“Stuart: This is due to the way in which the relationship between identity and a political movement is articulated in the public discourse. It is assumed that each social movement connotes an identity which is itself fixed and secure so that if you are not in this camp you must be in that camp.” (77)
hooks and Hall, I think, rightly acknowledge that an identity formation or subject is a prerequisite to a proper political movement. Yet, they also explore the ways that the fluidity of identity — its social and historical contingencies — become essentialized when a movement is articulated in the public discourse. What accounts for this inability to articulate an identity formation to a political movement in a way that does not fix or essentialize?
Comments
Post a Comment