On pp. 4-5 of Wade’s introduction is the phrase “ambivalent sliding” among poles of, I think, enunciation. This is the section on Bhabha and I have to read that Bhabha piece. It is about the nation. My evoke-and-elide intuition is about seeing race but not discussing it, but “ambivalent sliding” is the more useful image, perhaps. Wade’s example of what Bhabha talks about is the simultaneous claim to a heterogeneously mixed nation and a nation of regions. It is not simply that the nation looks backward for origins and forward for progress; it is that the dominant classes need the heterogeneity they deny. This does in fact appear to be what I mean about evoking and then eliding difference. It is not that race is driven underground and returns again, it is that it is alluded to and elided on purpose.
I should look at Glissant here, perhaps; how is what he says different. I should see about the Deleuzian rhizome.
At the same time race and racial meaning(s), it must be remembered (and this is in Wade, although we also know it), is a process of racialization, always in process.
And all of this has to do with hegemony and that is something I must think about also. And Wade is using Gilroy as well. I should look at all of his references. He has gotten really sophisticated over the years and I am slightly envious but mostly I appreciate it.
(There is also a fascinating comment on music culture functioning like print culture in Anderson – as a way to forge group identities, but that is outside my scope.)