doomed to disappear anyway. In Habermas's
view, struggles for recognition between cultural groups take place
against the intimidating backdrop of the maelstrom of modernity.
Many traditional and rural ‘subcultures and lifeworlds’, he reminds
his readers, have vanished without a trace. ‘Those forms of life
were caught up and crushed in the process of modernization’, and he
the potential to be a strategy of resistance against
dominant paradigms of identity, particularly in relation to how performance art allows for a space in which queer Latina/o subcultures
can resist the racism and homophobia implicit in hegemonic norms.
As he puts it, ‘Disidentification is a strategy that resists a conception of power as being a fixed discourse. Disidentification negotiates
strategies of resistance within the flux of discourse and power’.48
As a strategy of resistance, disidentification does not function as a
counter-stance; that is, it is not a
. This was a departure from the farm as a lifestyle or sub-culture emphases of earlier frames. The ‘farming as a business’ frame was introduced by farm organizations (and government agencies) and used frequently by members of the National Party. 14 Comments by the then Minister for Primary Industry and Energy establish the general position: ‘I’ve made it quite plain that all farmers I think have to see their operations as a business’ (Anderson 1996).
This ideological innovation that farmers are not driven by lifestyle but by good business
‘meanings created by
and in communities are upsetting to the dominant culture precisely
because speaking in one’s own fashion is a means of resistance, a
strengthening of the subculture that has created the new meaning’.5
The concept of dissident vernaculars has currency both in the ways
in which Scofield engages with his identification as a two-spirited
person, and in my discussion of how this engagement can be linked
to questions of citizenship. In this vein, the notions of Patton’s dissident vernaculars and Holloway Sparks’ dissident citizenship bear