Return vs. Fanon's Loop

I’m interested in Yamamoto’s discussion of the marginalized person’s response to the postmodern privileging of the fractured and multiple over the whole self. She points out that those who suffer fractionalization and disengagement from their identities as a condition of their experience do not have the same privilege of thinking themselves into this state as a theoretical project. “Marginalized subjectivity must somehow be grounded if it is to include both the possibilities of multiplicity and a sense of coherent functionality,” she writes (81). I’m intrigued by this idea of “being grounded,” as colloquial and abstract as the idea sounds. Yamamoto suggests also that this sense of “being grounded” is sought (although not exactly found) through Japanese Americans’ “necessity to return to [their] so-called roots,” since her homeland is what one writer calls “the fount of my strength, the guiding arrow to which I constantly refer before heading for a new direction,” (82). To me, this fraught but widely appealing approach to reconciling different identities resonates with Fanon’s examination of blackness (as) temporality and the “closed circuit” of a colonial past continually reasserting itself into the present. Could this idea of return provide a kind of foil to Fanon’s manic loop, an alternative project of reconciliation through which fragmented parts are acknowledged?