'Affinity Groups' as a dialectical shift of simulacrum

I am very interested in Haraway's call for a reconstitution of the ways in which we organize ourselves as an act of political transgression - and moreover, recentering of the marginalized in postmodern space. Haraway encourages us to name the fictionalization of the 'identities' to which we currently cling as our social markers, then to move past these constructed delineations. In calling for an oppositional unity constituted by "affinity, not identity" (p. 154), she is asking us to reposition ourselves against history, to bring forward that which has been systemically neglected.

This, I would argue (as, I imagine, would Haraway), is an inherently postmodern project: by seeking to shake the original antecedent qualifiers of 'race', 'gender', etc. Haraway is essentially working WITH the state of simulacrum, exploiting our short-term memory for the articulation of a new political self. In the postmodernist critique of simulacra, 'race' for instance, is exemplary. Currently understood as a 'natural' division of humanity, the delineations of 'race' were instead development as a highly politicized intentional constructions of hierarchies during the 'Enlightenment'. But we, as a general postmodern public, are unable to make sense of this derivation given the centrality of seeming non-fictional role of 'race' in our 21st century experience. Haraway is calling for a sort of dialectical shift of just this sort of categorization. If 'race' and 'gender' are fictional labels whose process of fictionalization have been washed out of our cultural memory, then let us recreate the ways we label ourselves. Let us call attention to the historical politicization of social categories by engaging new categories that are inherently political.

...The question then becomes, what does this look like? The 'women of color' example is perfect - using the labels already in place, new language can redraw the lines of social order around a new sort inclusiveness. Again, we return to the conversation of imagination: how, in the space of the postmodern overstimulation, can we break through to imagine for ourselves an alternative politics that centers around the experience of previously-named 'marginality' and, as Haraway calls for, turns the existing simulacrum into a necessarily abandoned referent?

Haraway identifies a problem inherent in previous feminisms: that they construct their revolutionary subject by inserting a subject constituted by oppression into Western ontological systems – cf. the creepy result of swapping ‘labor’ with ‘women’ and ‘alienation’ with ‘objectification’. Haraway’s alternative is to disintegrate the subject by swapping ‘identity’ with ‘affinity’. I understand affinity basically as partial identification with multiple identities. My first question is whether or not this is correct. My second question is what positive goals these affinity-subjects could share – is the statement “insist on noise and advocate pollution” a goal or a prediction for cyborg politics?

To address your second question: the question of exactly what cyborg politics will look like, and even better, what specifically might the projects of such a political community would look like, is one that I find to be particularly interesting. Since the cyborg is such a total re-imagining of identity heavily colored by the problems of domination (which i saw to be equated with totalization) through informatics and the legacy of the fractures within current feminist theory, it would make sense to me to see cyborg politics as just as radical a shift with parallels to both situations. The move from totalization and synthesis through subordination to a method of knowing that can deal with radical, unhierarchicized, difference sounds like a post-structuralist project, and just as I think this plays out in the ontology of the cyborg, I would expect it to play out in the political arena as well. I wonder how this would work, but I would expect a radical re-drawing of the lines and flow of power that stressed locality; instead of the drive for a universal, subordinating law, the push instead for a set of translations between language games. I see the phrase "insist on noise and advocate pollution" as a call for actions that challenge and thwart notions of totalization: noise is one of the greatest problems for totalizing informational systems like C3I. What do other people think?