Quick viewing(Text Mode)

AIDS and Social Reality in The

AIDS and Social Reality in The

CEU eTD Collection

In partialIn fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in AIDS and Social Realityin AIDS the 80s: Social and A Phenomenological Analysis A Phenomenological Second Reader:Dr. HadleyZ. Department of Gender Studies Central EuropeanCentral University Supervisor:Dr.Eszter Critical Budapest,Hungary Nikolett Submitted to Gender Studies 201 By

Kormos 4

Timár

Renkin

CEU eTD Collection gay losttemporarily agency. theget back to interpreted attempts be as dominant can discourses the to answers („reflected‖) section this In overcome. experien PWAs how AIDS with living differences the on emphasis specific put I section, this In disease‖. „gay or plague‖ „gay the as media mainstream the by defined be could AIDS how so and basis, ideological discussed previously the on engendered were subject to regard specific with heteronormative a of framework phenomenological the provide membe as and subjects, as men gay affected discourses these how that out point to , same the at and discourses, dominant the of background the in mechanisms ideological the explore to is aim specific Its 80s. the in crisis AIDS the examines thesis This how one should think about such an ideology in terms of , social vision, and and vision, social consciousness, of terms in ideology an such about think should one how - omto. hn I xmn hw h dom the how examine I Then, formation. –

PWAs), as it was implied by the dominant discourse. Finally, I examine I Finally, discourse. dominant the by implied was it as PWAs), e s „us as ce , I argue that both conservative gay („unreflected‖), and activist gay activist and („unreflected‖), gay conservative both that argue I ,

- bet cud result could object‖

between „we‖ („general population‖) and „they‖ (people „they‖ and population‖) („general „we‖ between Abstract i

nn AD dsore (eia, media) (medical, discourses AIDS inant n a sh gay in

m, n hw hs hm was shame this how and ame, rs of a group. At first, I first, At group. a of rs

CEU eTD Collection Bibliography Conclusion III. Shame, Gay Moralizing, and : Who Looks at II.Phenomenologycal The Mapping Early of HIV/AIDS Discourses I. Introduction Table Content of

Heteronormative Ideology andNatural the Why Phenomenology? Gay AnswersGay toCrisis: the Activismvs. ShameGay an“Us HomophobicThe ofAIDS the Crisis “generalThe population”, and the Social Aboutthe Ideologically Influenced Social Vision The PhenomeThe - sexual Subjects and Objects intheHeteronormative System

......

......

...... - object” nological Working Heteronormative of Ideology

......

......

...... “We - subject” ......

...... ii ......

......

......

......

...... Who?

......

......

......

......

62 60 51 41 40 36 27 22 21 14

9 5 5 2 1

CEU eTD Collection working the ―we‖, ideology. the heteronormative Through ―I‖, and of the interrogating how also I sexuality, century twentieth the of the in period crucial a analyze I while twofold: is thesis this of aim The position. ―reflected‖ understand be can only argue, I as which, the of working powerful the demonstrate Great (US, western thesis, this In throug produced), re dominantly to (therefore, discourses dominant these transcend to possible is it how demonstrate to attempt also after I view, of point Connectedly, process. dynamic a and in the reconstructing maintained and/or engendered, are all so and around), way other the and other, the influences (one interrelated tightly are reality social ― between distinction the that seems it Indeed, socialreality.result, a as and , social influenced highly argue, will I as relations, which ―they‖ and ―we‖ power the in embedded be to seems question this answering AIDS with living people apprehend to ba th behind relations in an provide to but afterwards, happened what and crisis the ofbasis the on ideasnew create necessarilynotto although, is, here Myintention to. anchored new where now point reference crucial of reality social The Introduction sis of this thesis, is that what that is thesis, this of sis

fe all, after h dmnn dsore. ht ws neetd n ad o ht ie the gives what so and in, interested was I What discourses. dominant e ―

reflection - the the rti) IS icuss i te 0. oe rcsl, wn to want I precisely, More 80s. the in discourses, AIDS Britain) aaye power analyze I AIDS fet o te oiat icuss fo a phenomenological a from discourses, dominant the of effects ”

crisis .

those elements of the dominant discourses were that allowed that were discourses dominant the of elements those

in the 80s was a frightening phenomenon frightening a was 80s the in

(PWAs) - - interpret the framework within which they were were they which within framework the interpret eain a te wr ebde i te dominant the in embedded were they as relations da aot ls, ae gne ad e cn be can sex and gender race, class, about eeoomtv social heteronormative – 1

we‖ and ―they‖, the social perception, and the and perception, social the ―they‖, and we‖

as the victims of the ―gay plague‖. The key of key The plague‖. ―gay the of victims the as and so its consequences defeated defeated consequences its so and want to demonstrate the important elements important the demonstrate to want - depth analysis about the power the about analysis depth - tutrd eain between relations structured perception

then a working a ; – , and is a is and ,

rm a from -

CEU eTD Collection highlight best can psychology, and between approach an as here phenomenology, co am I because thesis my in perspective phenomenological a use to decided I Phenomenology?Why dominant the to reactions uncritical or discourses. critical as men) gay by (produced discourses social taken the create discourses heteronormative society, a of individuals the all by known are discourses dominant the (since discourses dominant ca discourses alternative that assumption the is abstraction the for main the Therefore, engendered. be could discourses alternative points starting as shame) gay the notably, (most consequences its and t use I thesis, my of end the at because, important is abstraction This role. leading the plays logic (heteronormative) certain one which in analysis abstract more to impossible is it discourses the of diversity the of interrelatedness the to due course, of sexuality.Since, gender or race, class, as such aspects, several AIDS about discourses the by influenced the be will point starting my now, by clear is it As working the of terms in understanding clearer a get to hope I therefore, engendered, were discourses AIDS dominant the of elements ideological the how Throughhighlighting framework. critical gener more provide to want also I crisis, AIDS the throughout interrelatedly and dynamically constructed were ―they‖ the - eul xsec) At ). sexual of heteronormative ideology,moreinof general.

deal only with one one with only deal dominant

ee diverse were al viewpoints that are merged into a certain (phenomenological) certain a into merged are that viewpoints al

h ed f y thesis my of end the

dooy i ti cs, eeoomtvt) Altho heteronormativity). case, this (in ideology –

even if that if even –

n s they so and 2 n be best understood from their relation to the to relation their from understood best be n

– is the dominant one dominant the is hr I ny deal only I here , ,

dominant discourse dominant criticized as gv acut aot alternative about accounts give also I -

for - rne bss f h individuals‘ the of basis granted

h dmnn discourse dominant the

ih their with he dominant discourses dominant he –

, I need to carry out a out carry to need I

nrlto o which to relation in ;

a discourse that is that discourse a

eeecs to references nvinced that nvinced ugh

from from

the the

CEU eTD Collection explorationssuchthat is withproblem significant most the that claims She . writing(alternative) in experience Scot Joan here quote me Let howchange andgaineddiscourses, canbe viareflected perception. taken describe is (that consciousness of levels the study which with phenomenology apply I therefore, and Here, shaped. be discourses can discourses by shaped is perception which that or way this bodi individual by inhibited as realm social the take I self). discourse, ideology, between relation interrelated and crucial the - for how - rne fr h idvdas hw niiul‘ ecpin s nlecd y these by influenced is perception individuals‘ how individuals, the for granted (1991:777 cause and origin, subjects, of notions its of and operate, they how and fixed mean categories these as what about premises its identities), immutable black/white man/woman, its (homosexual/heterosexual, itself, system ideological the of workings the of examination critical precludes visible experience [T] (…) world. the in act and see constitutes who subjects it ways what in and how operates, it how explorin established, of way a than rather difference, of aside. structured is vision sub how about experience, of constructed the about (q)uestions

and and jects are constituted as different in the first place, about how one's one's how about place, first the in different as constituted are jects The of experience then becomes evidence for the the for evidence becomes then experience of evidence The why -

778). 778). the content and perspective of the dominant discourses can be seen as seen be can discourses dominant the of perspective and content the

t‘s insightful thoughts about the problem of the (marginalized) the of problem the about thoughts insightful t‘s - about language (or discourse) and history and discourse) (or language about

always a consciousness consciousness a always 3

aeois f representation of categories es that perceive the social realm in realm social the perceive that es hw ifrne is difference how g he project of making making of project he of body and – something)

as an analytical tool to tool analytical an as - are left left are

("including" the ("including" –

in order to order in CEU eTD Collection certain aspect so critical are These on. focus to want I what of terms in crucial as considered I that those out selected I which among from sources secondary on based is it it crisis, analyzed the of time the at present not was I Since that ideology. heteronormative were of these terms in of viewpoint All reflected a . me higher provided in spent I years the and read, have I that texts texts existing the to due analysis this implement only can I that so, do to me requires also thinking phenomenological and mention, to important is it Finally, ―look‖ subject The crisis. AIDS the of time the at vision social individuals‘ shaped ideology how of understanding an ideology; heteronormative of working the tounderstand attempt thesis my in offer I What same. the sense, some in are, and abstraction how happening, was what exactly of awareness increased an served analysis cultural critical Similarly, too. bodies, to practice, in it proved UP ACT pointe Crimp as art, activist Activism, situation. given the activism) (cultural socially handle to how and out analysis) (cultural point geographically to how on emphasis bigger a were there understandably, situation, current that shapi the in discourse and representation of role huge the recognized in discourses AIDS dominant the about analyses critical culturally the Although by claimeditswas estab s of apprehension and vision the influences this of all how and realm, social the in operate representation‖ of ―categories the and system, of aim The –

as a viewpointastheinworld a

my analysis is just to explore ―how difference is established‖, how the ideological the how established‖, is difference ―how explore to just is analysis my hwvr i a ytm f phenomenological of system a is however, , s

tha t hastbeen maketo strongon able a effect me lisher,Husserl,an asexamination had

the potential to save lives (1988) and so it was connected was it so and (1988) lives save to potential the –

playsleadingthisin arole thesis, ubjectivities. Phenomenology ubjectivities. is important to be aware that my about knowledge mythat aware be to important is 4

d out rightfully, and as the famous works of works famous the as and rightfully, out d

ofthe osdrtos hc ivle an involve which considerations . urces, therefore, they embody they therefore, urces,

foundations

on the topic, other critical other topic, the on ng of , in reality, social of ng from thebeginning.from

wil . l serve l

here t

e 80s he and its and , as it as ,

CEU eTD Collection the of sphere the within a that anything which in world the of ―knowing‖ of process certain a to refers attitude natural work, his In . key the of one was attitude natural phenomenology, of framework the established he when Husserl, For Heteronormativ discourse.dominantthe by mirrored distinction “we/they” the of understanding later the for crucial be will that too; subject of terms in vision social of significance the see to able be will one chapter th Moreover, disease”. “gay a as AIDS of construction the to leaded discourses media and medical dominant the of vision social influenced ideologically the how in mechanisms ideological themselves. in role I therefore, sexu social the how construe to want I Finally, apprehended. be can vision social ideological consciousness of levels different the to referring mostly terms, phenomenological in described be can ideology its how and het how highlight later to is my framework this of which role The in fit. analysis framework phenomenological a provide to is chapter this of aim The l self al

I. the

subject

s osrce throug constructed is nrdc h rca wrig of working crucial the introduce working relates to individuals. to relates working n em o te olwn catr, hs hpe i t hl t apprehe to help to is chapter this chapters, following the of terms In The Phenomenological Working of Heteronormative Heteronormative Working of Phenomenological The , e Ideology and the NaturalandIdeologytheAttitude e

first construed by Hu by construed first - omto, n i idvdas rltos ih te idvdas n with and individuals other with relations individuals' in and formation,

familiar the the background of the dominant AIDS discourses; more precisely, more discourses; AIDS dominant the of background

(Husserl 1969: 16). Natural attitude does not allow us to see, see, to us allow not does attitude Natural 16). 1969: (Husserl te dooia sca vso. n hs at subchapter, last this In vision. social ideological the h ppears as a(n)(new) object is (unconsciously) interpreted interpreted (unconsciously) is object a(n)(new) as ppears sserl. Secondly, I attempt to give a basis on which the which on basis a give to attempt I Secondly, sserl.

At first, I intend to examine how heteronormative how examine to intend I first, At

5 Ideology ideological social vision as it as vision social ideological

eronormative ideology works, ideology eronormative rough the content of this of content the rough

plays a leading a plays - formation, d the nd - CEU eTD Collection intentionality 1995 (Husserl us‖ toaccessible become actsstraightforward thelevel, new a belongingto grasping as acts alone, the from etc., purposing, valuing, predicating, remembering, the between differentiation Husserl‘s that say also can One just hidden is ideology attitude. natural the in unperceivable is things, at looking of way Ma phenomena. abstract more other, also but objects tangible for valid only not is attitude natural our by influenced objects of knowing of process This ―perceivingsimply,objectway aninvolvesa that2006:27).of object‖ apprehending (Ahmed meaning. a it give to order in world my within object unknown hitherto certain, that of place the understand to want will I indeed, world; the about knowledge prior my by ther if even that therefore, means, It 9). (2006: home‖ leave we when home, as and home at space occupy we how or means, home what learn we way, a ―[i]n it: puts Ahmed As indifferent. famil my place within its find will I ―facing‖, am I object of kind what see cannot I glance first at if Even seesasobject itanus objectbut anthat has as its world. characteristics our in wall. the on paint to tool a as two a by apprehended characteristics the from differ likely, will, apprehend I characteristics Its object. in lipstick a as it see will I know. I function its to related are they as properties its only are, they as properties its perceive not will I attitude, natural the to embedde objects perceive terms, general more in or, e are hitherto unknown objects to know, my process of knowing them will be influenced be will them knowing of process my know, to objects unknown hitherto are e - d in our already known world. If I see, for instance, a lipstick on the table, according table, the on lipstick a instance, for see, I If world. known already our in d year

- f u consciousness our of old. While I will probably see it as a tool to color my lips, the child may see it see may child the lips, my color to tool a as it see probably will I While old. a wrd i wl b a ojc wih lk o ht, r hc lae me leaves which or hate, or like I which object an be will it world: iar 11] 3) Ti dfeetain rspoe ta w rcgie the recognize we that presupposes differentiation This 33). [1913]: by

the natural attitude. The way it is hidden can be best understood by understood best be can hidden is it way The attitude. natural the What is common, though, in our apprehension is that neither of neither that is apprehension our in though, common, is What –

that it is always a consciousness consciousness a always is it that ―‘ tagtowrl‟ executed straightforwardly‟ as they are they as 6

but rather as they are are they as rather but instream ideology, as a general a as ideology, instream reflections

use (in my mind), not as an an as not mind), my (in use

rsig perceiving, grasping

of by means of which of means by something (ibid). (ibid). something

related to related

Putting it it Putting

and

CEU eTD Collection per we direction the So etc. us to next is what us, before is defines us what direction this bodythe isfacing: Sexual directions. other some face not body the If 2006:15)others‖(Ahmedduetradition;traditionthan to socialas aspaceof the familiar. being by followed are and followed being by created both are Lines (…) upon. walked being by effect an as us before only is it but us, before is it as path the on walk we „[s]o familiar, is which continuously that so and un an (in people actual by used is that logic a understand I hand, other the on interpret t to due object, sexual everyday say I When plague‖. the was perception social of direction perceived. be can phenomena social ways only the as seen widely are which perception) of ways other excludes (that ways certain in an phenomena social attitude, natural the in perceive, Weprovided. is it that of awareness our without interpretation, of place familiar a us provides them whic ideology the realize to able be not will we that means it ―straightforwardly‖ social the of sphere the within individuals or phenomenon social a perceive we If (reflected). a is it example, for whether, consciou ―something‖; the of levels the distinguish we Therefore, n hs a o that or way this in

ed objects as if they could they if as objects ed ns o a isik ―tagtowr‖ o o m preto aot h lipstick the about perception my of or (―straightforward‖) lipstick a of sness

created‖ (Ahmed 2006:16). As a result, ―the body gets directed in some ways more ways some in directed gets body ―the result, a As 2006:16). (Ahmed created‖ nt reflected) (not –

htrnraie ideology” “heteronormative as a sexual body sexual a as e idnes f h at f nepeain oe il ae h pre the take will one interpretation, of act the of hiddenness he

maintains ae ad o tog i itrrt te enn o eey emerging every of meaning the interprets it though so, and gaze, Ielg, fe al i hde fo u de o t fmlaiy It familiarity. its to due us from hidden is all, after Ideology, . –

faces some (pre some faces

not been interpreted otherwise. By otherwise. interpreted been not heteronormative ideology in practice. It designates a path a designates It practice. in ideology heteronormative

