Here is the only slightly bewildering part of the whole book:
However it does not follow that the subject will engage with contingency in a more authentic way because of this confrontation (with contingency of social relations). In using the term authenticity we simply aim to capture a subject’s generalized sensitivity or attentiveness to the always-already dislocated character of existing social relations, wherein creativity and surprise are accorded prominent roles. But this implies that an inauthentic response to a dislocation is also possible. We call the authentic response ethical, and the inauthentic response ideological… the radical contingency of social reality and identity can be acknowledged and tarried with, or it can be denied and concealed. To what extent do subjects engage authentically with the radical contingency of social relations (where the ethical dimension is foregrounded)? 111
Dislocation serves as a device for articulating their fundamental ontological postulate — the radical contingency of social relations. And Dislocation allows GH to develop 2 dimensions ethical/ideological in which to characterize aspects of a practice or regime. 111