“Veselija” Foreshadows the Triumph of Capitalism

In Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, the opening scene of the Lithuanian “veselija” comprises virtually all of the key elements of the text as a whole. The traditional concept of the veselija, as it was performed in the Lithuanian homeland, can be related to the Socialist aspects of The Jungle. The fact that “everyone contributes” and that “no one goes hungry” posits that everything is done for the collective good, an important tenet of Socialism. However, it is clear from the start of the novel that the more insidious aspects of Capitalism have already infiltrated the tradition of the veselija, placing importance on the individual's needs and the exploitation of opportunities like free food and drink at the wedding. The fact that many of the guests at the veselija do not contribute (because they cannot afford to, which is a direct result of the influence of the Capitalistic environment) reveals that their very traditions and “identities” have already been compromised. Of course, this sort of greed and exploitation is depicted as being a reality in Lithuania, as well; however, there is a vast gulf between the illusion of prosperity that is projected by the U.S. and the reality that this illusion is carried on the backs of millions of struggling and overworked individuals.
Unfortunately, the Socialist message delivered at the end of The Jungle is not quite convincing, especially to modern day readers. More importantly, it seems unrealistic to think that the traditional values that were a part of the veselija could be restored when they have already been so thoroughly corrupted from within by the Capitalist system.

Homosexuality as Political Identity

Homosexuals as a collective are set apart by the fact that they include “everybody.” As demonstrated in Anzaldua's Borderlands/La Frontera, individuals are comprised of a multiplicity of identitiesThere are gay, or “queer,” individuals of every race, gender, social class, religion, etc. Homosexuality represents such a multiplicity of identities, it seems like nonsense to reduce a person down to their sexual orientation. This is especially true when “sexual orientation” is a fluid concept in and of itself. Of course, this same idea of multiplicity can be applied to virtually any collective. Is it really possible to reduce someone down to their race (a term as fluid as sexuality), social class, religion, or anything else at all?
All of these identities carry weighty political implications as well. To "come out of the closet” is to assume a politicized identity. Opponents love to reference the “gay lifestyle,” but what is this supposed gay lifestyle exactly? Is a gay man who gets up in the morning, goes to work, comes home to do chores, watch TV, and goes` to bed living the “gay lifestyle?” Echoing Judith Butler’s article, “Imitation and Gender Subordination,” does it make any sense to say that a queer individual is “more queer” when they’re at Gay Pride than when they’re at Wal-Mart? It is true that we can “perform” our identity more overtly in certain spaces while downplaying it in others. Nevertheless, the fact that gay/lesbian/queer identified individuals encompass so many identities (Mother, Father, Son, Daughter, Black, Iranian, “White,” Jewish, Man, Woman, Transgendered, Activist, Humanitarian, Politician, Citizen, etc.) emphasizes the injustice of persecuting or marginalizing any individual simply because of their sexuality. No matter what stance a person takes on the issue of homosexuality, there’s no denying that discrimination against someone for one portion of who they are is discrimination against the individual as a whole.