While I don’t believe a “heterofamilial, upwardly-mobile
good-life fantasy” to be inherently destructive itself, I agree the idea of it
as an exclusive archetype to be a crippling one. More importantly, that we
devote so much to maintaining the perception
or even illusion of this fantasy and its core tenants—wealth, beauty, etc. etc.—reinforces
[a theorist whose name escapes me]’s idea that the signifier and signified
getting so far removed from the referent that our idea of reality is real to us
but not real in substance.
This statement is problematic in (1) presuming
the availability of the luxury of time to indulge in such pursuits across the
99% (or my statement is problematic in reflecting that prioritizing the project
is completely out of bounds) and (2) framing our existence in this as a prison
sentence with no hint of parole. With the precariats robbed of the legacy of
the past’s relevance—factory jobs and the social mobility that came with them
by such safe, conventional routes is not coming back—we’re stuck looking into
the future, we’re stuck with only half of what Andersen identified as a key
focal point for imagined communities. Trying to build the material repertoire for
that future without the underlying reflexive toolkit makes a potentially
hospitable area atrociously alientating, until we’re uncomfortable even within
(and as perpetuated by) ourselves.
Celebrating the opportunity to get to the core
of what matters versus chastising the masses for where they are now would be a
great first step.
No comments:
Post a Comment