Gay-Consumer-Capitalism :: Essays Papers

Gay-Consumer- capitalismPolitics of a subject-action-object formula have meaningful terms insofar as the terms relate to each other. This holds at several levels beyond the strict sense that the triad requires trio parts. It can also be the case that the three parts are all expressions of one, or that all three are parts of some absent presence. In Nicola Fields criticism of a Queer Valentines Carnival in London in 1993, and of gay identity and lifestyle as bases for politics in general, a Marxist psychoanalysis reduces the subject and action to properties of the object against which they act. At this level, the theoretical move has little justification that the strategy employed at a lower level. However, fellow feeling an pedigree at this level opens the critical possibility of both disturbing the tendons holding together fixed relations to the object and exploring the ability of the object to soften the weight of the other two terms. I will deploy this criticism in the instance of Fields Over the Rainbow, specifically in individuation and the Lifestyle Market, but the argument presented therein exceeds the methodology I have identified and I intend to reinforce the constructive thinking that takes place, but still in the context of this paradigm for (counter)criticism. Fields argument in Identity and the Lifestyle Market simultaneously takes capitalism too naughtily and fails to take constructed identities seriously enough, but still raises significant points for political encounters with capitalism, (homosexual) oppression, and identity itself.To begin with, Fields argument runs a familiar Marxist programme from capitalism as historical or present source of all problems to a tool of politics (used against that problem) back to the tools association with capitalism. Capitalism causes oppression and identities of sexuality, thus using identities of sexuality endorses capitalism because it is from capitalism. The politics of identity are abou t bypassing the root of oppression and concentrating on the symptoms (Field 51). While the phrase roots of oppression does not appear in every paragraph, a reference to the real causes of the problem is woven through every significant political argument of the article. This strategically obfuscates what the problem really is by seeming to refer so much to it that Fields never elucidates a full understanding, except to hint those instances of oppression that support her arguments. What about cases of oppression, pain, and suffering other than workers exploitation?