This seems important to say to establish some level of social credibility: I am mixed-race – I am a white/Caucasian person and a Latina/Cuban person. I look both white and brown – I pass in both directions. I have received both the privilege of whiteness (and subsequent shame) as well as the warm embrace of the LatinX community (and the suffering of not having). I have never fit along any polarity and have stopped trying to…

Nevertheless positions like the one described above always seem to accompany an opposition, forming an “us” and “them.” There is both the real polarity and the perception of it which tends to be responded to in a particular way. Once we have aligned on one side, there is a group of those who agree with these changes and a group who dares to question it. Even the first two comments after this post delineate this process of splitting. Chandra poses a poignant observation and it is immediately challenged without curiosity instead of reflected upon or played with. This response and others also felt to some degree like a condescension to any potential opposition or non-alignment: You disagree so let me explain to you why what you have said is invalid and explain my position better so I can make sure I am still right. This is aggression, albeit subtle. Subsequently, those who offer praise and align with this as a premise are not challenged. Play resumes only then in the form of following up about holidays, expansion to pronouns, and more praise. This is not inclusion. This is gratification of the insularity that acts as an unfortunate tag-along once certain ideals have been adopted. Only those in the most current “know” can be narcissistically gratified as the most “woke” and then exclude those who have not yet caught up. The splitting processes that are enacted around these changes (despite the fact that these alterations carry significant merit) risk casting out objects who have not “caught up” – objects that are then devalued and characterized as more primitive (or characterized as the evil colonizers in this case). We aggress on those who have aggressed, re-enacting painful traumas while drinking in the gratification of this libidinal aggression. As Ghandi said, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”

I wonder if this readiness to adopt the most “woke” term may act in part as a way of compensating for the shame of our own aggressive instincts and what is associated with whiteness. I have done this as well. I spent a great deal of time striving to be more culturally “aware” so I can compensate for my own white shame and blood of the colonizers… which only seems to fuel shame and inadvertently fragilize my Latinaness. I have come to reject the expectation that I will continually occupy an apologetic position for the grave errors of a society that has conditioned me. I now just try to be aware, to be kind, to do my best and put that out with me everywhere I go. I cannot constantly be troubled with whether or not it is current enough, or good enough for the narcissistic wounding of other people. Is this not where we try to bring many people through the process of therapy? Perhaps this is also what some are at least trying to verbalize when they stop and note resistance to certain changes.

My resistance with these alterations today has nothing to do with wanting to adopt the comforts of things the way they are or not wanting to change and stay nestled in familiarity. My perspective instead is one of significant uncertainty… the frustration and grief of having no one to punish… no one to shame for my pain… and no one to elevate myself above. I don’t know what the right term to adopt is, but I’m not sure it’s this one just because progressive society currently tells me it is. I do reject the idea that I must be told by the same society that hurt me what the correct way to make it right is. I do reject the placation of my own white shame and I do reject the inadvertent fragilization of my Latinaness. I will not be destroyed by the wrong word. This is my white shame and I need it. This is my Latina suffering and I need it. This is my human aggression and I need it. They are all parts of me that exist beyond the verbal mechanism available to express them. That seems the most worthy of consideration above semantics.

Thanks very much, Steve. Wishing you a happy holiday and fruitful New Year!

Rossanna

Hi Chaim,

Thanks very much — I am indeed looking forward to it! Happy Holidays !

Rossanna

Hi Susan,

Thank you for your comment. I have long been on a ‘cultural identity’ journey given that both of my parents are immigrants. For some time, I did not feel fully American, nor did I have a deep alliance to Central America since I never lived there. I agree that in the advent of change in our sociopolitical climate which is eliciting emerging social identities, there is an element of loss that is real as we have had some sense of object constancy, alliance and cultural assimilation as a first born immigrant. This is why David Eng’s paper on Racial Melancholia really resonated with my own lifelong experience in my evolving self-identity. I also agree with you that some do not want to shift the status quo and thus perpetuate racial/ethnic violence on the oppressed. My sense is that many are not even aware of their colonizing attitudes and behavior. Some people may have aligned with the term Latino as sense of belonging to a larger cultural collective after fleeing persecution, torture and violence in their homeland, such as in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico. The paradigm shift, especially for older generations like my father, it feels like a shock to the system, in particular in the realization of our internalized colonizer. I am holding that we are simultaneously colonized and colonizers, thus harder for people like my father to accept they have perpetuated violence on their own people.

Hope you are having a great holiday and very much appreciate your comment!

Saludos,
Rossanna

Hi Sandra,
sorry my reply came after Steve’s comment —

Hi Sandra,
Thank you for your comment. Indeed, I do remember the word Ms. since there is no Spanish equivalent for it. It is so ironic that Ms. was advocated by a feminist, presumably to assert a term to identify an unmarried woman. Men are only referred to as Mr. regardless of their marital status, while women are referred to as Miss, Ms. or Mrs. Patriarchy at the helm, indeed.

Thanks again for your comment, and wishing you a Happy Holiday !

*I meant terminology that may seem confusing/contradictory

I so appreciate your thoughtful and informative piece exploring the history and meaning of the use of “Latinx” in our socio-political and psychoanalytic lexicon, and the sharing of your own personal journey with self-identification.

As a bi-racial/white-presenting Latina myself, and one of an even older generation, I too have been examining my place in this world of shifting cultural identifications, inclusions, and the personal meaning-making involved. My Puerto Rican heritage shares that mix of Spanish Conquistador, Taino, and enslaved African blood, remnants of both the colonizer and the oppressed, as you reference here, and as Daniel Gaztambide also spoke to in his evocative presentation at the last Manhattan Institute colloquium. (Congratulations to the Race and Ethnicity Committee for coordinating such a wonderful offering to the community!)

I recall being on the elevator at the last Division 39 Spring Meeting and overhearing two older women commenting on the repeated requests for participants to use the terms she/he/they, etc., when identifying themselves, seemingly flummoxed and exasperated. This, of course, speaks to the challenges we all face with change in general, as well as the specific anxieties that arise when change involves the inclusion of Others. The fear of “losing” something in the process is yet another human, almost knee-jerk, reaction—one which you also described having in your struggle with this new term.

As we know, this reaction occurs even more so for those individuals feeling entitled to the comfort of having things “just be as they are,” while living in the higher rankings within our social stratification. Operating from a paradigm of scarcity is but one factor that continues to fuel such a reaction, a longstanding common belief that keeps us divided, harms our planet, and prohibits us from enjoying the “more” we can all share together in all our bountiful diversity. (OK…this is but one woman’s humble opinion.)

I’ve learned that there has been and probably always will be fluidity with our social meanings around race and ethnicity and that terms which include aspects or impacts of different historical and cultural factors have, in fact, had a significant impact on racial identity, consciousness, and politics—even when the racial discourse can become confusing or contradictory.

Change is the promise of our ever-evolving “beingness.” As I see it, it’s an exciting time for us all in our shifting identities and inclusions—despite the discomfort that might come with it. I share a sense of agency that comes with embracing my heritage more fully, recognizing all parts of myself—culturally, psychologically, socially. Your contribution here has enlightened my own developing understanding and transition with using Latinx, and it also reminds me how one can really have a felt sense of ownership when revising and reclaiming our familial/cultural stories, even if they still contain limits with our agency.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing more of your offerings— along with your fellow MIP colleagues and others who will be exploring these issues of intersectionality, identity and dynamics within our larger psychoanalytic community at the Division 39 Spring Meeting this upcoming March.

Saludos,

Susan Rios