From José Esteban Muñoz’s Disidentifications:
Identification, then, as Sedgwick explains, is never a simple project. Identifying with an object, person, lifestyle, history, political ideology, religious orientation, and so on, means also simultaneously and partially counteridentifying, as well as only partially identifying with different aspects of the social and psychic world.
Although the various processes of identification are fraught, those subjects who are hailed by more than one minority identity component have an especially arduous time of it. Subjects who are outside the purview of dominant public spheres encounter obstacles in enacting identifications. Minority identifications are often neglectful or antagonistic to other minoritarian positionalities. This is as true of different theoretical paradigms as it is of everyday ideologies” (p. 8)
In this passage Muñoz expresses the idea that individuals that belong to or can identify with multiple minority groups have a particularly difficult time discovering their identity or identifying themselves. Muñoz’s word choice, describing identification as not “a simple project” involving “various processes” in “enacting” it, complements this message by creating the sense that identification is not just a simple assigning or choosing of a label; instead, it is created by an individual through a multifaceted journey which requires work or effort to build and establish. Muñoz ascribes the difficulty of this process to the fact that identification with one group implies counteridentification with another, a complexity that is then further compounded by neglect or antagonism between different minority identifications. However, in his use of the word “hailed,” Muñoz indicates that individuals also cannot just ignore different aspects of their being for the sake of simplicity; rather, they experience a calling or pull towards each of their different identities and are thus pushed to juggle all of them in finding their complete identity. Altogether, such a description means that for a potential audience who is within “the purview of dominant public spheres,” Muñoz illuminates and encourages recognition of a struggle that they do not need to face and otherwise may have been unable to comprehend. However, Muñoz also serves an audience who can relate to this issue by validating their struggle, capturing the legitimate, convoluted reality which inherently frustrates their efforts.
Key: Identification is a process that requires effort as identifying with one group simultaneously implies counteridentifying with another. Identifying with any minority group may already be inherently difficult as it falls beyond the “dominant public spheres” which are more likely to be socially-accepted, but because minority identities in particular are often neglectful or antagonistic towards each other, it becomes even more difficult to find the necessary compromise in building one’s identity, for an individual may find that identifying with one group places them in a difficult, contradictory position if that group’s norms oppose another minority position that the individual is also connected to.
Lock: Muñoz specifically states that identifying with a group means “partially counteridentifying” along with “partially identifying with different aspects of the social and psychic world.” I’m not sure I completely understand what Muñoz means when he says “partially.” Is he suggesting that the traditional nature of identity groups is that they’re discrete, so an individual can only partially identify with a group at most? Or, does he mean that identity groups are overlapping, so in identifying with one group, an individual not only counteridentifies with another, but also inherently identifies with another group to some degree? Additionally, I’m not sure what he means when he refers to the “psychic world.”
Hi Emily!
Your entry put my exact thoughts, understanding, and questions about this piece. I think your way of understanding disidentification as a “multifaceted journey” is compelling and helpful- how one does not identify with one thing and then rejects another, but how they can carry various facets of the experiences they have lived. I also share your confusion with Muñoz’s claims that he does not clarify, such as what the “psychic world” can even represent.
In class, we discussed people’s aversion to reading difficult articles and how not all articles are for everyone. However, I believe that making such information accessible, especially if it’s crucial arguments that one wants to share with the world, is key to changing into a more understanding and compassionate society. When I read difficult articles like this, I frequently ask myself, how can we foster a more open-minded world if we cannot share our thoughts with all types of people necessary to move towards this change?
I am *so happy* you brought up the “complexity that is then further compounded by neglect or antagonism between different minority identifications” because this is such a compelling point and one I’m so glad you caught! Disidentification, as an ambivalent — or, multi-valent, or, “many trajectories” — process means that to disidentify involves seeing some parts of yourself and other parts either absent or present yet made abject by the narrative. How can we enjoy media when it presents parts of ourselves that it wants us to hate, or wants us to read negatively, to feel shame, or so on? I think this is what “partially” can lead us to — a recognition that when we encounter culture, symbols, language, representations of us, etc. we will always find some parts of ourselves there and some parts missing, and maybe the parts that are there are celebrated but the parts missing are represented negatively, or that the parts missing are celebrated for their absence and the parts present are treated violently within the narrative, and so on. We also taxonomize identity in a way that makes it feel like there’s almost 6 or 7 main or “real” (true, pure, etc.) categories that we all fall under, and I think it’s possible that Muñoz wants us to remember the depths of complexity when it comes to identity, or rather, that we aren’t a combination of 10 main identities but that what goes into our identity formation is both informed by the social and world around us, and by the personal — or the “psychic,” the interior of the self (at least I think that’s what he means here, because of his interest in psychoanalysis) — and that all of this happens in so many different partial, unpredictable ways and at so many immeasurable intensities at sporadic moments, that it’s impossible to say what exactly determines a person’s identity.
And Eileen, that is such an excellent point! If Muñoz’s argument can help us change for the better, why is it written in such an obfuscatory way? Part of the issue, I think, is just the actual genre of academic writing. Sometimes, the more seemingly impenetrable a text, the more it is glorified as some kind of brilliance, even if only accessible to an elite (whether or not it may actually be “brilliant”). This can sometimes create a market feedback loop of sorts — *if* those are the kinds of books that are published, then it’s likely others attempt to emulate that kind of difficult language. It’s definitely something I’d love for us all to talk about more — how forms and genre can limit what is possible for authors and texts, for instance, but can also enable us to think and write differently — how can we take these ideas and make them easier for everyone to know?