- main why AIDS was apprehended as the ―gay the as apprehended was AIDS why reason main subjectivity will be shaped according to the direction direction the to according shaped be will subjectivity

rfr o so to refer I 7 s e il e ltr ti taken this later, see will we As

ceive the social reality from influences what influences from reality social the ceive - made) directions, it also means t means also it directions, made) d individuals in the sphere of the social the of sphere the in individuals d ehn wih s idn rm the from hidden is which mething –

what is ―in line‖ line‖ ―in is what heteronormative logic heteronormative – , what is behind is what , - reflected way) reflected h represents represents h - for hat it does it hat - granted

- ,

CEU eTD Collection 4 . lifestyle, sexuality, gender, suchas spheres different includes which ideology 3 skin color. somebody's on direct my focus racial Forexample, 2 1995[1913]:15) ther that signs them of one still, and indubitable, be would them of any 1 theorganizingas of principlethat sphere(s) social a from society a of reality taken be will focus this attitude, natural the ―it indubitable absolute apodictic is body a on focuses my of none on, focus could I which characteristics several s us (let situation neutral a in being human a face I if instance, For facing. are we things the among from background the in be will what so and on focus will we what determines that something also but from, reality words Ahmed‘s maintains that something as work only not does logic heteronormative Moreover, sexualityher/his whichonthe is top. accor system sexual social one apprehend whole will the heterosexuality onlybelieves that sexuality, proper isthe one social one isheterosexual reality.example, the and for If, about knoworwe think howwe it heteronormativity by because here plural use possibleto It is onbody. a my focus designate orprejudices otherideologies situationswhere more specific are course, there Of we that fact The The question of race could be approached similarly. approached be could ofrace questionThe s‖ sex sex s‖ 3 –

of the ―normal‖ within that society, we have to consider heteronormative ideology heteronormative consider to have we society, that within ―normal‖ the of that is, according to the same logic, straightforwardly mediated by gender bystraightforwardly mediated logic, same the accordingis, to that e is ideology in the background background the in ideology is e .

can –

imagine that our focus is on different characteristics of a body, but we we but body, a of characteristics different on is focus our that imagine the ―familiar path‖, therefore, the the therefore, path‖, ―familiar the 1

igy ()e il ecie heacia social hierarchical a perceive will (s)he dingly: . Nevertheless, according to the heteronormative logic, I will focus on focus will I logic, heteronormative the to according Nevertheless, . ay, I suddenly see her/him appearing in the street), there could be could there street), the in appearing her/him see suddenly I ay,

- eul iwon, n i heterose if and viewpoint, sexual

( for the meaning of ―apodicticity‖ in phenomenology, phenomenology, in ―apodicticity‖ of meaning the for 4 .

- 8 for

is , according to the natural attitude natural the to according , - granted is worthwhile to understand an extended anextended understand to isworthwhile directions we are perceiving the social the perceiving are we directions 2 Teeoe i w itroae the interrogate we if Therefore, .

- ult dsgae the designates xuality eul ytm within system sexual cannot ,

taken

- imagine that imagine for granted, for see Husserl Husserl see – , and in and , –

with – -

CEU eTD Collection aims ideological served it language, scientific ―neutral‖ used th fact the despite that here suggests Foucault simply, very it Putting differentiates ar ―biologyof he Namely, 1990:54). (Foucault sex‖ of medicine ―a calls Foucault what about therefore, 1984:275 (Rubin sexuality conceiving of ways possible and acceptable an existence; into come has categories sexual 133) 1973:126) (Foucault accommod be can nature of ―all that presumption the especially re the how of terms (in tangible more so and definitions), and categories to (due embodied focused, more ideology change, scientific a to due rather, 1990:57); (Foucault changed essentially ideology sexual when period a as century stab became – all shapinginthe role essential has an reality, and body own one's perceives one how In SocialIdeologicallytheAboutVision Influenced

at the beginning of the twentieth century, the heteronormative way of perception of bodies of perception of way heteronormative the century, twentieth the of beginning the at – , and scientific interest in sexuality intertwined at the time, and as a result, an order of order an result, a as and time, the at intertwined sexuality in interest scientific and , - vocabulary (Foucault 1990:54(Foucaultvocabulary scientific a in recast be could fears traditional and options, political or economic obstacles, moral which of cover under guarantee was second the quite a fictitiousguarantee: distantand a than as more scarcely to respect with first the of role the structuration; reciprocal no exchange, real no was there other, the to one [f]rom nepee bde apae i te oil elt) Lnaa sinii , scientific Linnaean reality). social the in appeared bodies interpreted lzd I rt ―tblzd bcue n sol nt hn aot h nineteenth the about think not should one because ―stabilized‖ write I ilized. –

and so ―things‖ have to be named and described (Foucault 1973:132 (Foucault described and named be to have ―things‖ so and eproduction‖ from a ―medicine ofeproduction‖sex‖, from―medicine that aand claims - 55). others‘ bodies (as sexed objects) within the social the within objects) sexed (as bodies others‘ –

- gi,a awyo okn a things at looking of way a as again,

time social context. At the end of the nineteenththe ofAtthe endsocial context. time 9

order which designated and still designates the designates still and designated which order

–

even if implicitly. This new This implicitly. if even td ihn taxonomy‖ a within ated at the ―medicine of sex‖ of ―medicine the at - sounding sounding -

8) I rt here, write I 287). blanket

–

b ecame - CEU eTD Collection are we complexi their objects in that ableto apprehend prove still and view, our of situatedness the acknowledge to possible is it how about understanding house su the and aeroplane‖), an from again or inside, the or from Seine, ofthe bank right the („from perspectives other from differently seen be would house 5 u Therefore, "situatedness". perceive or create to possible is it how with deals also it However, body). some of viewpoint a (always embodied always is viewpoint a that so and perspective, acknowledges it as long as (Haraway1988;) phenomena social here. helpful be may 67) e being without somewhere from being into brought Merleau mustvisionhavesocial anrole. elementary a social, the of space the betweeninterrelatedunderstandthe connections wants one If to engendered.were also objects social new these to relate could one which in ways new result, a as objects; sexual and self new a provided background new This by confession). (mirrored themselves perceived they how that also and reality, social the in perceived Social of characteristics new mentioned above ideologyheteronormative the embodied,so(focused, and in resulted therefore, sex‖, of ―medicine Merleau ggestion that, putting it simply, the house house the simply, it putting that, ggestion - sexual subjects and objects received a new background that influenced how they were they how influenced that background new a received objects and subjects sexual - Ponty‘s example is the next the is example Ponty‘s - Ponty‘s phenomenological description about an understanding of ―how vision can be can vision ―how of understanding an aboutdescription phenomenological Ponty‘s with the help of the central element of a confession that compels compels articulatetoindividualstheir sexual that confession a of element central the of help the with together linked are (…) sexualities heterogeneous of reinforcement and dissemination the (…), discourse into sex of transformation The –

a b se a smlr o h nto o "iutd knowledge" "situated of notion the to similar as seen be can nd bodies (or groups of bodies) that exist within it, apprehending the apprehending it, within exist that bodies) of groups (or bodies nd 5 Merleau nlike the of ―situated knowledge‖, this account can help can account this knowledge‖, ―situated of concept the nlike

- door house which he sees from a certa a from sees he which house door - Ponty‘s account account Ponty‘s ty. itself

itself

would be none of these appearances. Instead of Leibniz‘s Leibniz‘s of Instead appearances. these of none be would

10 s se fo nwee, Merleau nowhere‖, from „seen is peculiarity(…)(ibid61).

ht hr i n sc tig s universal as thing such no is there that field of interpretation in terms of sexual of terms in interpretation of field – nclosed in its perspective‖ (1998 [1962]: (1998 perspective‖ its in nclosed

moretangible): as I interpret it in order to understand to order in it interpret I as in angle. The problem is that the the that is problem The angle. in whole

objects despite this despite objects - Ponty gives us an an us gives Ponty - CEU eTD Collection whole a as object the apprehend to us to possible it makes horizons different these of recognition (unco the third, and of); conscious are we (what on is focus our object the apprehend background the to due is it second, more perceived be will environment its object, will obscurely, an on focus we if that know we first, at vision: through world the of knowing of elements essential three therefore, here, have We objects.socialAccordingMerleauwhole to creates it how and engendered, is "neutrality" acknowledged generally this how but many) criticized was it (as objective and neutral be to itself claims aspect heteronormative that be not will point the here, me, For ideology). heteronormative of working the explaining p (imagined) universal not indeed is aspect heteronormative a from something perceiving how highlight to not me –

and not onlynotand as perspective ait. certain of but 68) detai fresh the over has already it which and surveyed, just has it which objects theover my retains which gaze impending power of the correlative the through object the of the guarantees f present at eyes my which on object the my view, marginal a atas implied, is there which havein horizons, their disposal I them, with Now, while, there. be dormant, to ceasing become not however, and periphery the into recede objects disclos the is of and sector life a to comes upon which gaze landscape, my direct I (…) vision normal [i]n reto o a hl (ic ti scn pit s oe motn i trs of terms in important more is point second this (since whole a of erception ahr ht o prevn smtig rm cran nl cn eut n the in result can angle certain a from something perceiving how that rather

e ecie a is akrud w ae o cncos f h background); the of conscious not are (we background its as perceived be ls which is about to discover. (Merleau discover. to about is which ls –

and the different horizons existed within it it within existed horizons different the and - Ponty, 11

all. The horizon, then, is what is then, horizon, The all. - out the exploration; it is it exploration; the out d wie h other the while ed, - Ponty 1998 [1962]: [1962]: 1998 Ponty –

that we canwe that

before by before nscious) CEU eTD Collection 6 by only ideology dominant the of perspective the transcend to possible is It discourses. c can themselves bodies changing and angle; different a from bodies the perceive will one changes bodies on discourse social mainstream the say, background. us let If, other. the the of form of borders also are objects focused Background the of borders The focus). my in form the of negative the is background the vision, in (importantly, focus my in object the that thus, and, world my shapes something as Ideology perceive. to me ―allows‖ exist) I which in (the context world social my as attitude, natural the to according it, perceive will I social, the of sphere same at the shapes time, body the but which, of conscious not are we which background a ideology; heteronormative by provided is which discourses sexual the all of totality the socia its body, human a see I if objects, social of terms in Speaking body.social whole a whichthem give but objects faced the of parts focused some about are that discourses soci the In object. whole the apprehend to her/him lets that viewpoint neutral a from something perceives (s)he that think to individual the for possible it make that perceiving of process the in elements a from something ―perceiving a only as perception of way this apprehend not does ideologically perceives that individual the true, is it Despite vision. of angle this to according known be will so and direction (ideological) same objects the of most that say can one on, is focus our what that and object, an facing are we which from direction the influences least at or determines, ideology mainstream that claims one if because therefore, helpful, extraordinarily is description This

Importantly, shaping the social body can social the shaping

n fcsd bet teeoe ae nerltd te om f h oe fet the affects one the of form the interrelated; are therefore, object, focused and al apprehension of an object, allobject, of an apprehensional

what my focus is on, consequently, also shapes the background around around background the shapes also consequently, on, is focus my what

serious – ly affect ly

will be its background. A background the basis of basis the background A background. its be will certain 6

12 which we of. we conscious If bodywhich are I a see inthe

actual bodies as one will be able to be able one will as actualbodies -

time social discourses the leadingrole; playdiscourses the social time ieto‖ Rte, hr ae unconscious are there Rather, direction‖. will be perceived from the from perceived be will l - sexual context context sexual see it later. see hange social hange –

namely,

CEU eTD Collection be to begun define to possible it was made choice, object homosexual on phenomenon focus specific its with interrogated, the which from aspect heteronormative a phenomena: of terms in happened what exactly is this chapter, following the in it see will we As ―heteronormatively‖. interpreted be will vision of field social their in appears that so everyobject and it normalize not) or they (consciously that natural is heterosexuality that think consciously people whether important even not is it this, to According society. imagine mainstream should throughout we thought heteronormative F how of about terms strictly in is her that extend writing also can a one as : only not read be can here account Ahmed‘ the line‖.―straight from ―perverted‖ that something as heterosexual, the from derived that something as 78 2006: [Ahmed ―achievement‖ an as it apprehend he (since ―natural‖ is heterosexuality that think necessarily line‖ ―straight the to regards Consequ turn‖. ―wrong a as ―perversion‖, as line‖ of ―out explains aand imagines which logic the on is built wish heteronormative wish‖ ―psychoanalytical This 76). (2006: reading‖ the within a as psychoanalyt ‗discovered‘ a as operate might it then turn‘, ‗right the is line‘ ‗straight the ―[i]f psychoanalysis: Freudian on analysis her in notes of Ahmed As thoughts. train heteronormative a from derived and to, according imagined all are backgrounds) (befo settings different in bodies different that means perspective, heteronormative social perceiving this, to According theyabouttranscendto ideology,thinkingit. so attempt heteronorma about discourses the all a example, in For way. but reflected ―straightforwardly‖ reality social the perceive not does one when so reflection;

- 79]),

he maintains that it is normal bynot explainingnormalevery is itmaintains he that –

ht s eeoeult. hrfr, vn f ru de not does Freud if even Therefore, heterosexuality. is that - eul ois n htrnraie utr, rm a from culture, heteronormative a in bodies sexual

IS s htet ukonsca (n ) (and social unknown hitherto a as AIDS ently, every wrong turn will be considered with considered be will turn wrong every ently, 13

cl ih ahr hn ht is what than rather wish ical iiy irr reflected a mirror tivity or not; it is enough is it not; or - heterosexual act heterosexual re different re reud's CEU eTD Collection perceivedisworld temporal (―a object of an consciousness a is consciousness myIf subject. perceivea we when andobject an perceive we when between distinguish to have we writing, Sartre‘s basisof the on all, of First object.social a (socially others' the how see to order inbeing social beingof a process the continued in part takes look‖ ―the how about description social the of leading a construction has perception social influenced ideologically our here, how demonstrate therefore, to want I perception. social our on influence its and intentionality), of have I What Others. (other) and objects social to related are they how and system, heteronormative social how namely, chapter, described hitherto The Social social my construct will me) (by subjects as recognition their how and vision, the of field the in fol the In plague‖. gay ―the as AIDS

already written about were the working of heteronormative ideology (from the viewpoint working the ideology the heteronormative (from of were already about written - - sexual sexual Subjectsandinsexual theSystem HeteronormativeObjects - - no new relation would appear appear would relation new no perceptibly being [it] around objects other the of relations the without disappear [it] have could I that means this type; additive purely the of be would objects other with ―relation spa self.

tial ‗thing‘‖ [Sartre 1996 1948:278]) it will mean that, in my world (the (the world my in that, mean will it 1948:278]) 1996 [Sartre ‗thing‘‖ tial

byme

context is the one in which I want to construe the final point of this of point final the construe to want I which in one the is context ), its), - eul ujcs I ned o s Srr‘ phenomenological Sartre‘s use to intend I subjects. sexual

- eul subjects/social sexual - lowing sub lowing ideologically situated) ideologically through it through 14

- chapter I examine how social objects appear objects social how examine I chapter -

eul evs r cntutd n a in constructed are selves sexual between those between

gaze engenders and shapes me as me shapes and engenders gaze changed . In short, In .

