Reading the book "Art and Psychoanalysis" by Maria Walsh on modern art criticism and philosophy, I encountered the words "heteropathic identification" and "idiopathic identification". Do they mean something like "external identification" and "internal identification" respectively?
Paragraph from the book:
Film theorist Kaja Silverman, writing about Isaac Julien’s film Looking for Langston, 1989, a black and white, fantasy-like recreation of high-society gay men during the Harlem Renaissance, discusses how the cinematographic lighting illuminates its protagonists in such a way as to generate an alternative mode of narcissistic identification, what she calls heteropathic identification and which operates by means of a kinetic shift towards bodies that are different from one’s own imaginary schema. This is opposed to idiopathic identification, which cannibalises the other so that the other fits into and is subjected to that imaginary schema. The former models the visual register on movement and shape, and thereby has the potential to generate alternative positions and subjects, whereas the latter becomes fixated on a static image of objectification which judges the other as either a successful or failed mirror reflection of the self. McQueen’s work could be seen as operating in the former register of heteropathic identification, a mode of address which is crucial to counter the fetishism of the scopic realm and to the continuance of addressing political issues in a current context where, as Jean Fisher says, ‘cultural marginality [is] no longer a problem of invisibility but one of excess visibility in terms of a reading of cultural difference that is too easily marketable.’