"In this graveyard our actions will never touch, will never become the conduits of a movement, if we remain permanently barricaded within prescribed identity categoriesour force will be dependent on the limited spaces of recognition built between us. Here we are at odds with one another socially, each of us: students, faculty, staff, homebums, activists, police, chancellors, administrators, bureaucrats, investors, politicians, faculty/ staff/ homebums/ activists/ police/ chancellors/ administrators/ bureaucrats/ investors/ politicians-to-be. That is, we are students, or students of color, or queer students of color, or faculty, or Philosophy Faculty, or Gender and Women Studies faculty, or we are custodians, or we are shift leaderseach with our own office, place, time, and given meaning. We form teams, clubs, fraternities, majors, departments, schools, unions, ideologies, identities, and subculturesand thankfully each group gets its own designated burial plot. Who doesn't participate in this graveyard? "
An interesting critique of identity politics that reminds me of Wendy Brown's work in States of Injury. It is hard to see the argument but I believe that is because the author is relying a theory that hasn't been made manifest. Sort of like if you were to say, "workers of the world unite" as a sign pointing at the body of Marx's work.
The paragraphs critiquing Liberal ideals also remind me of marx's Critique of the Gotha programme, as well as his denuciations of freedom of the press which Angela M once posted here. I can't find it in the archives at the moment though.
shag