things in things oe n the in role CEU eTD Collection (ibid278 formation not still is it apprehension, my is world the world, the of only center the realizingnot I inthe processam of step first namelyelementary, isthe it object perceiving between distinction the naming although an am I stage this (at of part not am I which circuit closed a as consciousness presupposed her/his of objects the I and aspect, her/him perceive reflected specific, a from therefore, lenses‖, ―feminist through world social the presup least at or know, do I it. of part be would I without reality social the to connection her/his about account an give only I presupposed), already is context cer the that say or think I If things. some to regards with something does somebody as Other the re the of part be to going not am I object, an as her/him see if Even object. an as (wo)man re of degree certain a means (wo)man/person a asperceiving―thing‖ suggeststhat account alreadya These objects,nowtherethe isorien an grouping a of [I]nstead (…) object. privileged that around universe my in things the of distance without organization an register to is it [her]; and chair the between relation (―man‖), subject hand, Perceiving ontheother a ― somethingas tain other person is a feminist (provided I can bring here such an example in which a socialwhich a in example an such bring can here (providedI feminist is a personother tain - organization in my world. It is important, however, that I still perceive the other the perceive still I that however, important, is It world. my in organization multiplicities ofindifferentmultiplicitiesrelations‖ (ibid 278). would they complexes, instrumental synthesized and grouped universe: my

- not only for me, and it can be structured and apprehended differently fromdifferently apprehended and structured be can it and me, for onlynot 279).

the objects of my world are re are world my of objects the tation the eain hc i s cuil n em o m subject my of terms in crucial so is which relation which flees fromme”which flees 15 outsider in terms of her/his world). Therefore, Therefore, world). her/his of terms in outsider

rm [its] from from my point of view of point my from - - (278). - bet ad (wo)man and objects organized result: I will perceive will I result: organized organized around the Other, if I if Other, the around organized

is not to is not an apprehend additive iitgae into disintegrate pose, that she/he perceives she/he that pose,

into toward me toward - bet is objects

of of - CEU eTD Collection un remain acts my something do I when at looked feel not do or at, looked not am I look objectivizing somewhat world Other‘s the the Paradoxically, in look/gaze. Other‘s exist apprehending only through myself) (for ego an as ―I‖ that is all, of first here, have we What page: next the in Sartre by defined is ideology heteronormative of working the of i effects personal most the be will which and for looking am I that relation The gives me the reflection the myself gives about me

possibility of of possibility Other the which object Other the ―if kind oftheyisreference eyeskind area pure myself" to(ibid282). at looked being of conscious be to is it us); upon directed not is look the (unless world at (280 curtain‖ a of movement light a or shutter, a of opening slight the or silence, by followed footstep a of sound the or branches, of rustling a is there when occasion on well as just given be will look the But direction. often of convergence most the what is look course a Of manifests (…) look. Other‘s the of meaning on is Other the If object.(…) the an for object an be not can I that being his of presence the apprehend being my of , and to apprehend a look is not to apprehend a look a apprehend to not is look a apprehend to and , - as - - object must be able to be referred back to my permanent permanent my to back referred be to able be must object one who looks at me at looks who one - as sees 8) Im 281). en seen being - . The look which the the which look The . object is defined in connection with the world as the as world the with connection in defined is object

htIse hnm udmna connection fundamental my then see, I what otnl,frhr () o ecie s to is perceive to ―(…) further: portantly, - as -

object for the Other that I must be able to able be must I that Other the for object by the Other. It is in and through the the through and in is It Other. the by as aperson , then we must be able to explain the explain to able be must we then , 16

- as eyes - subject

which isalways being which a

w oua goe i my in globes ocular two aiet n mte w no manifest, . (…) I have observed observed have I (…) . - as prat n em o the of terms in mportant - object in the in object

- with look look in hat hat - the - - world. If If world. reflected CEU eTD Collection movements). I that really think but contexts onspecific the depends case, ora insuch not, a subject as a object shame feel misogynist the whether course, fe who subject a in shame canengender look feminist's A body. their with act they how acts, social objects) as social themselves (perceiving subjects the influences byfeminists lookin way to reflected specific and 7 a means techniques body about (101).Writing prestiges" , and properties , societies, between especially vary they imitations; their and individuals with just vary not do habits tradition on depend culturally, varies they age, of precession the with change) can (or change techniques Body (102). adult‖ the for way‘ ‗natural no perhaps is ―there it, puts Mauss as Moreover, acquired. something no is somethingwhich means bodytechnique certain A thetheanalysisheteronormativeof about ideology. workingof path the to back me bringsaspect cultural Mauss‘ because finally setting, and social accounts) wo continuously at looked being/feeling of self all, the how demonstrate to of possible is it accounts Mauss‘ second with because Others, for visibility their on based is techniques‖ ―body of describability her useful be can text Mauss‘ [1934]. (1979) techniques body on thoughts Mauss‘ Marcel here consider to worthwhile seems it understanding, better For islook, after aown all,my termsself. constitutivein elementof perceivab a as myself see will I case this (in look Other‘s something somehow/doing my of conscious be will I world), the (in somehow act acting am I doing/how am I what not and acts my with aiming am I what of consciousness be a be will will consciousness my world absent, the in subject a as I so executed") ―straightforwardly it puts Husserl as (or

Considering my previous example with the feminist, by now, one can easily understand why as a as a whyfeminism oneunderstand easily now, by can the feminist, with example myprevious Considering

elce wiig bu being about writing reflected

engendering sel engendering – g at social things can be crucial in terms of social changes. Being looked at looked Being changes. ofsocial incrucial terms be can things gsocial at

ny f rfet n y c ta ipsil only ispossible that act my on reflect I if only (education), somebody‘s position in a certain culture. ―These culture. certain a in position somebody‘s (education), as a person a as - reflection - in - the k i a oe ope (oprd o Sartre‘s to (compared complex more a in rks 17

- who is visible for the Other. the for visible is who

ol ad oe rcsl, en i a social a in being precisely, more and world is the biggest potential offemin potential biggest the is

el her/himself as apprehended as a misogynist (of (of misogynist a as as apprehended her/himself el t a ―natural way‖ of being of the body, the of being of way‖ ―natural a t self le object in the world) the in object le

–

that

, is o al bcue the because all, of first e, I am I

the one who is acting is who one the - constructing process constructing ist and other social social other and ist Therefore, when I when Therefore, 7 . The Other‘s The . through

the CEU eTD Collection weeventechniques, letussay, couldas, appear or divine). evil, body of understanding Mauss' about think if we (or, ridiculous oreven weird, be would others embarrassed feel would suddenly we skipping, is somewhere get to way general the where culture another to travel would we "proper"/"normal"(wo)man a apprehend us at look who those that feel a feel we which looks) the attract will jogger the her/him; at staring are people of lot a jogging, or running is someone if even that observe to (interestingstreetthe on usuallywalking therefore, are,We getting somewhere. of way proper wa of instead street, the in skipping that children are we when taught are We through objects as ourselves of conscious are we therefore, techniques, body our of conscious are we O look. Other's the be will feeling", "natural the of cause the to the similarly point, of breaking cause the once; at all disappear can feeling this However, natural. feels and seems "strai act we often, and way certain a in act to learnt have we because somehow act We moment. every at not least or at of, not conscious arewe which, course, of appearance about are all bodytechniques being of condition the how of terms in account valuable a is sphere social the in reflectedbodies human a of of perception description the as techniques body about account the that seems it Indeed, body my use I how way the that perspective, specific this from point this on emphasis no is there if even recognizes, Mauss meta a from only perceived be can techniques body (so "naturally" developed than rather factors different on dependent are walking, like bodies, our with performed are which acts elementary most our even that states and recognizes it because reflected is It environment. - level).

theOther'sLet look. throughussee,precisely. worksexample,how it an

- ghtforwardly" (not in a reflected way) because the certain way of acting of way certain the because way) reflected a in (not ghtforwardly" looked - t determines, at eas or (wo)man our because eoe others before

r t es ifune or vrdy ie Different life. everyday our influences least at or 18

natural way of getting somewhere. We also We somewhere. getting of way natural gives

nomto aot me about - bet perne n h ee of eyes the in appearance object

- object; but as soon as soon as but object; lking, is not a not is lking, -

as - an -

object. social nce CEU eTD Collection this than sexuality my of terms in myself of conscious more am I therefore, intensively, (wh heterosexual not am dominant, derivative, I heteronormative soif TheOtherunreflected, will beheterosexual logic. "general" the to according exist will orientation that about discourses social mainstream well) as lifestyle, of kind certain a includes (which sexuality and gender, sex, my of terms in lenses, heteronormative unreflected through at looked be will I culture heteronormative dominant, a in this, of all from following is it As via objects social method;methodderivativederived a the hetero from any interpret or explain to able is one which of help the with thoughts pre certain a logic, certain a with one supplies ideology heteronormative social the apprehend to us cumber not does it aspect certain a from comes perception social nevertheless that seen have we Furthermore, objects. unknown hitherto and so which in framework familiar the provides things at looking of way dominant a as ideology heteronormative chapter, the of beginning the at out point to attempted have I As ideology. tha more ways some in directed gets body ―the again, result, a As process. normal a least at but natural, merely a be to seems object, sexual proper a select to how or boy, a girlor a as act to how of learning ideo the as heteronormativity Concerning amveryofI consciousobjectmyselfIas much(as others). to appear more I moreexposed, object, feel momentslike Ifeel an Atthese momentary aspect). relevant and (those me from Other(s) different are other that Others by at looked feel I when more moments am acting; I of which way in my moments of are conscious There Others. of eyes the in place my occupy I how w the that is all, after certain, is What cial individuals ―straightforwardly‖ (in an un an (in ―straightforwardly‖ individuals cial n others‖ (Ahmed 2006:15) without the recognition that it is directed by directed is it that recognition the without 2006:15) (Ahmed others‖ n atever it should mean exactly) I feel more exposed, looked at more at looked exposed, more feel I exactly) mean should it atever

ay how I use my body at every moment is the way of way the is moment every at body my use I how ay that apprehend me as different from them from some from them from different as me apprehend that oy f h misra, h poes f actual of process the mainstream, the of logy 19 Waee m sxa oinain il e the be, will orientation sexual my Whatever .

- reflected way) interpret both already known already both interpret way) reflected normative framework.

- determined train of train determined

object as a whole; a as object CEU eTD Collection other.heterosexualthe "homosexual as themselves of he of look the for exposedness general extraordinary the an meant it men), (gay "them" For men. gay motion, from agency away took discourses this With discourse. medicalized normative, a of centre the became as men" everyth "gay (and apprehended "gayness" discourse "homosexuals": HIV/AIDS early that argue I chapter next the In exposed. being from them defend which generality a Others; "general" the of member as apprehended perceived be will heterosexual, as passes one if one, that is point the granted; for matter it take or not heterosexual being choose consciously does are we whether it object, social a as perceived being of terms in it), on thoughts Sartre's Since object. social abnormal an as Others by apprehended be to not order in her/him for favorable comfo feel can she/he framework, heterosexual the in home at is Other "general" The Other. "general" appearance

rtable even if feels being looked at. All the mainstream discourses and aspects are aspects and discourses mainstream the All at. looked being feels if even rtable

is a decisive element in the construction of our self (as long (as self our of construction the in element decisive a is

- terosexual Others, consequently, they became more conscious more became they consequently, Others, terosexual gay men" from a heteronormative aspect: as they appeared to appeared they as aspect: heteronormative a from men" gay n i ipis rm htrnraie viewpoint) heteronormative a from implies it ing 20

s poe sca ojc ad il be will and object social proper a as

as we accept we as CEU eTD Collection 1988. MITPress, Crimp), Douglas livingAIDS with in c 1983, AIDS), ofwith People Association National (later: AIDS ofwith People Committee TheAdvisory ofothers‖, oncare the anddependence the patient 8 the of look the for population”,andasaresult,how“general the exposedness men' gay increased it how and vision social of field the reorganized and changed understanding problematic this how highlight I essentialized. and metaphorical a mediated discourses PWA the of medical understanding even and media, political, mainstream that argue I viewpoint). sexual a (from crisis AIDS the of context the in distinction we/they ho establish to able be will I all, After object. homosexual passive a of level the to man gay active politically the relegate could AIDS on discourse dominant the how demonstrate to need I Then, crisis. AIDS the of context the in population” “general understand should we how contextualize to need I first, At object. passive pathologized social hitherto a from "gayness" of meaning the changed discourses chapter this In Discourses Early HIV/AIDS Mappingof Phenomenologycal II. The The concept ofPerson the PWA Theconcept ‖ . Since the concept of victim „implies defeat‖, and the concept of patient „implies passivity, helplessness, helplessness, passivity, of „implies patient concept the and defeat‖, ofvictim„implies the concept Since .

–

I attempt to interrogate the phenomenological implications of how early AIDS early how of implications phenomenological the interrogate to attempt I

PWA). See: Grover: ―AIDS: Keywords‖ in: Keywords‖ Grover: ―AIDS: See: PWA).

8

(living) with AIDS is an alternative description of description an alternative is AIDS with (living)

where PWA was gay but where where but gay was PWA where pp. 17 pp.

- 30. laimed for a more proper description (the result is Person/People isPerson/People (theresult description proper morea for laimed

21

dominant discoursedominantshame.generatedgay

AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism Analysis/Cultural Cultural AIDS: ans isl a medicalized was itself gayness w we should understand the understand should we w ― AIDS victim AIDS - ciit ietl t a to lifestyle activist ‖ , and and , ― AIDS AIDS

(ed. (ed.

the CEU eTD Collection as another one recognize which subjectivities of plurality a includes 'we' "[t]he Sartre, to According shame). gay is that discourse, dominant the of consequence bodily the see we i mean it does What the population‖phrase ―general givetoisnegative of athe PWA: definition of relevance the Thus, PWA. a be to happens one unless means population‖ ―general ―general phrase the what with identify to easy of is it that, writes She significance crisis. AIDS the to regards the with population‖ about writes Keywords‖, ―AIDS: in Grover, canbePWAs seenmenhow and are as "we"? "we" gay how "we", a is population‖ ―general (heterosexual) the how Then, perspective. whose shoul question first The ―we‖. the of description phenomenological the of help the with further, step the one go to worthwhile seems it discourses, by caused experiences gay probable the reconstruct and apprehend (shame men gay on effect an generate could that ―they‖ and ―we‖ between division peculiar a constructed AIDS on discourse dominant The “generaland theThe population”,“We (Grover 1988:23). (Grover hard upon hedonists diseased from assault ab as members its hits AIDS so imagined), uniformly are life gay and drugs pleasure not is which business, its about going virtuously politicians officials, health public users term‘s the to According users. drug IV junkies, PWAs most to applied terms descriptive the to opposition in stands term the of vagueness the asexuality, [t]he n terms of our phenomenological understanding (that is necessary so later later so necessary is (that understanding phenomenological our of terms n

- subject” 22

– b wo r icue i "e ad from and "we" in included are who be d

–

te eea po general ―the

see ―Chaper see –

homosexuals, gay men, men, gay homosexuals, - working innocents innocents working

III‖).In order to be able to able be to order III‖).In – uain is pulation‖ -

seeking (as (as seeking the media, media, the

dominant

AIDS

CEU eTD Collection "we". a in be engaged mefor to itpossible makes is what otherconsumers) with together (supposedly ofthe spectatorevents a becoming to due street; in the occurs incident perceivesome 9 hard mainstre middle heterosexual, idealized, the were who ―we‖ a suggested messages Since ―we‖. implicit an as discourses dominant the by that the ―general such,therefore, population‖, nowhere as really it existed, harmfullywas used Despite, homophobic. highly are they that nor PWA, the objectify representations dominant that realizes neither example, for population‖, ―general imagined the representations; the be will population‖ ―general the process): a ―gen the this, to According discourses. social dominant by defined implicitly is population‖ ―general the crisis, AIDS the and heteronormativity of context the in context: given the through only seems It population‖? ―general the then, bounds, What cafe). (the place physical its bybounded is ―we‖the example, Sartre‘s In "we". as seen be can population‖ ―general the degree what on that especially, the population‖, apprehend to us help can account this Indeed, myselfto experience in engagedwith'we' a (ibid436). them" the cafe at the patrons all not neccesary that expe is 'we' "[t]he further: goes Sartre as However, 1989:259). (Young have‖ people that identity of sense the by but attributes, shared of bya primarily defined not is group(…) social ―a that so identity group by Youngunderstands understandi similar a gets one account preliminary this From [1948]:435). 1996 (Sartre perception" common a of object the or action common a is posited explicitly su Sartre's example for apprehending myse apprehending for Sartre'sexample jciiis Nevertheless bjectivities. - working) spectator of the spectacle of the AIDS crisis, everyone who did not identify not did who everyone crisis, AIDS the of spectacle the of spectator working) eral population‖ will be bounded by an idealizing process (Grover also suggests such suggests also (Grover process idealizing an by bounded be will population‖ eral

