So this wasn’t what I was looking for, but when I came across this passage, it prompted a tangle of thoughts on the mushrooming fragmentation of obscure, specific identity labels.
We argue that the prevailing constructivist stance on identity – the attempt to “soften” the term, to acquit it of the charge of “essentialism” by stipulating that identities are constructed, fluid, and multiple – leaves us without a rationale for talking about “identities” at all and ill-equipped to examine the “hard” dynamics and essentialist claims of contemporary identity politics. “Soft” constructivism allows putative “identities” to proliferate. But as they proliferate, the term loses its analytical purchase. If identity is everywhere, it is nowhere. If it is fluid, how can we understand the ways in which self-understandings may harden, congeal, and crystallize? If it is constructed, how can we understand the sometimes coercive force of external identifications? If it is multiple, how do we understand the terrible singularity that is often striven for – and sometimes realized – by politicians seeking to transform mere categories into unitary and exclusive groups? How can we understand the power and pathos of identity politics?
Brubaker, Rogers, and Frederick Cooper. “Beyond ‘identity’.” Theory and society 29, no. 1 (2000): 1.
I’m not sure I agree with or even entirely understand what they’re saying there, but it does remind me… that while there’s no particular reason for me to oppose people giving names to the patterns they’ve noticed in themselves, I don’t want the ace community to direct its real focus anywhere but on the material impacts of amato/heteronormative societal structures & the medicalization of sexuality. I don’t want us to lose sight of criticizing overarching coercive forces in the name of nominal visibility and awareness. I want us to break these structures, not carve out additional spaces within them. And while we deserve to create the terms that help us make peace with ourselves, verbage alone does not interrogate what stole that peace to begin with.