With these words, the game was on. Quite entertaining it was, too, as we munched on chips and witnessed the thrust and parry of analytical debate regarding the extent to which national/ethnic markers are essential (or not) to identity. There was the personal test (it matters to girlfriends) and the literature test (programmatic and ideologic). “You’ll agree,” our friend would say, catching his Chair chuckle out of the corner of his eye, “or maybe you won’t,” he continued, eliciting laughter in the face of adversity.
How communicational is this thesis? Do the frames drive the data or does the data drive the frames? What is the data? Are the frames internal or external? Is there a mind or a discourse at work within the frames? Is there a cat under the bed? How about some soup on the table? Why not more rhetorical criticism? Couldn’t you have started with power? Descriptive or critical? Social science or humanities? Which came first, the “ism” or the “ness”? Tack back-and-forth, does it matter, what’s the heuristic, no I mean the other one, there’s an overlap no it’s a tension, separate the wheel geez what a bum deal aren’t you done yet what about resistance the counterpoint counterframe subversive deliberate debunk, we’re talking slam dunk! You’re excused from Bourdieu, hurry up “thank you”, what about stereotypes why do we need them can’t this be flattened “I quote not enough I know I quote” this is not specificity it’s a discourse of specificity. Large arguments loom worried about someone’s doom a metaphor no a metonymy what about methodology in the beginning was ideology. 200 pages “the longest confession” all to watch the paradox of a strong minor bridge use his smarts to wiggle out of anything orientalist although perhaps slightly balkanist western interlopers stymied by Mitica intercultural communication four years later what constitutes the elite?
Master Frodo. The limb hangs from a nation-like-a-family, under a father (damn good soup), identity as difference.