,

hs eonto i nt h ojc o a epii tei; ht is what thesis; explicit an of object the not is recognition this

to me that the ―general population‖ can be interpreted always interpreted be can population‖ ―general the that me to lf as a member of the "we" is a cafe where consumers suddenly consumers where cafe isa "we" ofmemberthe as a lf 9

should be conscious of being 'we' in order forme of beinginorder 'we' conscious be should 23

rienced by a particular consciousness; it is it consciousness; particular a by rienced da audience ideal oin f h htrsxa ―general heterosexual the of notion

f h dmnn AIDS dominant the of m ei ad political and media am - class, educated (and educated class, ng of "we" to what to "we" of ng

these - CEU eTD Collection thinking of instead it: suggested Austin then extensively more treated be should ―witness‖ performativ prototypical of termsin text, the in later highlightauthors the As works. population‖ ―general phrase the how of logic the understand can we so ―witness‖ the be will word important most the here, us, For describedhethem. Parkerthen as Relatedly, and Kosofsky t seems it now By ―happy‖. be can act speech a so role leading a have context‖ ―proper and system, his In (―happy‖). affective be can utterance performative a circumstances what under that not statement false a from world the about information us specifically, give always not does most theories, recent more in Austin,viewpoint. deconstructionist of lenses the through interpreted theory be act L. can Austin‘s pointspeech and howJohn out writing, examine intheir authors, exclu (social) of terms in be can "we" of suggestion implicit an harmful Kosofsky and Parker from also it knows One became ofmemberPWA), the―general apopulation‖. not a se per not is who or otherwise, oneself say

something but something do theparticulardo speechod acts unite that muchas explanatoryweight as bonds bears speakers,to them link or auditors the of structuration and the or example, for witnesses, implied or silent of role the which onto in scene contested theory, recent of pressure under has (…) opened, context‘ proper ‗the of invocation bland rather Austin‘s –

but it can actually change the world. With these utterances, therefore, I ―do I therefore, utterances, these With world. the change actually can it but hat the conditions that were required by Austin are much more complex more much are Austin by required were that conditions the hat do

somethin es (such as the ―I do‖ in the wedding ), the problem of problem the ceremony), wedding the in do‖ ―I the as (such es g‖ (Austin 1962:12). In ―Lecture II‖ (12 II‖ ―Lecture In 1962:12). (Austin g‖ How to Do Things Do to How supposedspeechindividual(7).agents - memb 24 - Sedgwick that, for example, how possible and possible how example, for that, Sedgwick

er of the ―general population‖ (such as the as (such population‖ ―general the of er –

consequently, is not always a true or true a always not is consequently, with Words? with - Sedgwick put it:put Sedgwick

a populous and and populous a claims that a statement a that claims sion (1995:1 sion

- 24) he examines he 24)

- 18). The 18). CEU eTD Collection individuals. to similar the become groups and―they‖ the the ―we‖ relations, intergroup 10 onwhichbethetobasis logicalseemsofone can HIV/AIDS apprehend discourse. object as them object an as me apprehend that others as group apprehend my in not others do I therefore, relation, "we" this In identity. "gay" of implications the by of kind certain a become also "they" "they", as perceived are they that "their" on based "they" Young, of basis the be on If, ―us‖. from difference will "them" of consciousness "our" therefore, and "homosexuals", "we" that suggest power the of implications discussed following The world. the in alone not am I feeling the me gives it because empowerment situations, certa in especially perceiver, the gives way) same the in thing same the perceive others that presuppose therefore, I, (where perspective "we" a from something/somebody Perceiving mai the let AIDS aboutsilence.discourses through maintained,their they witnesses: silent of terms in understood be population‖ could ―general the that is therefore, previously, offered I What angle. homophobic same, the from crisis AIDS the interpret that population‖ ―general a supposing by relations re similarly, discourses, AIDS Mainstream direction. same the from position, same the from ceremony the perceives everybody that supposing by taken normal", "the as apprehended Heteronormative (10). (…)‖ presence physical our of act speech undiscretionary but potent negative, bare, the it; permits that (…) witness the is ―[i]t Kosofsky and Parker persons, and bodies present as witnesses about This is the main difference between what Sartre suggests in terms of interpersonal vs. intergroup relations. In vs.intergrouprelations. ofinterpersonal in terms suggests Sartre what between difference main the is osiuin f cmuiy f ins ta mks h mrig; h slne of silence the ; the makes that witness of community a of constitution - tes either Others, –

h ―eea population‖ ―general the

10 . "We" are all all are "We" . - for - rne sexuality granted 25 ujcs h apeed te" s bet. It objects. as "they" apprehend who subjects –

- ae aeoy f h "ooeul would "homosexual" the of category made

r htrsxas h perceive who heterosexuals are - – mhszd heteronormati emphasized

the homosexual PWAs homosexual the –

re - Other, and I do not apprehend apprehend not do I and Other, - mhsz heteronormativity emphasize –

ic htrsxaiy is heterosexuality since

"we" which we can see can we which "we" - sra, homophobic nstream,

egik lis that claims Sedgwick

– e power ve

te" as "them" recognize in - CEU eTD Collection doing with who, but holocaust against anything do not did only not who Germans" fine of "millions comparison) a (as mentions also it other, the on but, epidemic, the approaching to connection in acts and , leaders, political names hand, one the on account, This at institutions, and names concrete mentions Bersani Although discrimination. of basis firm the establish could testing so positive tested are that those quarantining be can testing of aim "rational" the preventing and curing of instead testing with obsession the particularly, AIDS, to answers political about writes Bersani When intolerable" (ibid). intolerable" the that governmentfederal doe goes, anything that local authorities to those telling HIV are with authorities, infected people of protection the relegating by anti of manifestations ‗30s virulent nonetheless the during acceptability for tested being the when but the began holocaust before even Führer their to sent they message the collaboration, h who but homosexuals), of (and Jews of murder the in participated never who Germans fine of millions of said be can what precisely is this And unbearable. or intolerable AIDS?) without fin not might he AIDS, with man a of head the to gun a hold not would Meese jobsEdwin if that suggest their of near out thrown Department‘s be AIDS with the people that as recommendation things such least, very the "At olocaust unbearable. olocaust

oneplacethat:writes he

That was the more than sufficient measure of their measure of than sufficient more That the was s not find the of s of the idea camps not find spread of the virus (2010a: 6 (2010a: virus the of spread

d the murder of a gay man with AIDS (or (or AIDS with man gay a of murder the d idea 26 f t a aon, a, s t were, it as was, around, was it of

- ald o id h ie o the of idea the find to failed Semitism, just as our leaders, our as just Semitism,

— y es iln but violent less by or perhaps worseor perhaps - 7) he claims that the only the that claims he 7) — CEU eTD Collection d this critical emphasized the discourse AIDS of with dealt many who Although scholars/activists role. leading a has subchapter, previous the in discussed was what to regard specific with "they", and "we" between distinction the analysis, this In subjects. social new constructed it how to regards specific with dominant discourses AIDS of working the in interpreted and recognized be can ideology heteronormative l the to men gay active politically relegated so and agency gay undermined that discourse the discourses: AIDS mainstream of aspect specific one only here deal I untrue, is statement her that claim understan metaphorical different use that and spheres individual and/or social the of levels different at located are and include power of kinds different with deals book her in Patton Indeed, 1990:1). (Patton AIDS underlying logic single a seek to indeed hazardous is "It HomophobicReality The AIDSCrisisof the unreflectedly)actedthe wayinfluencedhighly in gay whichmenthe experienced crisis. ―gen the of passivity by The circle reflection. this of out step can only I unreflected. am I have because not foremost, do and first might agency, witness" "implied an as act).‖I" an itself is here passivity (therefore, population ―general the of system the (ibid9) account" my on it do not "Do that say not does someone as long As 1995:7). KosofskyDesgwick and (Parker witnesses" implied or "silent non a is population‖ ―general the of "we" the that then, fact, the highlight can account this think I it. encouraged ,

evel of passive objects, spectacles (Crimp 2002c). I examine how the working of working the how examine I 2002c). (Crimp spectacles objects, passive of evel - self dings in terms of HIV/AIDS epidemic. Without attemptingto Without of HIV/AIDSepidemic. terms in dings - identified, passive we passive identified, rl ouain a a ―we a as population‖ eral 27 –

she/he wil she/he

–

that would be an an be would that - l be part of the passive we passive the of part be l subject the membe the subject discourse or policy decisions" decisions" policy or discourse - ujc‖ teeoe ht who that (therefore subject‖ sicin ipiil or (implicitly istinction - explicit eul bet and objects sexual rs of which are which of rs - structures that structures

rejection ofrejection - subject

CEU eTD Collection by establishedwas ―scientific it as "homosexuality" of category the between differentiation schematic the is framework this pr can which framework a all, of first offer, I heteronormativity, with here operate I Because discourse. and experiences, individual the here do interrogate therefore, of subversion a can indeed groups reorganization, social active the within an individuals eventuate on effects the how understand to able be will individuals on highlights them analyzing of process the that is experiences these to significance specific give I why a voices critical These (Bersani. media the by misrepresented and discourse general the by challenged 1988ab:237 (Crimp available readily not were PWAs and population‖ ―general lense critical philosophically through situation the contemplate to all, at possible if easy, not was it atmosphere threatening life fearful, a in Understandably, crisis. the about analyses valuable own their up set time, harm indeed, problematic, the with engaged so were who authors mentioned those because analysis this do to able only am I that fact the of aware am I power basis; intergroup dynamic, more ondescribed a be can changes the how so sphere, andsocial the in and "they" "we", "I", about perceptions perception, social the effected elements these how also but them, by suggested a 2010b), (Bersani elements psychological 1988), (Treichler discursive consider only not do I viewpoint. another to from division this interrogate like would I 1988]), Watney 2010b; Bersani 1988; Gilman 1988; [Treichler explicitly - made passiveofPWAs.homosexualgroup made re that allow me the reconstruction of individual and group experiences. The reason The experiences. group and individual of reconstruction the me allow that re how

within the social groups. It is necessary for us so later (see ―Chapter III‖) we III‖) ―Chapter (see later so us for necessary is It groups. social the within social changes as changes between socially perceivable socially between changes as changes social s, especially if ―facts‖ which could solve the tension between the between tension the solve could which ―facts‖ if especially s, - like‖ discourse,like‖self and interrelated therefore, how the discourses effects individuals within the within individuals effects discourses the how therefore, ovide me the proper tools for my analysis. The basis of basis The analysis. my for tools proper the me ovide

relations between social groups (―we‖ and ―they‖), and (―we‖ groups social between relations 28

d (bio)power nd - made gaymadeidentity. ful representation of AIDS at that at AIDS of representation ful iat power minant - relations (Watney 1988) 1988) (Watney relations groups

hav - - eain. I, relations. 238), rather 238), e an an e effect - CEU eTD Collection of(seesex‖―medicine I‖): also ―Chapter abo critic a gives he when the elaborately more it puts of Foucault As system. structure basic the maintain will answers why is that not; or problematic are itself system the or system, dominant this within categories the whether to attention pay not will sexuality regarding definitions new and answers the of most I‖), (―Chapter attitude natural ―scientific this Because articulat be will answers power the with operate will system neutral allegedly this within formulated questions the of all that means It the circulating been have thinking for paths designated sc wa which century nineteenth category sexual mentioned already the all, after categorical the m by the of imperatives internally, not rather but is state, the by diversity externally sexual imposed and of established ‗problem‘ felt ―[t]he (homo)sexuality: and AIDS between ter in it, mentions Watney As ienti

categories ofcategories ―normal ial neutral fically uh dsore a nt o tt te rt bt o rvn is very its (Foucaultemergence1990 [1978]:55). prevent to but truth the state to not was discourse a such t indicate would sort this of disparity A effects. its and correlations, its sex, human concerning of discourse formed development rationally the blocked resistance fundamental a if as is [i]t - ae categories made odern organization of sexuality‖ (Watney 1988:75). My starting point is, is, point starting My 1988:75). (Watney sexuality‖ of organization odern A i i, t ol/a hrl spot non support hardly could/can it is, it As . - sexual‖ system is allegedly neutral, and it indeed seems neutral in the in neutral seems indeed it and allegedlyneutral, is system sexual‖ ed accordingly, so answers will be, in some degree, pre degree, some in be, will answers so accordingly, ed - natural‖ s created from a rather heteronormative viewpoint heteronormative rather a from created s ms of the over the of ms

n structures and heterosexualstheabnormalsexual and others.

- emphasized (by the dominant media) connection media) dominant the (by emphasized 29

rdcd y h sse; consequently system; the by produced

, throughout the twentieth century, twentieth the throughout , - ytm on rud h mdl o the of middle the around born system - eeoomtv ies the ideas: heteronormative hat the aim of aim the hat ut the working of the of working the ut

– - determined.

claimed as claimed

among ,

the

CEU eTD Collection fulf to failed who those of disease a therefore, neutral, sexuality even dominant, the deconstruct or criticize, interpret, to attempts were there century twentieth the during Although necessarilynotideologydoesneedorderwork). into name a production the of principle unperceived an as century nineteenth the of middle the in present already not was family) nuclear the of sanctity today call we what of basis the that mean not does it twen the of beginning the at gained was ―heterosexual‖ term the of significance 88). (ibid sexes‖ the of they and lust, satisfy to tool necessary a as sexuality promoted they so sexuality ―liberate‖ to were authors 87 [1995]: 2007 (Katz 1910 around from Ellis, Havelock and Freud Sigmund heterosexuality that claims He (cf.Foucaultlust1990[1978]:54 one‘s satisfy to tool a as seen is it when and procreation, of means the as apprehended is sex ( procreation of norm the to opposed was that pleasures sexual toward appetite exaggerated an meant terms the perversion: signed both still time that at homosexuality, and heterosexuality not still Kat as although, perverted), is homo and normal the is hetero (where distinction sexuality. of field the within abnormal) (the ―they‖ and normal) thinking, general on impression great a had scientific this of construction the Already az 07 19] 86 [1995]: 2007 Katz

normal,

established Wes 005, al HVAD dsore re discourse HIV/AIDS early 2010:5), (Weeks

also considered considered also pre - created categories by suggesting, that the society faces a ―gay disease‖, ―gay a faces society the that suggesting, by categories created s ocially - 7. az teeoe ntcs gnrl ifrnito bten when between differentiation general a notices therefore, Katz, 87).

rather taken rather

It is important to see that while Katz points out that the social the that out points Katz while that see to important is It t h vr bgnig f h teteh etr. Furthermore, century. twentieth the of beginning very the at hetero gained its socially ―normal‖ status by the widespread works of works widespread the by status ―normal‖ socially its gained - 55). sexuality ―as a simple, precise, natural word for the sex the for word natural precise, simple, a ―as sexuality

- for - - sexual system, the ―medicine of sex‖ sex‖ of ―medicine the system, sexual granted categorie granted

too 30 f h sci the of

–

re l htrsxa iprtvs (especially imperatives heterosexual ill - emphasized the categories of ―we‖ (the ―we‖ of categories the emphasized

entific eeoomtv ielg (.. the (e.g. ideology heteronormative s

-

mhszd ut h allegedly the just emphasized and and - eul ytm ie certain a (i.e. system sexual structures of thinking about thinking of structures h seii homo/hetero specific The z claims, was claims, z tieth – -

