TFW you have a monthly podcast due out in two days that hasn't been recorded yet.
So back to Lacan... he argued that signifiers (all language) create meaning because they are contextualized by other signifiers. That's important because class as a concept only exists in context of other concepts. There is something terrifyingly authoritarian about such a rejection of Lacan.
Post-colonialist Gordon writes about the way white Marxism can try to ignore whiteness as a commodity... this perspective ignores history, and we can't afford ahistoricism.
It is possible for post-Marxists to consider the intersections of race, gender, sexual identity, class. Check out some Peter McLaren. Or the way Marxist philosophy was retooled by the Black Consciousness movement in South Africa.
Which... okay... but it's really only possible for cishet white men to imagine a world where class is the only identity to the degree that they don't think identity is even a legitimate factor for collective political action? Yes? No? I'm not trying to essentialize anyone's experiences, even those cishet white dudes.
We are so steeped in the idea of individualism that even the fucking Marxists don't want to understand the way our identities exist in the context of the institutions that bound the social world...
Heard about people shitting on Lacan and "identity politics" yesterday. Now I cannot stop thinking about how we think about identity in the US...