two party system, such as it is. Thus, it is not clear to me how in contemporary US society one can deduce much at all from consumption patterns. However, like I said I am open to being convinced that I am wrong. Is this manly man politics?
Brad