8. These 88). which has which century, - CEU eTD Collection by therefore, re say dye those himself, reproduce A men gay of representation sex from separately treated be to has mention not does he Though young. dye causes, the among reproduction to is fate whose people those with equated hom unperceivable almost this to due that out points present perceivably barely is homophobia‖ for certain a century, twentieth the throughout how, about writes specifically He victims helpless and passive thehasdominantmedia―because as men gay representing kept the (and media crisis mainstream AIDS the society), of parts active as men gay activi for queer agency and voices, attention demanded queer strengthening the despite that argues He (ibid). homophobia‖ ―softer a and (ibid:319), functions‖ homosexual for distaste embarrassed of basis the on stands His 1991:312). (Nu victims‖ ―deathbed as people gay delineates media mainstream the why about explanation an us offers Nunokawa Jeff heterosexism, ―internal‖ and ―external‖ between thought quoted previously Watney‘s to Similarly ofvoicesqueerstrengthening activism? so AIDS of interpretation the of spite in media dominant the this in position monopole its maintain it could How pervasive? was Why choice). object heterosexual and monogamy ccord presentations can explain the reality the explain can presentations , after all, after ,

early. Homosexuality, in this sense this in Homosexuality, early. n t a eeoomtv lgc i i psil to possible is it logic, heteronormative a to ing

discoursestaken where that N that unokawa‘s interpretation about the interpretationabout unokawa‘s

who are unable to do so because of their sexual object choice, choice, object sexual their of because so do to unable are who w s rsl o te eeoomtv imperati heteronormative the of result a as and we also know from Katz from know also we and always - - for for

that was that

- , would be would ,

- granted commonplaces are not rare.notgranted commonplaces are pictured‗deat gay aspeople lust, i lust,

n h ltrr repre literary the in 31 t still seems a plausible a seems still t

generated by the by generated

the differentiation between a ―virulent or ―virulent a between differentiation the a hedonist, a ,

codn t wih e differentiates he which to according possible poi, h dpcin f a mn is men gay of depiction the ophobia,

a ta sne n dl mn a to has man adult an since that say

and Foucault and

causes of causes infantile behavior. One could could One behavior. infantile

ettos f a mn He men. gay of sentations dominant hbed(312). victims‘‖ interpret PWAs t oeet that movements st e f reproduction. of ve

media that reproduction that

‘ ation that ation

homophobic

discourses; m of ―soft of m nokaw

will this

a

CEU eTD Collection 13 12 HIV 1990:27).. (Patton beinvestigated to started notably phenomenon causethe why (most deaths their before „symptoms‖/diseases similar showed who middle several of death Theone. specific as a not detected was phenomenon the general, in condition health bad a in were they as however, „symptoms‖, the showed had already users drug 11 obj homosexual patients‘ the emphasized it namely, AIDS; on representations media mainstream case the about article the for into reporter reports medical Altman, these Lawrence Taking ―Dr. account, (ibid). contact‖ ―sexual or lifestyle‖, homosexual a of aspect between connection tight a established second the and 1996:46), Epstein in (quoted homosexual‖ all were patients these ―AIDS‖ h observable the about hints us gives Epstein theyears(Bersani5;2010:3,in early Epstein1996:45 also homophobic dangerously were epidemic the of interpretations and to, reactions medical ot account into take to have we cases, some in true Despite here. careful be should we (1990:28), their settings" urban the in and sexuality men gay of valuation positive and acceptance "the recognize can we diseases" treatable of variety a having "despite pneumonia) with down came they (before "healthy" as perceived were men gay since that argues Patton if Even neglected phenomenon. hitherto the interpret so and name, 1996: (Epstein 1982 from researchers and professionals medical some by used was example, for Deficiency), Immune Related (Gay ―GRID‖ name The discourse. medical by pla ―gay phrase the that consider we if explanation Nunokawa‘s extend to have we However, undefined. still suchwas as AIDS thatAt time, not was it phenomenon, health new a not was course, of AIDS, CentersDiseas for gue‖ was not only a term used by media discourses; on the contrary, it was established first it the contrary, on discourses; bymedia termused a onlynotwas gue‖ c coc ad hi poicos lifestyle promiscuous their and choice ect 12 - reports published by the CDC the by published reports e Control e

o cne i hmsxas (bd ta ws ey iia t te later the to similar very was that (ibid) homosexuals‖ in cancer of s

the the

nuoyts carinii Pneumocystis 13

, in 1981. The first report highlighted ―the fact that fact ―the highlighted report first The 1981. in , 32 omophobia when he writes about the first two first the about writes he when omophobia

(ibid). Therefore, even if at the very first first very the at if even Therefore, (ibid). 11 ad o nufcety eie health defined insufficiently so and , her accounts which explicitly claim that claim explicitly which accounts her nuoi (C) ubek n ―some and outbreak (PCP) pneumonia - 46; Treichler1988).46;

occurred at first in the ‘80s. Before that, IV that, Before ‘80s. the in first at occurred

e Yr York New - class (gay) men (gay) class - related pneumonia) was the the was pneumonia) related sexually transmitted sexually

–

woe short a wrote ,

that and f and

it could be could it ew women women ew 0 to 50) – -

CEU eTD Collection French victimof only a is US that insurance populationan French gay, from‖;― and Epidemic AIDS 14 cause and symptom the character became truth‖ ―personal the Furthermore, men‖ ―gay pathologized the all, After object was which something re discourses these result, re a logic, heteronormative As (PWA). object describable a and objects) understanding, metaphorical this by constituted was understanding; therefore, metaphorical a using by crisis health frightening the explain to wanted they disease‖ ―gay or plague‖ ―gay as AIDS to referred century of framework dominant heteronormative, the into infiltrated ―gay‖ of category of object ess the used then and choice, object ―homosexual‖ and promiscuity of embodiment an as ―gayness‖ essentializing by crisis health a explained it that was 80‘s the in discourses HIV/AIDS mainstream the of features crucial most the of re can we all, After the by interpreted discoursesdominant as therealm(AIDScausebodily ofhealthbodily aas phenomenon). a was group) active socially a as men (gay realm social the of fragment as suggested, strongly least at or seen, was consciousness critical a time, short indeed an after sexuality, "momen The idea of― Theideathe - choice

sexuality where heterosexuals ar heterosexuals where sexuality " otr ad eprs wr qie nesadn i trs f non of terms in understanding quite were "experts" and doctors t"

- the who is responsible isresponsible who Canadian airline steward. This answer could be salutary for two reason: it gave US general US gave it reason: two salutaryfor be could answer This steward. airline Canadian

by Randy Shilts Randyby and PWAs. Therefore, the dominant discourse about AIDS made the ―self the made AIDS about discourse dominant the Therefore, PWAs. patient zero‖ zero‖ patient

promiscuityansocial asabnormal - establish the statementthe establish

composed by the symptoms of homosexuality as an abnormal sexual abnormal an as homosexuality of symptoms the by composed - for its spread‖. The „patient zero‖ was identified as an „extremely promiscuous‖, promiscuous‖, „extremely as an identified zero‖was The„patient forspread‖. its –

pathologized homosexuality, and pathologized gay lifestyle lifestyle gay pathologized and homosexuality, pathologized (1987)

articulated in the book the in articulated

a describing object (gay relegated to the level of homosexual of level the to relegated (gay object describing a

–

provided answers to two urgent inquiry: urgent inquiry: two to providedanswers e normal, and homosexuals are not. When discourses When not. are homosexuals and normal, e –

of homosexuality, in contrast to heterosexuality, to contrast in homosexuality, of standing now on a more a on standingnow 33 And the Band Played On BandPlayed the And

- - Canadian pro Canadian eul ietl, h mvmn o a social a of movement the lifestyle, sexual - entialized ―gay‖ figure as the describing the as figure ―gay‖ entialized sexual behavior.sexual miscuity, and that the reason of the reason that and miscuity, the cause the : Politics, People, and the People, Politics, : ―where the disease is come is the disease ―where detailed basis detailed

of AIDS. As it it As AIDS. of 14 - heterosexual -

fimd a affirmed

f AIDS. of – twentieth

that onethat - was, a was, made‖ –

as CEU eTD Collection undamaged. remained discourse gaya epidemicwas writeshethatexhibition: PWA with problems general the understand can We 1988). (Watney discourses media mainstream by especially sphere, princi organizing an be to indeed, seems, spectacle the exposedness, The explanatorymetaphoranwhyfact,athe ofhorrible diseasehad into come existence. but 1991:312), Nunokawa (e.g. the outsiders: as actions political by also and media mainstream the by handled were virus, the by affected t fact the with connection tight a in is this population‖) ―general idealized imagined, the of look the through discourse, dominant notice to important is it why the of One generate‖(Watneyinstitutionsthose 1988:75). identities unstable profoundly the up prop to and life family of institutions the entrench to AIDS by understood ―homosexuality, t as that commentary writes Watney meaning, similar a with but specifically, More 49). 1987: (Treichler superiority‖ ideological its also but heterosexuality ‗ga a as AIDS of thinking community a as re was - emphasized and so heterosexuality was re was heterosexuality so and emphasized crucial issues of AIDS funding, legislation, and education. In portraying In education. and legislation, funding, AIDS of issues crucial ultimately, but, museums, the outside PWAs perceive will viewers how only not affects AIDS with people of representation the that believe We dominant he ‗cause‘ of AIDS, is always available as a coercive and menacing category menacing and coercive a as available always is AIDS, of ‗cause‘ he – - ae tuh ide, s ncsiy A Teclr oie, h ―pel of ―appeal the notices, Treichler As necessity. a as indeed, truth, based

not heterosexual not heterosexual

icsin was discussion

dsae i ta i poet nt ny h sxa patcs of practices sexual the only not protects it that is disease‘ y - - – without nature of the PWA as essentialized and pathologized ―gay‖ pathologized and essentialized as PWA the of nature ersnain i Cips rtcl omns bu an about comments critical Crimp's via representation

person. Thus, both the national identity and the dominant sexual sexual dominant the and identity thenational both Thus, person.

their particip their about ple in how AIDS crisis was interpreted in the public the in interpreted was crisis AIDS how in ple

hat just the same gay men gay same the just hat 34

―gay men‖ as as men‖ ―gay

- revealed not only as a personal, but again, but personal, a as only not revealed the objectification of ―gay men‖ (by the the (by men‖ ―gay of objectification the ation. Their existence was only used as used only was existence Their ation.

the

oeta vcis f AIDS of victims potential

w ho were, indeed, badly indeed, were, ho

is that is

CEU eTD Collection 15 heteros totheexposed AIDS with living person every Therefore, group a as emasculated were they since populat ―general idealized their the about implications of lenses (alleged) the through ―they‖, as its represented although, were, They and promiscuity. homosexual affectedness their to due spectacles sense, ― including ―created‖ was AIDS summarizing, Briefly becomegenre".somethingof hada AIDS with person the of portrait "the simply, crisis representational the summarizes Crimp As "homosexual". objectified passive, of level the to relegated were men gay how of process the better now understand can we disease", "gay and plague" "gay of meanings omnipresent so and hopeless, them depicting via PWAs objectify generally representations these that and PWAs, apprehend situations everyday in people how on perception, social on effect an have they that highlights account Crimp's

See: Cindy Patton: CindySee: Patton:

ihu aec. f Ws n gy e wr, hrfr, egd eas o the of because merged therefore, were, men gay and PWAs If agency. without crisis as PWAs and peoplePWAs andPWAscrisis as(Crimp2002:86).who love this with day every living us of those of the addressing without AIDS about misconceptions general perpetuates show this that believe as feared, or pitied be to people as PWAs us ) h ae euly indece sexually are who ‖) Inventing AIDS Inventing

exual, normativizingexual,of thegaze―general population‖.

w cuil lmns f h gnrl PWA general the of elements crucial two

ion‖ they could hardly perceive themselves as an active ―we‖ ―we‖ active an as themselves perceive hardly could they ion‖ , New York, Routledge, 1990. Routledge, York, New ,

t Pol lvn wt AD (Ws wr, n this in were, (PWAs) AIDS with living People nt. 15 –

– when AIDS is discussed as ―gay plague‖ plague‖ ―gay as discussed is AIDS when as a ―fatal disease‖ which affected ― affected which disease‖ ―fatal a as 35

ahr ny s ebr o a ―Us an of members as only rather

people alone and lonely, we lonely, and alone people

-

ersnain: first representations:

those - object‖. ‖ (not ‖ –

was – ,

CEU eTD Collection Iequated―their‖ eyes,withof amthose who all are objectif my ofbasis on the Otherby the judged onlyI am not consequently, object "them"; for whole, an a as is, which community a of part am I but Other the for object an am I that only not alienated: double am I here ―I‖, and ―Other‖ the of situation intersubjective the Unlike alienation. my l are that population‖ a (as I socialsphere.the in themselves apprehend PWAs how of terms in constitutive be will look their consequence, a wil population‖ ―general the Here look. other‘s the through world the in am I as myself apprehend I so and look, other‘s through the object an feel I when subject of chap previous the in seen already have we what situation the to similar much very of experience an to refers here 'Us' "The experience. which (here "them" by at looked is that community a of member a being feel I when phenomenon The population‖,―general that andtheydidthemselves members feelas objectified ofgroup. an describ to attempt I now populati ―general the and discourse dominant the of viewpoint the from shift the embodies part This PWA. this In an“Us Being

acts but, but also the acts of the the of acts the but also but, acts

final imagined n - omto; aey we I prhn te te' lo wie sh los t me, at looks (s)he while look Other's the apprehend I when namely, formation;

"them" is the idealized ―general population‖), Sartre describes as an "us an as describes Sartre population‖), ―general idealized the is "them" s ubchapter I focus on the on focus I ubchapter - object” on‖ to the viewpointof the PWAs, PWAs, the viewpointof the to on‖

W) a prev "hy (h "they (the "they" perceive can PWA) ooking at me) as a community which community is established established is community which community a as me) at ooking

e what it means that PWAs did not feel themselves as members of theof members as themselves feel not did PWAs that means it what e whole

phenomenological understanding of the pathologized the of understanding phenomenological

object 36

- us. us. and the alternative discourses. Therefore, discourses. alternative the and I do not have individual characteristics incharacteristics individual have not do I being iedbyonthebasis.same ―them‖ as and ―other‖, the ―they‖, the be l - - ujc"te mgnd ―general imagined subject"/the objects - in - common"

ter in terms in ter (436). It is It (436). - through object"

-

CEU eTD Collection the and it, of has [group] oppressing the which knowledge the "in unity its found group leve the to them relegated Us an of part being of experience The certainonfocustheaobserved objects sexuality).(their dominant the to according themselves apprehended they basis: ideological (heteronormative) an on ―us as themselves of recognition The hand. one on fingers six had them of ―us as themselves 1988:75). (Watney discourses (heteronormative) panic" the examine re became aspect heteronormative discourses AIDS homophobic of proliferation the By norm. the from deviance as gayness fulfil successfully who those here means population‖ ―general imagined the that account into take to have we population‖, PWAs when this, ―Chapte in ideology heteronormative the of interrogation my via grasped some draw to like exp an having Although outsidersocialPWAs.to alienated an of feeling the gave this of All imaginations. stereotypical to according imagined PWAs that suggested it plague‖, ―gay the as AIDS to referred media dominant the When means. population‖ ―general what into fit not did who those as outsider as population‖ ―general the of forums the by apprehended were PWAs erience of my self through the Other‘s look Other‘s throughthe self myof erience ,

ic tee id f ecin ae opeey i it te led ongoing already the into fit completely are reactions of kind these since discourse; a discourse that mirrored a certain (heteronormative) angle of vision, and vision, of (heteronormative) angle certain a mirrored that discourse a discourse;

dominant

- apprehended themselves apprehended

object‖ no object‖ attention to the differ the to attention

―us

icuss f the of discourses -

object‖ l of the "homosexual" object. At this level, gay men as an oppressed an as men gay level, this At object. the "homosexual" of l t on the basis of some random characteristics, let us say, that all that say, us let characteristics, random some of basis the on t l

the main heteronormative imperatives and so who apprehend who so and imperatives heteronormative main the

xeine i cran iuto cn be can situation certain in experience, - emphasized: it would not make sense, as Watney claims, toclaims, sense, Watney as make not it would emphasized: - object took away empowerment from gay men, and men, gay from empowerment away took object ences between the two the between ences

