Bellemare Disidentification
-
Upload
jaimebellemare -
Category
Documents
-
view
112 -
download
2
Transcript of Bellemare Disidentification
Jaime BellemareWGS 400 Final PaperMay 10, 2011
An Exploration of Munoz’s Disidentifications
INTRODUCTION
Disidentification is a strategy of survival and resistance, often utilized by queers of
color. Within dominant culture, minoritized bodies often go without representation
making it difficult to place oneself in history and community. By reworking these
dominant images, disidentification allows subjects to find a source of identity, and a space
to situate oneself to find social agency (Muñoz, 1).
This paper will explore disidentifications and disidentification theory as explained
by José Esteban Muñoz. In order to create a working definition of disidentification and its
uses I will examine the ways in which disidentification has been taken up by people in
particular social locations. Focusing on the intersections of race, gender and sexuality, I
will examine the ways in which subjects employ disidentification as a way to understand
identity in a culture that provides little representation for those outside of the
majoritarian sphere. In order to do this I will look closely at the examples used by Muñoz
and then find a contemporary image, which could possibly be taken up by queers of color
as a source of disidentification.
Considering the way that Muñoz places disidentification theory in relation to
social constructionism and essentialism, I will then carefully look at the limits of these
theoretical models and their application in daily life. In doing so, I hope to break the
binary relationship that is often created between social constructionist theory and
essentialism to show that disidentification works to fill a gap created by these two
popular theories.
WORKING TOWARD A DEFINITION
Disidentification is a way of survival, a means of resistance, and a strategy of
claiming identity. Muñoz writes, “Disidetification is meant to be descriptive of the
survival strategies the minority subject practices in order to negotiate a phobic
majoritatian public sphere that continuously elides or punishes the existence of subjects
who do not conform to the phantasm of normative citizenship” (Muñoz, 4). Breaking this
definition down, it seems that Muñoz is exploring how subjects who are not represented
in dominant culture are able to find representation and community that does not reiterate
negative stereotypes and assumptions created by the majority. For those who do not fit
within the normative identification space, disidentifying becomes an active way of
manipulating normative representations for one’s own use.
In a culture that actively works against and simultaneously ignores people of color
and queer identities, disidentification allows minoritized bodies the possibility to work
through the impossible dominant culture that is so clearly represented through art,
media, academia, public and political spheres. Muñoz represents disidentification as a
way for minoritized subjects to take up these dominant images and transfigure them as
sources of resistance and representation of queer bodies. Through these representations,
queers of color are given the tools needed to understand the “power and shame of
queerness” while imagining a world where “queer lives, politics and possibilities are
represented in their complexity.” (Muñoz, 4, 1).
This is not to say that disidentifying allows subjects to pick and choose from
sources of identification to find a representation that fits. It allows one to rework the
identification and accept the need for interjection without accepting the negative
components that one may associate with the identification source. Rather than identifying
with a dominant culture or attempting to break free from the pressures of such culture,
disidentification works to “transform a cultural logic from within” (Muñoz, 11). This
rethinking of identity allows minoritized subjects to empower their own identity, while
disempowering the belief that such identification is impossible (Muñoz, 31). This allows
for a progression toward social and structural change, while still understanding and
appreciating the everyday struggles that queer of color people face and the ways in which
resistance is employed. The every day recognition that one does not identify with the
dominant culture becomes a source of identifying.
INFLUENCING THEORY
Disidentiication utilizes a framework of identities-in-difference that Muñoz
borrows from Third World feminist and women of color, especially Chicana, theorists
who have “expanded identity, looking at the intersections of race” (Muñoz, 6). These
theories point to an agreement that an adequate theoretical framework and
representation to understand the intersectionality of identity has not yet been reached.
Through this negation emerges an understanding of identity that disidentifies with the
dominant culture creating a counterpublic space.
Cherríe Moraga and Gloría Anzaldúa’s This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by
Radical Women of Color plays an influential role in the workings of Muñoz. Bridge calls on
gender theory to look at the intersections of class, race, gender, sexuality, etc. creating a
disidentification with previous writings that focused solely on women collectively
identifying as female. In ignoring the complexity of identity, former writings created a
default representation of women as white, heterosexual, middle class, able bodied, etc
therefore not confronting white supremacy and heteronormativity (Muñoz, 26).
Disidentification, as explained by Muñoz, draws on “revisionary identification,” which
Muñoz explains as an effort to hold together different parts of identification that have
been typically viewed separately (Muñoz, 26). Through revisionary identification,
subjects are able to look at their social location in a new way that accounts for multiple
ways of viewing.
