My Own Movement Prejudice

Right now I'm only half way through chapter 7 in The Art of Protest: Acting Up Against AIDS and I can already feel inspired by the ACT UP groups' passion and influence. At the same time I'm thinking about how I would have responded in those times, had I been older than 5 years old. Reed is discussing the advantages and disadvantages the group faced. The first disadvantage was that ACT UP was defending a group almost viewed as second-class citizens. The defendants were poor, minorities, gay (or lesbian), protitutes, drug users, you name it they fought for them. I think about the family and community I was raised in, even in the wake of liberal growth, and I wonder if I would have supported ACT UP. AIDS is bad. I learned that as a child, but were the people who got it bad? When the disease was stigmatized as a gay, or druggie, or prostitutes only sickness, I'm almost positive that I would have shunned away from supporters of those people. And I find that I have this attitude with a lot of protestors and movements now. Even things I agree with I walk faster in the opposite direciton. On campus there are booths and people handing out flyers, pamphlets, posters, and unless I force myself to walk up and listen, or I'm participating on my own, do I fully empathize and grasp what's being talked about. Looking up information and pictures on the ACT UP revolution, I know that they were hard to avoid. I think that, in that, there is art and inspiration.

Now further along in the chapter the semantics impact on AIDS brings on a new insight. There are certain words that will always make a divide in social relationships whether it is with one person or a whole group. Racial slurs (that need not be named), AIDS or HIV, homosexual, poor, alcoholic, all words except maybe prepositions are "infected with cultural assumptions" that affect how you feel about something automatically. Its as if there's a button that is pushed when some words are said. Our brain biologically recognizes the words and places them in the boxes they belong: immoral, funny, disgusting, acceptable. And from there relationships can change in one second. I think the same applies to images and groups of people. ACT UP alone (through the images I've seen) was on its own a formiddable "culturually infected" group that when mentioned (I'm sure at the time) or watched changed how someone felt whether in a postive or negative way.

I'm in a bind with the ACT UP methods however, like I or anybody could be with interpretation of art or organizantions' techniques. For something to reach me, and most people, it has to steal my attention, hold it, and make me think. Sometimes I need to be offended, or shocked, or sadded, or sickened, or so made to laugh. I need to be able to talk about it later, in a good way or a bad way. And while these things are necessary I can see how too much of something can turn people away. ACT UP targeted and probably embarrassed, insulted, and pissed off a lot of people. I'm glad they did this. It got attention and if bad publicity is still good publicity than its mission was accomplished regardless, but I can't help but think that maybe they would have gotten politcal, FDA, and media flies faster with honey than with vinegar. For some causes I see how you could get over one groups feelings for another cause's success. World hunger, war, and yes AIDS, need to be attacked but at the same time full force without balance can come back to bite you in butt. Immediate reward does not always equal long run gratification. And I think movements, and art, need to be eternal.

But in the end cultural infection is change and adaptation. Communities, goals, ideas, and beliefs change as much as the AIDS virus and only new forms of medicine and methods will succeed in healing our differences and the disease.