A as a group a as D crisis IDS 37

(there, too, I am objectified), here I here objectified), am I too,(there,

r gy e; diinly gy e were men gay additionally, men; gay are , Ws teeoe cud apprehend could therefore, PWAs,

s dsrt peoeo, "moral a phenomenon, discrete a as via the look of the idealized ―general idealized the of look the via . The difference can be best be can difference The .

ey similar very r I‖. r - object‖ happened object‖

According to According also wouldalso o the to CEU eTD Collection 1988:44). (Treichler mencategory) homosexual/bisexual into the categorized gaymen both were AIDS who with thosepeople (ie. reported‖ and was collected data the ofinwhich the way artifact part an in was ofAIDS 16 abou interpretation His patient. AIDS as recognition his after and before media 1988:43 (Treichler by triggered was which shock I group. to [Gever representations media 1988:109] tabloid to due happened often it (as population‖ ―general the of vision social the of field the in appeared PWA a If disease". "gay as to referred was a to facing are we where problem the of root likely the as promiscuity) (and homosexuality define to "natural" seemed it "homosexual", were patients of majority the that out turned it When natural attitudedue familiarity. toits in the he it, demonstrate to attempted I As works. ideology mainstream how connectedly, and, is attitude natural what with therefore, corresponds, It exi their Therefore, AIDS. of cause the as object‖) apprehend could PWAs homosexual behavior, dominant the Since AIDS. discourse of cause the was behavior sexual their that suggested approach which heteronormative the to according themselves apprehend could men gay AIDS, an of shame in assumption the to corresponds [group]consciousness of oppressed the among appearance Even if there were Eventhere if

other other stencevirus.ofa t can be represented the most geographically if we think about the huge surpri huge the about think we geographicallyif most the represented be can t ―

homosexuals ), the the ), qae PA wt gy e, n smlry qae gy e wt ter sexual their with men gay equated similarly and men, gay with PWAs equated

Us - ―general population‖ ―general

other risk factors present, for example, in case ofIV homosexual a case in example, for otherpresent, factors risk object" (Sartre 443). It means that thanks to the dominant discourse about discourse dominant the to thanks that means It 443). (Sartre object" ).

ihr Myr nlzs o Hdo ws ersne b mainstream by represented was Hudson how analyzes Meyer Richard ‖ , therefore, they apprehended him as a membe a as him apprehended they therefore, , nd what our focus is on provided the logic according to which AIDS which to according logic the provided on is focus our what nd and

IV drug users [in 1985, 10 percent of the AIDS sufferers] were automatically were of sufferers] AIDS the percent 10 1985, users[in drug IV

h fmu ad ―hetero and famous the

apprehended him as "homosexual" as him apprehended 38

bodily existence bodily themselves a new and health and new occurred fearful a crisis teronormative ideology is unperceivable is ideology teronormative - masculine‖ Rock Hudson's death death Hudson's Rock masculine‖

a idvdas ihn h ―us the within individuals (as

was equated with the bodily the with equated was 16 . Ideology that influences that Ideology . r of a sexually deviant sexually a of r - drog user. drog , completely similar similar completely ,

t one of the of one t "The se, even se, nature ,

and -

CEU eTD Collection engenderedwas by be to had define object unknown hitherto a as patient AIDS knowledge: prior its by influenced pop ―general the how way The whole. a as members, other "us an being (namely, population‖ ―general the of understanding and look the through community th at also and crisis serious becominggay",After all,population‖. innocent "visibly ―general ofhealth the the jeopardized a caused lifestyle his with "who" gay" visibly "becoming so and visible becoming of fear AIDSpatients' reality: bodily and realitysocial between strongconnection highlightthe can It suggests)―gayplague‖ perversion "gayness"/sexual of sign a became AIDS phenomenon), ( AIDS of cause the became lifestyle) conscious socially a (as "gayness" 1991:278). (Meyer body‖ ‗other‘ and until his Hudson,‘ Rock of life ‗other the th signify together text and Image AIDS. of evidence visual the read to meant are we which into image contemporary a features cover Hudson ―the discourse: dominant the of lenses the of cover - object"). PWAs were apprehended by the ―general population‖ only together wi together only population‖ ―general the by apprehended were PWAs object"). at time, meant being a member of an extraordinarily risky, deviant, and and deviant, risky, extraordinarily an of member a being meant time, at d that d People was possible only possible was

magazine just highlights how interrelated AIDS and ―gayness‖ were through were ―gayness‖ and AIDS interrelated how highlights just magazine the logicof .

as AIDS patient (considering here, for example, Kaposi's sarcoma), sarcoma), Kaposi's example, for here, (considering patient AIDS as

heteronormative ideology.heteronormative n em fpeiu knowledge previous of terms in h stain teeoe see t b ta while that be to seemed therefore, situation, The - now covert sexuality, has produced this, his ailing his this, produced has sexuality, covert now 39

lto‖ okd t AIDS at looked ulation‖ apeiu k previous a ;

(this is what the phrase the what is (this as a serious health serious a as nowledge ― infectious th all the all th

was that at ‖

CEU eTD Collection heter omnipresent nowhere still the but of look existing the both that therefore, here, by argue especially I II‖), discourses. ―Chapter (media) (see dominant sphere public the in interpreted was crisis AIDS how to seems ―gay‖ pathologized and essentialized spectacle the exposedness, The differentlook",andthe "the levelsof consciousness. process dynamic a of result the is realm social the how that demonstrate to so and aim, stated my here reach reality social shaping the in role particular a have consciousness the the ce is in society,tobodies connects something as look", "the how see to so and viewpoint, phenomenological a from 80s the in crisis AIDS "us the of position answe these of both that emphasize I discourses. mainstream the a of framework heteronormative or the transcending a back", also stare”, unashamed "looking an into “breaking a is position activist other, the and shame), to response possible a "tur gay a is position moralizing and conservative a taking that argue I by shame. caused tension the of solutions possible two the analyze and account into take I Then, firs At one. activist an or position, moralizing and conservative a either occupy could one shame, the over get to order In agency. lost temporarily their back get could men gay order in shame shame gay men, gay of objectification the so and discourse, AIDS homophobic the to due that argue I chapter, this In Who? Looks at Who Activism: and Moralizing, Shame, Gay III. t, I give an analysis about shame as a consequence of heteronormative AIDS discourses. AIDS heteronormative of consequence a as shame about analysis an give I t, between I and others and "we" and "they"; a process the process a "they"; and "we" and others and I between - bet. y h n o ti catr n wl b al t cmrhn the comprehend to able be will one chapter this of end the By object". a egnee. eaie w psil wy o gtig vr gay over getting of ways possible two examine I engendered. was - aue Wte 18; rm 20c o te W as PWA the of 2002c) Crimp 1988; (Watney nature sxa ―eea pplto‖ se Catr I) and II‖), ―Chapter (see population‖ ―general osexual 40

ea raiigpicpei tepoes of process the in principle organizing an be nter of powerofrelations nter

s ee o e oe the over get to were rs . I attempt, therefore, to therefore, attempt, I . , and how the levels ofthelevels andhow ,

center of which is which of center ning away"(as ning

CEU eTD Collection psychologica how about account an gives she first, dealing atemotions: textsbodies of with mainstream between two differentiates schematically She (2004). sphere social/cultural the and body individual's the both level) same the at time, inclu approach Her shame. with dealing begin to how for basis perfect the provide to seems theory cultural Ahmed's perspective, phenomenological my to Due ShameGay crucially, i dynamic These look". "the and ideology of working and individually both the sociallyconsequences harmful of also, broader mainstreamAIDSbut at level,the a discourses understanding of terms in only not step next the reach to able causes root and experience the detail in interrogatingmore felt With shame. discourses, public homophobic through alienated and objectified seriously were who men gay that think to right intuitively feels it chapter(s), previous the in discussed was what After basis. same the from answers) 2003:88] Takemoto 2002a; [Crimp moralizing the and UP] ACT activist[e.g. the (namely, AIDSdiscourses homophobic mainstream, the to answers foll the In theinun least, at themselves, about perception own men‘ gay included necessarily perception social general how of way the result, a As PWA. the of object describing the as existed ―gay‖ which in understanding metaphorical a used continuously disease‖ ―gay a as AIDS about discussion public the seen, te (in consequences of bodily kind certain as experiences gay specifically about further knowledge my gain to in order in significance analysis specific given be to need perception social heteronormative includeindividual experiences wn, eaie o i i psil t udrtn to bscly ifrn gay different basically two, understand to possible is it how examine I owing,

a mn ee oily ecie sgiiaty hne, n ipraty the importantly, and changed, significantly perceived socially were men gay - reflectednaturalof the stateattitude(see ―ChapterI‖). rms of shame) of the metaphorical discourse. As we have already have we As discourse. metaphorical the of shame) of rms .

41

l approach think that are emotions that think approach l nterpersonal and inter and nterpersonal

of shame, one will be will one shame, of - des (in the same the (in des group processes, group mine

CEU eTD Collection objectofwethe terms areof. conscious a to facing are we (where of conscious are we what influences something as ideology Heteronormative objects. social apprehends one which from direction a the of consciousness a what through only reflection; to according feel and sugg act will will logic heteronormative attitude, natural the in subjects, that suppose we ideology, heteronormative of working the on focus we if Accordingly, far. thus analysis, be to seems indeed, framework, Ahmed's interpretational own her creates hersoframework, and for she emotions, of interpretations mentioned the of both Rejecting 9). (ibid 'we'" the and 'me' the and social, the and individual the outside, and inside object the assume "both of similar: logic very their is but explanation direction their in only differ approaches two these that claims Ahmed (Collinsbodytogether" quotedsocial1990:27,byAhmed 2004:9). "For psychological: th the from comes what not is emotion of Durkheim opposite the suggests, she as is, that approach (sociological) can I and is an effect ratherthanis an effect (ibid10). a cause social the ‗objectivity‘ and suggests psychic the which the that of process a objects, social the and psychic the of constitution very the to crucial sug [I] (...) others. with contact of, shape the take even and by, shaped are ‗we‘ the and ‗I‘ the ormade: are boundaries surfaces that others, and objects to respond we how or emotions, emoti express ons are not simply something ‗I‘ or ‗we‘ have. Rather, it is through is it Rather, have. ‗we‘ or ‗I‘ something simply not are ons nd what our focus is on is focus our what nd

hm "nie u" prah, hn h dsrbs h "usd in" "outside the describes she then approach), out" ("inside them

est. It will be possible to feel otherwise only through through only otherwise feel to possible be will It est.

in complete accordance with the approach of my of approach the with accordance complete in –

see ―Chapter I‖) also influences how we feel in feel we how influences also I‖) ―Chapter see 42 e individual body, but is what hold or binds the binds or hold what is but body, individual e

vt o te ey itnto between distinction very the of ivity et ht mtos are emotions that gest

CEU eTD Collection 18 17 Ishame,have somethingwhen I feel done that Ifeel ashamed feel will I them, to according act not do I if and norms certain accordingact to to me expects somebodywho as other the apprehend I account, accor Therefore, look. other's the by me) (for embodied actually are which expectations social of the framework into not fit does other) the to I appear (as appearance my myself look of shape other‘s the gives what is the look other‘s The shame. by my strengthens and engenders therefore, suggested is perception our of background the crucially, appear I myself of ashamed am ―I that and 2006:245), (Sartre myself‖ to myself of relation intimate I what of ashamed am ―I that namely, shame, on thoughts a self causes the It of self. consciousness the to connected most the other, the on and engendered, hand, socially one highly the on is, that emotion ambivalent indeed an is shame level, basic most the At different,embodiedonly they rather suggests, also Ahmed as other, each from separated sharply be cannot levels two these thecourse, Of community. of level the to and individual the to related is shame embodied how crisis, which perspectives I following, the PWA; In look. other's the heterosexual of representations media mainstream crisis AIDS the of middle the in themselves apprehend could s Shame other(s). and "we" other(s), and and "I" between borders cultural social, maintain) (and shape can feelings these suggests, Ahmed As See also the accounts on Mauss, in “Chapter I” . I” “Chapter Mauss,in on accounts also the See Merleauon based chapter the first in theaccount to here usLetremember

for myself: in order to be ashamed, I always need to know how (from which direction) which (from how know to need alwaysI ashamed, be to order in myself: for

to the Ot the to her‖ (ibid: 246). In shame, therefore, we are conscious of ourselves and, ourselves of conscious are we therefore, shame, In 246). (ibid: her‖

i Ti i t is This . nterrelated

e ai sadn o wih e a udrtn Sartre‘s understand can we which on standing basis he

approaches,willwe see. as

43 xmn, ih seii fcs n h AIDS the on focus specific a with examine, eems to be crucial in terms of how gay people how in termsbe of crucial to eems

is bad" (Ahmedbad"is 2004:103). 18 . Or as Ahmed writes, "[c]ertainly,writes, Ahmed as Or . am - . Shame, therefore, realizes an realizes therefore, Shame, . Ponty' thoughts about visiabout thoughts Ponty'

through h lne o the of lenses the ig o Sartre's to ding

17 on.

which,

as CEU eTD Collection the betw connections on also emphasis an puts furthermore, Tomkins, 2008:359). (Tomkins lost" is shame of object and subject the between distinction phenomenological the that in affects of reflexive that At self. the by it ashamed, feels self self the when moment the of experience an is shame affects, other all to contrast "[i]n that Sartre, to similarly writes, theory, affect the of establisher formal the Tomkins, S. Silvan [w]e are inclined to favor the theory that shame is an innate auxiliary auxiliary innate an is shame that theory the favor to inclined are [w]e 354). ( shyness evokes who stranger the from completely away turn may he or stare, unashamed an into break suddenly may child shy a Thus joy. or excitement reduce and inhibit further may shame the or shame the inhibit and again increased be may joy or excitement original the activated, been has shame Once stranger. a at smiling one unfamiliar, was butfound tosmile started orone suddenly appears buthe because isstrange, familiar him he expected orone cannot tobe a look to wishes one because or strange, is who one by at looked be suddenly is one might because barrier a Such joy. self or excitement or by exploration powered further exposure reduce and shame in eyes and head e of smile reduces the or partially interest which exploration further to barrier joy. any or Hence interest of reduction incomplete the is innate shame The of both. activator or other the or one inhibits and activated, been only ordinarilyoperates it , Like enjoyment. and interest continuing of inhibitor specific a and affect

een shame,interesteen "continuing and t or commune with another person but suddenly suddenly but person another with commune or t jyet il ciae h lwrn o the of lowering the activate will njoyment

is felt as a sickness within the self. Shame is the most the is Shame self. the within sickness a as felt is 44

after interest or enjoyment has has enjoyment or interest after enjoyment", and ―familiarity‖: bd 353 ibid - -