Muñoz also draws from Foucaldian theory in order to oppose “the conception of
power as being a fixed discourse” (Muñoz, 19). Disidentification relies on strategies of
resistance and negotiation between systems of power and oppression. Recognizing that
power is not stable gives room for subjects to disidentify and work against the structural
roots of dominant identification systems.
A RELATION TO PSYCHOANALYSIS
Many queer theorists do not take up psychoanalysis to examine the role it has
played in forming contemporary theories and methods of identification. For most
minoritized identities, psychoanalysis is a place of pain and frustration that offers little
insight into understanding identity. However, Muñoz discusses psychoanalysis and its
relation to disidentification theory, recognizing the important role that psychoanalysis
has played in many other theoretical models of identity.
Muñoz places disidentification as an argument with, but not a complete rejection
of, psychoanalytic studies (Muñoz, 12). In fact, Muñoz argues that one can have a
disidentificatory relationship with psychoanalytic theory. It is no secret that
pschoanalysis utilizes racism and homophobia in its exploration of identity through
desire. Psychoanalytic theory relies on the compulsory heterosexuality set in place by
Freud, which helps create a “false dichotomy between desire and identification” (Muñoz,
13). Disidentification, on the other hand, separates out desire and identification,
recognizing the possibilities of queer sexuality.
Using psychoanalysis, there is a reliance on subjects to assimilate or align with a
performed model; however, disidentification theory directly combats this creating room
for identification even when a performed model is not present or through an
identification of resistance (Muñoz, 7). In doing this, disidentification makes rooms for
queer bodies to exist outside of dominant gender constructions while psychoanalytic
constructions of gender identitification eliminates the possibility of transgenders.
Muñoz does recognize that disidentification and psychoanalytic theory both
examines the ways in which subjectivity is created in dominant cultural spaces in relation
to identity. In doing this, psychoanalysis suggests that identification is full with
possibilities of “incorporation, diminishment, inflation, threat, loss, reparation and
disabowal,” while disidentification equally recognizes the complexities that exist with
identification (Muñoz, 8).
WHY DISIDENTIFICATION
Individuals with privileged identities often have no need to work within and
around identity in order to live within majoritarian space. Although these subjects are
part of the culture that continuously pushes heteronormitivity, white supremacy and
misogyny; the way in which they identify often correlate with this system making it
unnecessary for these individuals to actively confront or resist such cultural forces in
order to find a place within society. Minoritized subjects, however, can utilize
disidentification in order to work toward building “counterpublic spheres” (Muñoz, 5).
For queer people of color, it may be necessary to work or resist within dominant culture
spaces. Disidentification allows for this negotiation to take place, utilizing socially
constructed images and roles in a way that creates identity outside of those boundaries.
Disidentification also offers an alternative to previous models that keep
individuals who are minoritized in multiple ways from accessing systems of identification.
Many cultural studies and theoretical models utilize a single-issue identity politic that
doesn’t account for the convergences of race, sexuality, gender etc. Disidentification
makes room for individuals to take up these systems of identification while negating
certain aspects and utilizing others. In this way, queers of color are able to form identity
in recognition that queer spaces have often ignored and intentionally left out people of
color. By recognizing the intersection of race and sexuality, disidentification theory
shows that it is necessary to discuss the ways in which multiple identities interact with
each other for all individuals and not just those who have marginalized identities.
Through disidentifying, subjects are also able to avoid assimilationist attitudes
without framing separatism as the only option to thrive outside of the dominant culture.
Separatism, while problematic, also relies on privilege and it not accessible for those who
do not have white privilege or class status (Muñoz, 14). It also helps maintain the
dominant social order. Therefore, the use of disidentification allows queers of color to
exist within dominant space, which already helps to challenge the privilege utilized by the
majoritiarian subject.
Disidentification also exists to fill the gap created by other methods of
identification. Queer theory has often utilized cross-identification which has been taken
up as being both useful and dangerous. Muñoz looks as the ways in which Eve Kosofsky
Sedgwick uses cross-identification as an example of non-normative identification, while
Judith Butler argues that crossing identity may result in erasure of what is considered
“dangerous” or “shameful” (Muñoz, 30). Disidentification responds to these two
viewpoints by filling in the middle ground. Muñoz puts forward disidentification as a way
to understand the power and need of non-normative identification forms, creating new
possibilities rather than losing objects of identification.
DISIDENTIFICATION IN ACTION
Muñoz utilizes many examples of disidentification in action in order to show the
numerous possibilities of how disidentifying can be used as a source of identity. Many of
these representations use disidentification as a “process of production and a mode of
performance” that is able to dismantle images of dominant culture (Muñoz, 25).
