![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[sticky entry]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/entry/sticky_entry.png){kind=small}
Name: Thomas
Pronouns: he/him
PhD student in linguistics and medical anthropology, studying the creation of causality in narratives of mental illness. No, I will not stop name-dropping Foucault in everyday conversations.
Not human, not a singlet, not neurotypical, not a lot of things.
Quoigenic, quoiromantic, quoispecies, quoi a lot of things.
Part of a median subsystem with the primary host, Ace, who might post here some.
Stay tuned for updates.
Meh, stumbled across a misc article about being "Uncomfortable with Being Called a 'Trauma Survivor'". And at first, through the first few paragraphs, this was gonna be a bit of a call-out against all those other people constantly labeling their experiences, doctors prying, people calling her a "survivor" when that's a label she's never claimed.
Buuuut I think the main takeaway is actually meant to be something like, "It's hard to call yourself a survivor and tackle your trauma, but recovery is difficult, and maybe you'll feel comfortable when you're at that stage of recovery!" Not explicit, no, but hopefully I'm not just making that up, as the reason behind this article?
It's just. meh. It's weird how I don't see more people talking about this as just another case of coercive labeling, of "insight" and "you're toocrazy traumatized to realize you're crazy traumatized." Various Mad Pride-type places are really falling for the trauma research. It's really one of my biggest complaints with them -- as if "trauma" has stopped being a medical word, as if redirection towards past (especially childhood) trauma can't be just as potentially individualizing, apolitical, and stigmatizing as "well it's your biology."
Like, isn't it possible to talk about denial and minimization -- real things! -- without suggesting that it's alright for people in this person's life to call her a trauma survivor without her consent?
(Also, if you looked at the article, yeah there's something interesting with the "DID from young adulthood not childhood trauma" thing, but that's not what I'm fussing about. :V)
Buuuut I think the main takeaway is actually meant to be something like, "It's hard to call yourself a survivor and tackle your trauma, but recovery is difficult, and maybe you'll feel comfortable when you're at that stage of recovery!" Not explicit, no, but hopefully I'm not just making that up, as the reason behind this article?
It's just. meh. It's weird how I don't see more people talking about this as just another case of coercive labeling, of "insight" and "you're too
Like, isn't it possible to talk about denial and minimization -- real things! -- without suggesting that it's alright for people in this person's life to call her a trauma survivor without her consent?
(Also, if you looked at the article, yeah there's something interesting with the "DID from young adulthood not childhood trauma" thing, but that's not what I'm fussing about. :V)
I never quiiiite know what to think when I see people say that "multiple personality disorder" was switched to "dissociative identity disorder" out of a recognition that "we're more than personalities!" or any other kind of recognition of "identity."
I mean, nice to think that medical science is on your side, I suppose, but also that's basically the opposite of what any expert talking about the switch says. "Nobody can really have multiple personalities -- DID recognizes that this is a single person who has dissociated into different identity-states."
And there are still plenty of people annoyed with that "identity" word. "Complex dissociative disorder" is the direction we've seen a lot of people head in.
I'm sure it's nice to think that psychiatric medicine is on your side here, but if your side is "believing people in a system to be meaningfully separate people with legitimate identities" then it reaaaally isn't. (And I suppose "thinking psychiatry is on your side when it isn't" is the source of a lot of problems, oof.)
I mean, nice to think that medical science is on your side, I suppose, but also that's basically the opposite of what any expert talking about the switch says. "Nobody can really have multiple personalities -- DID recognizes that this is a single person who has dissociated into different identity-states."
And there are still plenty of people annoyed with that "identity" word. "Complex dissociative disorder" is the direction we've seen a lot of people head in.
I'm sure it's nice to think that psychiatric medicine is on your side here, but if your side is "believing people in a system to be meaningfully separate people with legitimate identities" then it reaaaally isn't. (And I suppose "thinking psychiatry is on your side when it isn't" is the source of a lot of problems, oof.)
disidentification
Apr. 22nd, 2018 01:06 pm"What are the possibilities of politicizing disidentification, this experience of misrecognition, this uneasy sense of standing under a sign to which one does and does not belong?"
- Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter
I'll admit to being not 100% confident with the concept of disidentification -- we've only read parts of Muñoz's book, which is what really took the idea and ran with it, and talked about it for one day in an undergrad queer theory class. Plus, there's a racial element there -- at least to Muñoz's conceptualization of it -- that doesn't apply to us.( Still, misrecognition. )