CEU eTD Collection edr f y slce‖ bet I, e u sy or e ad edr s h sm, hn this then same, the is gender and sex our say, us let If, object. ―selected‖ my of gender and sex my on focused be will myself of consciousness social of system whole a within myself apprehend will I look, other‘s the through case, this In object? ―selected‖ that namely, self, my of consciousness of state the to somebody attraction my of conscious be not will I enjoyment, the in person, a to attracted am I if example, For acts. my of aims (enjoyable) myof conscious am not I which in state a be enjoyment self as explicitly enjoyment call to worthwhile is it that here suggest would I " in) other idealized an later, see will we as (indeed, interested am I som by other; strange a by engendered interruption an enjoyment; and/or interest interrupted an as occurs always shame Tomkins, to according that, important also is it hand, wron this of terms in myself apprehend will I ―bad‖, something did who object an as object, "wrong" a as me apprehend presumably other the if look, other's the through only myself apprehend that acknowledgement an element additional an as shame in occurs What look. other's the through only ourselves of aware be to possible self the of reflection a is shame that hand, one the on seems, It before. already had have we what into fits it how and shame), of terms (in far thus have we what illustrate and summarize me Let incomplete through g act. I myself will be my wrong act (as I am mirrored by the other). On the other the On other). the by mirrored am I (as act wrong my be will myself I act. g – would be my unconscious (unconscious of myself) existence in the world. It wouldIt world. in the existence myself) (unconsciousof unconscious mywouldbe

reductionofor interest joy". only of my ―selected‖ object. But what happens, if some other‘s look brings me brings look other‘s some if happens, what But object. ―selected‖ my of only

the other's look. In the first chapte first the In look. other's the –

compared to the basic recognition of myself through the other's look other's the through myself of recognition basic the to compared - eul meaie. f hs s htrnraie ytm my system, heteronormative a is this If imperatives. sexual I (as an object for the other) have done something "bad". Since I Since "bad". something done have other) the for object an (as I

self 45

but only of what gives me pleasure, or of the of or pleasure, givesme what of only but r, on the basis of Sartre, I write that it is it that write I Sartre, of basis the on r, – Iam

ht a te n wo trcs to attracts who one the am I that

gender

the the n wo s trce t my to attracted is who one n relation in –

this is why shame is an is shame why is this - enjoyment. Self enjoyment.

o h sx and sex the to

ebody whom whom ebody state of self of state –

is - - CEU eTD Collection ofg betheembodiment will whoother the imagine enough to it is shame, otherfeel to actual 19 heteronormativewhole system.the disc II) Chapter (see discourse mainstream AIDS of cause the and victim, AIDS potential the both as man by t mediated was it their 1987), Shilts same and (e.g. promiscuity epidemic horrible the of causes ―homosexual‖ ―promiscuous‖, gay which to according horizons, power strictly new, represented instead, and group, active politically and culturally a as men gay apprehend could one which of help the with horizons social the of all overwrote bo their of cause the as seen was ―sickness‖ sexual (their deviants sexual of group dangerous a as discourse, mainstream the of viewpoint the up, set was from perceived, were men Gay 1991). Nunokawa I‖; ―Chapter (see ideology which heteronormative background a disease; frightening a of background the but lifestyle critical or , sexual of background political the of front in anymore seen not were men gay figure; critical socially a as man‖ ―gay of background rear AIDS discourse dominant the of elements strongly heteronormative The shame. of feeling my engenders what is look The somebody. to attracted am I that of only imperatives, Befo ashamed. social other‘s desire. improper my with equation an as myself apprehend will I consequently, will (s)he object, ―prohibited‖ a desire I that detects me on look other‘s the If object. ―prohibited‖ becomesa object ―selected‖ Although, since heteronormative norms are internalized from early childhood, one does not necessary need an need does notnecessary one earlychildhood, from internalized are norms heteronormative since Although, uss irrd hs cran iaie) te‘ lo ta ebde htrsxs, and heterosexism, embodied that look other‘s (imagined) certain those mirrored ourses

- sexual system as a norm (therefore, if I idealize the other‘s viewpoint), I will bewill I viewpoint), other‘s the idealize I if (therefore, norm a systemas sexual re the other looks at me at looks other the re he only possible way; via being way; onlyhe possible

- sex sexual object choice was equal with their socially existing self (as self existing socially their with equal was choice object sexual sex

men were passive victims. When gay men were seen as the as seen were men gay When victims. passive were men

prhn m acrig o y mrpr eie and desire, improper my to according me apprehend 19 , therefore, I am not aware of all the heteronormative the all of aware not am I therefore, , –

a epce t b ahmd al h mainstream the all ashamed: be to expected was 46

- seen dily sickness sickness dily - by - the

– - gi, n codne with accordance in again, other other

as it was emphasized by the by emphasized was it as –

AIDS). AIDS discourses discourses AIDS AIDS). –

see ―Chapter I‖). Gay ―Chapter I‖). see ranged the social the ranged eneral norms. eneral If

I accept the accept I -

made CEU eTD Collection demonstrate, Crimp and Watney as , the of atmosphere The 135). (ibid mourning illustrative an us gives he , a about story Watney‘s Simon of one Through honestly. and openly mourn to hard veryit made often crisis AIDS the of context homophobic highly the that hand, one the on notices, Crimp HIV the by infected or AIDS, with live that people the to regards with mourning of specificity the highlight to wants he because this quotes Crimp 2002b:134). Crimp in (quoted day‖ the gains wish hallucinatory a of medium the through to clung being object the ensues, reality from away turning a that intense so be eve our from us withdraws that something is mourning (melancholic) The crisis. AIDS the specific of context the within militancy to mourning opposes he writing this In (2002b). by Militancy‖ engendered situation ―shameful‖ the to disco mainstream answers gay possible two the ameliorating The for situation. activism and crisis, AIDS the about writing analytical critical with to now proper seems It an into "break could stare".unashamed or stranger" the from completely away "turn could either men gay AIDS discourses: byhomophobic gay caused ofshame outcome possible practicallytwo were latter the all c one of As 1991). Nunokawa 2002b:; spite (Crimp activism in gaze, heteronormative population‖‘s ―general II) Chapter (see omnipresent still but existing nowhere the for object (passive) pure a be to seen being kept dominantso own his processof thein parttakenot could he time, same the at but, interest others‘ of center the in was victim‖ ―AIDS homosexual the sphere: social the in borders established newly the on reflection a was engendered, was it if shame, Gay - virus, orthosetothatdiedhadvirus, becau somebody ryday life, but after a while it ceases. As Crimp quotes from Freud: ―[t]his strugglecanFreud: ―[t]his quotesAs Crimpfrom it while ceases. a but after rydaylife, re a b cpue poel truh rm‘ atce ―orig and ―Mourning article, Crimp‘s through properly captured be can urse

turn to some of Douglas Crimp‘s writings since he was both engaged both was he since writings Crimp‘s Douglas of some to turn - psychosis. The normal outcome is that defe that is outcome normal The psychosis. example about a usual funeral as the symbolic space for space symbolic the as funeral usual a about example 47

seofAIDS an infer it from Tomkins' account, there account, Tomkins' from it infer an - related complications. related cial representation; herepresentation; cial rence for reality for rence

CEU eTD Collection account, Crimp‘s after Here, occur. can shame which in contextthe and engendered is shame which via process the with dealt I chapter, this in Earlier thedominantvaluethat domi the questions or eyes, other‘s dominant the in object ―normal‖ a be to choice, order in a system dominant the situation: acknowledges one whether ambivalent indeed, same the suggest to seems it Because shame? discussed importa mourning ambivalent the of problem this is Why agency.lost men‘s gay for demand a as actually, read, be can which anger in resulted could concealment reticence a lover; or friend, lost the with relationship the of nature the of reticence a reticence; a as indeed, felt, be might It hypocrisy. heterosexist the of had they whom proba with death somebody‘s mourn to there were they situation: paradoxical a in themselves found usually men gay atmosphere, homophobic this of result a As conceal. AID about word single a not were there hypocrisy: same the just maintained funerals the of atmosphere the crisis, the to answers hypocritical and homophobic the of because partly died who men means PWA a being which within framework a died; men gay of many which to due framework the into fit just usually bly the tightest relationship, and still, they had to conceal the conceal to theyhad still, and relationship, tightest the bly S, since dying of AIDS of dying since S, us, mourning us, of Formany them. vindicate to in anger risewe dead, our of the desecrates also violence this Because murder. outright and hatred vio the as endure to impossible as almost omission and silence of violence the relentless, is encounter we violence The

- system is notisneutral asystem becomes being sinful and dispensable. In spite of the huge number of gay gay of number huge the of spite In dispensable. and sinful being

militancy(ibid135). - related complications was demanded to be something to something be to demanded was complications related 48 - normal one.normal

nant other‘s viewpoint in order to highlight highlight to order in viewpoint other‘s nant

I would like to emphasize two crucialtwo emphasize to like would I

t n h cnet f h already the of context the in nt

of themselves. This compulsory This themselves. of lence of unleashed of lence depth

of their pain because pain their of CEU eTD Collection shethatwritesConsequently, look.) other‘s the through myself apprehend to need I know, we as because, identification ―ide an to due occur can shame that writes Ahmed other.imagined,an before ―ideal‖ shame a was discourses AIDS dominant to due occur could that shame gay that seems it all, imagination, Kosofsky and Parker of logic the to according everywhere, present still curiously, is, population‖ ―general homopho the of audience imagined the is it existing, really nowhere however, is, population‖ ―general the seen, already have weAs ―gaytoacts‖. due shame feels one population‖ so ―generalheterosexual the of member (s)he terms: similar in apprehended be to needs shame, feel one so act bad the witness to has who ―other‖, The else. anything than important through understood be ―family‖ the of name the can only ―bad‖ heterose and monogamy of sanctity the are where lenses heteronormative homosexual and promiscuous being that accusation the out, point to attempted also I as sure, For homosexual. and promiscuous it seen already have we as is, victim‖ ―AIDS an being in ―badness‖ The thatwhoacknowledge, andthe―other‖ is. to has one that is act ―bad‖ the what that then, ask, to have We crisis. AIDS the of context elemen These look. other‘s the through existence into comes shame that second, and committed, was which act the of badness the acknowledges one shame, feels one when that first, at shame: of occurrence the in elements first of all, that makes the ―general population‖ to be present everywhere. After After everywhere. present be to population‖ ―general the makes that all, of first - Sedgwick‘s ―implied witnesses‖ (see Chapter II). It is the social individual‘s social the is It II). Chapter (see witnesses‖ ―implied Sedgwick‘s –

as it is claimed by heterosexist voices [Watney 1988]) are more are 1988]) [Watney voices heterosexist by claimed is it as

bic AIDS discourses. However, as we have also seen, the seen, also have we as However, discourses. AIDS bic s ut e seily aeul cniee i the in considered carefully especially be must ts

49

ntification with the other‖. (Shame requires(Shame other‖. the with ntification –

h ―other‖ the –

a t b iaie a a as imagined be to has xual object choice (in choice object xual

in ―Chapter II‖, to be to II‖, ―Chapter in CEU eTD Collection existing) nowhere (hence ideal beautiful, this threatens What heterosexuality. to connected etc life‖ ―family of love the children, of love the this, to According family. heterosexual the in say, us let embodied, are which values the of love explicit an but homosexuals towards AID the of terms In therefore,servelove,dangerous, anhidden can language asextremely of hatred. of language The minorities. the by threatened is which nation the nation; the of love their (Ahmed groups‖ ―love as 2004:122 defined newly became groups‖ ―hate as defined earlier these right certain with deals she ―hatred‖: replace can more i point The love. on a thoughts clarified in understand more her of can help the with love, of One role the by here everywhere. means Ahmed what way present comprehensive still is it exists, really nowhere si other‖, ―ideal the sense, this In context. the of quality definable not opened, the to refer can empty as seen be can ideal the of content the That heterosexual. foremost, and first is, society heteronormative a in other ideal The - 2) Te d no do They 123). belongs to a community; the ideal is a proximate ―we‖. If we feel feel we If ―we‖. proximate a is ideal the community; a to together belongs subjects sticks what is (coh ‗ideal‘ an Such (…) sense someempty. in is ideal the of ‗content‘ the characteristics; certain have necessarily not does self‘ ‗ideal The (…) other. ideal an of gaze shame, In myself. to myself of failure a profoundly is hence other this before failure [m]y 2004:106). l of practices the through us to given been has that ideal‟ shame, erence) (…). Through love, an ideal self is produced as a self that self a as produced is self ideal an love, Through (…). erence) e el hm bcue e ae ald o prxmt „an approximate to failed have we because shame feel we cii i mas ht oohbc icsin s o a epii hatred explicit an not is discussion homophobic that means it crisis S

epaieayoe hi hte twrs tnc ioiis but minorities ethnic towards hatred their anymore emphasize t

I expose to myself that I am a failure through the the through failure a am I that myself to expose I s, in terms of Ahmed understanding of love, that ―love‖ that love, of understanding Ahmed of terms in s, 50 ial t te gnrl ouain, although population‖, ―general the to milarly

- ig acs gop ad eonzs that recognizes and groups fascist wing ove

(Ahmed (Ahmed

. is . CEU eTD Collection that writes (1996), Epidemic‖ an of Twilight the on Notes End: Plagues ―When story cover his mentions Crimp answers, gay of kinds these of embodiment perfect a As too. population‖, ―general idealized ―us an as not apprehended to who Those ashamed. felt men gay that presumption the verify can 2003:88) Takemoto 2002a; (Crimp AIDS to answers gay as turns melancholic and moralizing, conservative, taking about account Crimp's Douglas Gay dominant the by generated men whichreactions, however,discourses, gay targeted thesame get to aim,back namely,gay agency. of situation the to reactions different completely the was these discourses, of audience the was other idealized the discourses; dominant the by suggested was it as present everywhere time, same the at but existed, nowhere was other that other idealized cou shame This bad. gay is their existence that so and values, heteronormative of acknowledgement the here mean would shame Their shame. feel to required were crisis, AIDS of context the in men, gay Therefore, the to according Therefore, hatingthehomosexuals.with homosexuality. is love, of f heterosexual the loving I‖), ―Chapter (see full attitude natural heteronormative is that life of image

AnswerstheCrisis:to ConservatismActivism vs. from responsibility, from life gay AIDS, Before

the HIV positive, gay, positive, HIV the gnrl ouain. n h floig I tep t dmntae two demonstrate to attempt I following, the In population‖. ―general ok the moralizing position (instead of gay activism) wanted to be to wanted activism) gay of (instead position moralizing the ok - bet (e Catr I bt s a mn h bln t the to belong who men gay as but II) Chapter (see object‖

rather than with its opposite. Gay liberation was was liberation Gay opposite. its with than rather – d e nedrd hog te ys f heterosexual, a of eyes the through engendered be ld

rightly or wrongly or rightly New York Times York New 51

–

journalist Andrew Sullivan who, in who, Sullivan Andrew journalist was identified freedom freedom identified was amily is equated is amily

CEU eTD Collection Sul image. possible this to attention draw to was writing this with aim his that certain is it but not, or time, that at heterosexuals by acknowledged was homosexuals responsible of image this whether question responsib as homosexuals of image it the end, promoted the at because, salutary sense certain in as AIDS at looks he that seems it Indeed, demand. heteronormative a only is sexuality, of terms in life, responsible called so the that caused not AIDS was that suggestis not does Sullivan What citizens. men gay that and citizens, pre that pre sugges Sullivan What lifestyle. their and men gay about ofstereotypes heteronormative image an gives here Sullivan - IS a lfsye s repnil, ht pre that irresponsible, is lifestyle gay AIDS epniiiy eae cnrl ipsn faue f a lf. (… life. gay of feature imposing central, a became responsibility self their away gave homosexuals return, in freedom; of amount certain a homosexuals gave straights closet: class second in acquiescence an for turn in responsibility of absence the homosexuals permitted that dispensation a of almost norms, constraints traditional the from liberation as understood commonly most ht hy culy i cr aot hmevs … (ie i Crimp 6). 2002a: in (Cited (…) themselves about care did actually they that w confronted were away life own their throwing to Men marriage. whohad got longstrong used since any heterosexual as as be to found were support social no had that Relationships could. they that found another one for care didn‘t they thought who People iiesi. hs a te asin agi o te pre the of bargain Faustian the was This citizenship. ia‘ hmsxa ―nwr t te IS rss ws teeoe a therefore, was, crisis, AIDS the to ―answer‖ homosexual livan‘s