One of the examples that Muñoz focuses on most is James Baldwin’s
disidentification with Bette Davis. Baldwin, an African-American writer disidentified with
Davis, a white actress who he found to be beautiful in a non-normative way. Baldwin’s
disidentification with Davis was a survival strategy, in which he recognized that she was a
wealthy white woman, but found a certain pleasure in the fact that she did not fit the
image of what a white woman on television stereotypically should look like. Baldwin is
able to see that he is outside the identity of this woman, however, he describes her
movements as “just like a nigger” and uses this as way to position himself within the
image of Davis (Muñoz, 15).
One of the examples that I found most interesting and helpful to me as I was trying
to understand disidentification theory was that of gay men and opera divas (Muñoz, 30).
The self creation and performance strategies taken up by opera divas made them
important sources of disidentification pre-Stonewall (Muñoz,31). I found this example to
be particularly interesting, because Muñoz explains disidentification to be a performance
based concept, and it seemed that the subjects disidentified with the opera divas around
the sharing of that performance. It also seemed interesting because this is the one
example in which race was not actively discussed, which made me wonder what type of
day men were disidentifying with the opera divas.
In studying how identification and disidentication are taken up in film theory,
Manthia Diawara argues that the way in which bodies of color have been portrayed in
dominant cinema portrays people of color for the pleasure of white spectators (Muñoz,
28). Creating images that represent people of color fulfilling roles of white domesticity or
losing within a dominant white culture allows for the white audience to go without having
their white privilege threatened. An example of this can be seen in the portrayal of queer
men of color in the television series Noah’s Arc. While the series might work to close a
gap in the lack of queer people of color in mainstream media, it does so while portraying
queer men of color in a way that conforms to stereotypical assumptions typically
associated with white gay men. Noah’s Arc does little to explore the intersection of race,
gender and sexuality, but rather uses the bodies of black men to tell a story intended for a
white male audience while intentionally white washing experiences of queer men of color.
The show follows the lives of four African American men living in Los Angeles
mainly focusing on their personal romantic relationships. The show has been described
as a queer of color version of Sex in the City and it seems this comparison is fairly
accurate. The men, although different, all fulfill a cultural stereotype associated with gay
men and men of color. While Noah fulfills the effeminate gay male role, Alex is the loud
and obnoxious group leader, Ricky is hypersexualized and Chance plays the successful
and conservative family man. Many of these characters align themselves with
homonormative ideals set in place largely by the dominant culture or white queer
subculture.
Despite this problematic portrayal of queer men of color, it is possible that Noah’s
Arc could serve as a source for disidentification. In recognizing the influence of dominant
culture and whiteness on the way that these characters are portrayed, the minoritized
group can read between the “dominant text’s lines” to identify with the show while
actively resisting the way in which black characters are being taken up by white
domestication. Although the show rarely discusses the lived experience of what it means
to be a queer person of color in a phobic majoritarian space, Noah’s Arc still provides a
way for queer men of color to navigate through a dominant media that rarely represents
options of identity outside of the white, middle class, heterosexual man.
USE OF SPACE: MAKING THE PRIVATE PUBLIC
One of the concepts that I found most interesting in Muñoz’s exploration of
disidentification was the use of public versus private space. Muñoz discusses multiple
examples of disidentification in action, but some of these uses are taken up within the
privacy of one’s own self while others outwardly express their process of disidentifying.
As discussed earlier, there are limitations to the use of visible resistance because it places
one outside of the dominant culture in a way that may be recognizable to the majoritarian
sphere.
As Muñoz begins his introduction to disidentification theory, he explores Marga
Gomez’s performances; particularly Marga Gomez is Pretty Witty and Gay. In the show,
Gomez delivers a monologue from her bed, bringing the private queer bedroom into the
dominant public space (Muñoz, 1). In performing this queer of color identity within
public, Gomez creates a counterpublic space open to minoritized bodies.
Keeping with the example of Gomez, Muñoz looks specifically at one part of
Gomez’s performance in which the public is utilized in the private identification space. As
Gomez discusses a panel of lesbians on television, she disidentifies with the women,
recognizing the homophobic portrayal of the women, but desires for a queer world
(Muñoz, 34). Gomez is able to identify with the language of the queer women like the way
in which one woman flicks her tongue. While Gomez is able to understand the meaning of
this public action, it goes unnoticed except within her personal identity space.
Muñoz looks at the way in which politics of disidentification have been
represented through the video projects of Osa Hidalgo in which women of color are
celebrated and represented as having positions of power (Muñoz, 23). One of Hidalgo’s
films addresses the contrast between the public and private lives of two queer Chicana
archeologists (Muñoz, 23). In taking up a profession that is typically represented as a
being overpowered by white, male masculinity Hidalgo creates a disidentification
utilizing queer sex and sexuality to create a counterpublic space within dominant culture.
