The implication of this method is parallel to the postmodern argument for the benevolent acceptance of immigrants and embracement of diversity--the condescension to change in the ethnic composition of a society with no necessary change of the socioeconomic strata. The author argues for equality, but, by focusing on ethnicity, fails to discuss the foundations of that very equality. To my question on the absence of class antagonism in his essay, the author apologetically responded, accepting that the economic was intimately related to race and gender, that "we cannot lose sight of class issues." In his paper, however, we cannot lose sight of their absence.
Frye Jacobson has argued that the Right and the Left are at odds on the politics of diversity, and both use (as we have seen) the multiculturalist rhetoric to further their own objectives. However, the appreciation of this antagonism is an a posteriori of the "ideological displacement." If the Right and the Left struggle on the multiculturalist terrain, then there is no place for the discussion of socioeconomic inequality--there is a fight indeed, but the battlefield is on the right. So despite the appearance of political antagonism, has the Left not lost already?