The private sexual act between the two women is seen on film as the public educational
archeology films are playing in the background. The contrast of the two images helps in
imagining a public sphere in which queer sexuality, particularly queer sex between two
women of color is no longer marginalized by dominant culture.
THEORETICAL MODELS: A PLACE FOR DISIDENTIFICATION
Muñoz’s study on disidentification theory is performed on the belief that both
social constructionism and essentialism are exhausted theories that over simplify the
ways in which bodies interact with dominant cultures (Muñoz, 5). Muñoz positions
disidentification theory as existing in addition to social constructionist theory, in order to
create a lens that is not “monocausal or monothematic” (Muñoz, 8). In doing this, Muñoz
uses an intersectional approach to create a model that takes into consideration how
multiple social identities and processes of identifying affect how bodies interact with
social construction. He is challenging the way that social constructionist theory often
reaffirms the socialization that forces us to see one identity at the expense of others.
Social constructionism is often positioned as the only alternative to essentialism
without taking into consideration the differences in how social identities are constructed.
Although social constructionism may work well for some bodies, it does not fit all people
equally. Social constructionist theory results in a push to resist conditions set in place by
dominant culture without recognizing the privileges around actively and visibly doing so.
This often assumes or relies on the subject having a singular minoritized identity. When
focusing solely on socially created identities, we forget to address the ways in which these
social constructions have been formed around oppressive notions of race, gender,
sexuality, etc.
Disidentification recognizes the power structures that have been socially created
and how they affect the identification of minoritized subjects. In this recognition, the
subject has room to make space for oneself within the culture of dominant social
constructions while actively resisting assimilation.
LIMITATIONS OF DISIDENTIFYING
Muñoz states early on that there are limitations to disidentifying and that
disidentifcation in not always an adequate strategy of resistance or survival. At times
resistance needs to be visible and direct, while other situations call for subjects to take up
conformist paths in order to protect personal well being and resources for survival.
Although subjects outside of the majoritarian sphere may utilize disidentification to
overcome obstacles that exist in the process of identifying, disidentifying still requires an
image or figure to use as the disidentification object. This is something that may not be
accessible to everyone in a way that disidentification can be taken up.
CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS
Muñoz’s representation of disidentification as a source of survival is clearly
displayed in the examples that he sets forth through Marga’s Bed, Baldwin’s writing,
Hidalgo’s film, This Bridge Called My Back, opera divas and multiple others. In these
representations the process of disidentification was never the same. How one
disidentifies does not rely solely on the identity that the subject posses, but also on the
source, and the interaction and relationship between the two.
Although I believe I now have a moderate understanding of the way in which
disidentification is taken up by minoritized subjects to navigate through dominant
culture, I do not fully understand all of the examples that Muñoz utilizes to show
disidentification in action. In particular I find the example of Baldwin’s “fictional” writing
difficult to understand. While I find the concept of using autobiography as rehearsal for
fiction to be interesting as a concept, when Muñoz begins to talk about Baldwin’s
disidentifcatory practices in relation to the understanding of genre I become lost. The
exploration of Just Above My Head makes me further understand the way in which
Baldwin utilizes his fiction as a way to create an image of the self. I believe it is this self as
represented within Baldwin’s writing that is disidentificatory, but I am left asking what is
the source of disidentification? Is there a resistance created? As Muñoz tries to clarify the
example through using the word song rather than fiction, I become more intrigued,
although more confused. I find the concept of disidentification to be explained in a way
that is easily comprehendible, although I find myself lost within its implementation at
times.
Muñoz often talks about disidentification as a means of resistance. I understand
this resistance to be the active recognition that one does not need to assimilate to the
dominant culture, although the subject may at times need to work within that dominant
framework. For example, legal systems within the United States require individuals to
place themselves in categories of identity, despite whether or not an individual feels
he/she/ze is able to fit within those terms. Disidentification allows for a negotiation to
take place that allows bodies to fulfill these requirements of law, while recognizing the
space that exists outside of this dominant identification system
I think one of the main uses of resistance that disidentification is able to allow is
within the realm of queer theory. White, privileged bodies have dominated queer theory,
often intentionally excluding queers of color. Disidentification would allow queers of
color the opportunity to work within some of the theoretical frameworks that have been
created in the white privileged space, while resisting the notion that the white queer
subculture is dominant and that white queer theorists were the original creators of many
of the theories they have taken from theorists of color.
Disidentification in a way allows for queer bodies to reject dominant culture as the
only valid option of existence. While social constructionism offers a way to understand
how dominant culture is created, it fails to help construct a way to actively work against
such constructions. While disidentification recognizes the complexities of such social
construction, it also gives minoritized bodies a way to move more freely trough
majoritarian spheres with the knowledge that this is a counterpublic space.