–

s h AD cii highlighted crisis AIDS the as - IS a mn hc ebae te harshest the embraces which man gay AIDS 52

e first le, - - epc. u wt AIDS, with But respect. IS a mn ee eod class second were men gay AIDS - ls ctzn. t s o cus, a course, of is, It citizens. class – ith the possibility the ith

r al t at s ―normal‖ as act to able are by gay promiscuity, and bygaypromiscuity, - AIDS ) - ts here is here ts CEU eTD Collection attemptgettoantemporarilyhis lostback. agency fisrt become could men gay so necessity „gayn exceeding that claims implicitly therefore, He, exceeded. be to had which community historical a as men, gay other from also pre the alienates and men‖, gay „irresponsible „we the of member a becomes He "we the of member a as him apprehend to possible most it make that things those emphasizes indeed, Sullivan, 2008:354). (Tomkins shyness‖ evokes completely away „turn[s] person ashamed the when case the is This shame. felt the of outcomes possible the of one is it, puts Tomkins as entirely, away‖ „turning This other. heterosexual the of look exposing the from men gay a as away‖ „turns he public, puts Sullivan when values shared out": his on "coming emphasis a of opposite the here mean would away" "Turning shame. conservati one's maintaining or turn, moralizing Taking lesson. the learnt have they that population‖ ―general the convince to trying and community), whole a of name the in did, Sullivan (as failure their re they if questioning by either shame, of was meaning and state the over getto had gaymen crisis the after duringand that seems It different. completely relevance their epidemic, the after and during However, crisis. AIDS conservativ no were there that think cannot course, of We, itinterpreted throughlenses.heteronormative pre of badness the acknowledged he one; conservative

ve position was, therefore, one of the ways of getting over of the problem of problem the of over getting of ways the of one therefore, was, position ve –

in the "traditional norms" norms" "traditional the in belief - ujc‖ n h sen the in subject‖ ess‖ was only a question of time, indeed, that it was a was it that indeed, time, of question a only was ess‖ - class citizens. Thus, we can read Sullivan's article as article Sullivan's read can we Thus, citizens. class ally had a cause to feel shame, or by acknowledging by or shame, feel to cause a had ally 53

- AIDS, infantile gay community from him, and him, from community gay infantile AIDS,

- subject" (instead of an „us an of (instead subject" e ht e betfe frhr the further objectifies he that se - IS a lfsye eas he because lifestyle gay AIDS hmsxa vie bfr the before voices homosexual e –

from the stranger who stranger the from ih h heterosexu the with - object‖). al CEU eTD Collection powerofthe terms in shame, soalso terms of in and relevant its elements out topoint able tobe order ACT UP in the pr In of the so uponit. 1991), following, Ione reflect and analyze Nunokawa could non basis very the reflectedquestionedway: they a in crisis the to answered UP ACT of members the I), Chapter taken is other heteronormative the of idealness the other‖ „ideal the of idealness the men gay activist for that means it shame, mourning of terms us, In 135). of (ibid militancy‖ many ‖[f]or suggests, he As crisis. AIDS the of middle the in ambiva the about writes Crimp how seen have We thatit sinfultoistime, thatits think spreadwithingay communityis the fine. HIV that 2002b:8 (Crimp the sexism" and racism, heterosexism, of forms in neglect institutionalized and care, health affordable of ineccassibility the inaction, government to due but virus a to due simply not deteriorated has health whose being health human a is " AIDS that fact that the emphasized fact They deaths. the people's causes on which focused phenomeon rather and plague" "gay the as or "gay disease" a as AIDS of interpretation the rejected radically They agency. back get to reaction a was answers, conservative the unlike UP, ACT of work The 2008:354). (Tomkins stare‖ unashamed an into „break the of example an is Power) Unleash to (the Coalition UPAIDS ACT entirely‖, away „turning of terms in representative a is article Sullivan‘s If - ideological facts. They were aware with the taken the with aware were They facts. ideological - virus can be spread only within a certain community is non is community certain a within only spread be can virus

of the whole dominant interpretation of AIDS via focusing only on the pure, pure, the on only focusing via AIDS of interpretation dominant whole the of –

- the other that w that other the relations wererelationsbyestablished the dominantAIDSdiscourse. as to engender shame in gay men men gay in shame engender to as 54

lent feeling of mourning amond gay men, men, gay amond mourning of feeling lent - for - for - rne i te aua attd (see attitude natural the in granted - granted working of ideology (e.g. (e.g. ideology of working granted 7). They articulated that thinking that articulated They 7). – -

sense, and at the same the at and sense, was challenged. Since challenged. was

th PA s a is PWA [t]he

becomes

oject of oject critical

CEU eTD Collection The symbolicallythe crucialthatis element;termsinof crucialanalysis. my Show... the is practice critical culturally a as art of example positive a as Crimp by offered is that project The patience. requires that system the challenge actively to therefore, c UP ACT of work the What approval. and patience are only PWA‘s the victim, a as PWA of image rejected this to According experts‖. „the by only saved be can that victim‖) „AIDS phrase the by (referred for claims already he statement, this With lives. save can actually art that claims Crimp (5), fundraising for used be can that commodity a best, the at as, art of interpretation usual the of spite In crisis. AIDS the to related is it as examines (1988) Activism‖ Cultural / Analysis Cultural „AIDS: in Crimp, LettheRecordShow... . Since the whole project is described by Crimp in detail (7 detail in Crimp by described is project whole the Since . patrioticishavetobe It andnegative. theAIDS test outcomelogicalofThe testingisquarantine aof thoseinfected. wordreadthe and face the see can we spaces, boxed separate these of each in on goes cast history, by judged be may boxed life six –

CoryServaas,Presidental AIDS Commission

–

- Jesse Helms,JesseUS Senator in spaces, and below each one the words by which he or she she or he which by words the one each below and spaces, in - size, silhouetted photograph silhouetted size,

project included s: laims for is exactly the opposit of patience and approval, it is, it approval, and patience of opposit the exactly is for laims

agency for the PWA who is not a passive victim passive a not is who PWA the for agency

–

55 literally s of ‘AIDS criminals‘ in separate, in criminals‘ ‘AIDS of s

–

in concrete. As the light the As concrete. in

- 12), here I only highlights only I here 12),

the problem of art of problem the Let the Record the Let CEU eTD Collection another created „we a of members as others) also (and themselves demonstrated UP ACT of members the project, this With wrong. unforgivably but granted, not only not were discourses dominant the of elements peculiar the which from viewpoint own their had they that so unasham aninto „break a literally is here, have we what So discourse. AIDS dominant the of PWAs) towards hatred the notably (most the pilloried project the of part this that see can we all, After God‘ssociety judgmentaAIDSthatdoes is of notby Hisrules. live reason. hav we Now basis. emotional an on faggots hate to used We 1988a:7 (Crimp again, once see, and slab blank this from up look We Reagan. President of the photograph is silhouetted which above concrete, of slab blank a is there finally, And ofothervictimization homosexuals. butt the on and users, needle common protect to forearm,upper the tattooed in be with AIDSshould detectedEveryone – – –

anonymus surgeonanonymus William F.Buckley,William columnist Jerrytelevangelist Falwell, a new a ,

ed stare‖. The project demonstrated that gay men could look back,and look couldgay demonstratedprojectmen that The stare‖. ed „we - 8). - ujc‖ s poe t te imagined, the to opposed as subject‖

(that is only a characteristic of subjects) of characteristic a only is (that

56 the neon sign: SILENCE=DEATH SILENCE=DEATH sign: neon the

- subject‖, although, unlike Sullivan, they Sullivan, unlike although, subject‖, ocks to prevent the the prevent to ocks idea lized, e a good a e oiat one. dominant

; a viewpoint a ; taken - for - CEU eTD Collection 20 inresulted self the and discourse, dominant the by and maintained produced reality social peculiar the that seems it Indeed, (1988:190). crime‖ thought AIDS own our experienced we think I the think I intention, of „[r]egardless it: puts Bordowitz As abolished. be not could representations media dominant the through [Bordowitz Street Wall on 1987, 1988 March in organized was UP ACT of protest first (the 80s the of middle the around from strong be to became activism queer focus, our Expanding positions.powerful ―we the were PWAs relations „us discourses dominant the of terms in sentences representative power of system the Furthermore, „us as interpreted „we a of viewpoint demonstrative a as „we heterosexual idealized, belong the to want hand, one thatto they it donot onthe clear, they made Therefore Testing the Limits CollectiveLimits Testingthe - object‖ relations suggested by the dominant discourses. In the newly established power established newly the In discourses. dominant the by suggested relations object‖ :184]). However, it seems that the fact that PWAs necessarily apprehended themselves apprehended necessarily PWAs that fact the that seems it However, :184]).

activism. This is counterbalanced by others who stress the problems the stress who others by counterbalanced is This activism. AIDS their with associated is orientation sexual their that deny will manyactivists gay disease,‘ a ‘AIDSasis such assumptions, prevalent countering of sake the For formation. discursive specific historically a - - subject‖, and subject‖, e te eod Show... Record the Let relations because it it because relations

- bet va mlcty ihihig ht I cn net anybody. infect can HIV that highlighting implicitly via object‖

(the author) (the

on the other, that they reject to be an be to reject they that other, the on - ujc‖ ht eadd h acutblt o pol in people of accountability the demanded that subject‖

- related homophobia. But there is no such thing as a a as thing such no is there But homophobia. related – - subj

thr a sbesv i term in subversive was 57 c‖ euitd ht Ws s gop a be can group a as PWAs that repudiated ect‖ uh okn bc t pol ta articulated that people to back looking ough 20

, at times, recapitulated the h the recapitulated times, at , - determinin –

reversed the „we the reversed itnin o qer people queer of intentions g s

‖us f h woe dominant whole the of - object‖. The project The object‖. omophobia (...). omophobia - subject‖ and subject‖ - CEU eTD Collection as PWAs the of position the challenged only not did UP ACT result, a As discourses. AIDS those to back looking actively of basis the on established was „us an in membership understandable which became from it project how possibl was it „we dominant the in membership a get to aiming were which answers gay moralizing conservative, about account an gave I first, At shame. get to possible was it how of examples two demonstrated I Finally, AIDS. of causes „homosexual‖ promiscuous, the as represented were they because shame feel could idealized omnipresent still but existing nowhere dominant, the of look the through that highlighted chapter this In dominantdiscoursesthe unreflectedly dominant understanding who realm the that deeper ofand social those a of than apprehenduse socially being that us, for suggest especially of was viewpoint fear their for that considered clear was it although groups, target the of one only was population‖ „general The communicate. they whom to and why, when, how, what, of th as discourses, alternative on, built was it which logic its explicate to able not was „reflected‖, the not was discourse dominant While discourse. dominant the of understanding an of light the in understood best be assum previous myof one underpins also account this As ,

heteronormative ―general population‖ (suggested by dominant discourses), gaymendiscourses), (suggestedby dominant heteronormativepopulation‖ ―general that theyexcludeofrecognitionthat theproblems for anyoneelse. extent an such for people gay certain far for posed has epidemic the ,

I interrogated the process in which gay men were expected to feel shame. I shame. feel to expected were men gay which in process the interrogated I - object‖, and demonstrating a new „we new a demonstratingand object‖,

nnetoal re unintentionally e mentioned accounts also suggest, had to be very well aware well very be to had suggest, also accounts mentioned e

reflected, and initiating alternative discourses always meansalways discourses initiating alternative and reflected, -

as somethingas taken - emphasizing homophobic messages. messages. homophobic emphasizing 58

- ujc‖ Te, peetd n C UP ACT an presented I Then, subject‖. ptions, the alternative discourses can discourses alternative the ptions, - for - subject‖. This new „we new This subject‖. - granted. e toreject PWAse position a as

that

moid h harmful the embodied

over the feeling of feeling the over l o this of All - subject‖ ,

CEU eTD Collection whichthe dominantdiscourseswithin produced, i wasis framework, the that claimed also but discourses, dominant the and AIDS of victims passive

59

tselfproblematic and challengeable .

CEU eTD Collection approach that Since population‖. ―general the of lenses the through themselves apprehended acc into discourse dominant the of element homophobic the take we if think, rightfully can one that out pointed I Finally, objectifiedhomosexual.the of level the to relegatedgaymen discourse the implicationsof the hard ―normal‖, the middle working, of image present socially still existing, nowhere actually idealized, to the refer population‖ can ―general thephrase AIDSdiscourse, dominant the of in terms that ―us as PWAs and the discourse, dominant the interrogated population‖, ―general of I problem disease‖. ―gay a of creation the in resulted could vision social granted taken this how that examined I There, chapter. second my of point starting the was This indisputable;however,not theinnaturalit attitudestill seems so. is sexuality and gender, sex, on be will focus one‘s that and aspect, heteronormative a from the Therefor unperceivable. ideology, remains heteronormative shaping of by mechanism shaped though on, is focus our what that and objects, social facing are we from direction the perception, social our Connectedly, familiarity. its to n Husserlian the in unperceivable is ideology heteronormative that found I subject consciousness,and howsuch vision, ideology in of an social described examined terms be can dominant the behind mechanisms the phenomenthe via discourse understand best can one that argued I 80s. the in crisis AIDS western the of analysis phenomenological a provide to attempted I thesis this In Conclusion - formation.

- class heterosexuals. Next, in terms of terms in Next, heterosexuals. class

ological working of heteronormative ideology. Therefore, at first I first at ideology.Therefore, heteronormative workingof ological ount, that PWAs had an ―us an thatPWAsount, had 60

-

object‖ experience. It means that theyobject‖ experience. It means the dominant discourse, I found that found I discourse, dominant the , h at ht n ae somebody faces one that fact the e,

atural attitude, due attitude, atural - object‖. I found I object‖. - for - - CEU eTD Collection gaymenactivistthe looked―generalpopulation‖. backat th back get could They engendered. be could discourse dominant the within from framework the challenged indeed, and, criticized theyalso consequently, wrongapproach; its emphasized Unli discourse. re they so men, gay to relation in AIDScrisis the of ―lesson‖ the They emphasized promiscuous). hedonist, infantile, gayness their from away turns former, the of representatives The answer. activist the then, and answer, moralizing conservative, the first, at answers: gay of categories two established I these, with accordance a spectator, the in from away‖ resulted ―turning complete either shame by caused shyness the suggested, theory affect As overcome. be can it how that and shame, of feeling the interrogated I accordingly, chapter, final my In ofcause the are that objects homosexual as them apprehended discourse) dominant the by (suggested i tmoaiy ot gny i etbihn ter w sse, ih n w viewpoint own an with system, own their establishing via agency lost temporarily eir AIDS, gayAIDS,shameoccur. could e h mrlzn ases te ciit nwr t te oiat discourse dominant the to answers activist the answers, moralizing the ke -

mhszd h mi eeet o te antem homophobic mainstream, the of elements main the emphasized –

as it was mirrored by the dominant discourse (irresponsible, (irresponsible, discourse dominant the by mirrored was it as

61 or in a ―break out in an unashamed stare‖. In stare‖. unashamed an in out ―break a in or

–

CEU eTD Collection QueerPoliticsand AIDS Militancy‖, and ―Mourning (2002b): Douglas Crimp, pp.1 London, Politics Queer and AIDS on Essays Moralism: A Moralism: and ―Melancholia (2002a): Douglas Crimp, ActivismAnalysis/Cultural Douglas: Have toCrimp, ―How PromiscuityEpidemic‖anin in: A Analysis/Cultural Activism‖, Cultural / Analysis Cultural ―AIDS: (1988a): Douglas Crimp, DouglasCrimp),MIT Press,(ed. 1988. pp. 183 Coalition‖ in: a ―Picture Gregg (1988): Bordowitz, ChicagoUniversityTheofPress, Chicago London,2010.pp. and in: Art?" Gay a There "Is (2010): Leo Bersani, Essays in: Grave?‖ a Rectum the ―Is [1988]: (2010) Leo Bersani, JohnL.(1962): Austin, Durham.Press, (2006): Sara Ahmed, (2004):Sara Ahmed, Bibliography , The UniversityTheofPress,Chicago 2010.pp., 3 ChicagoLondon, and - 26.

ctivism TheCulturalofPolitics Emotion Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others Objects, Orientations, Phenomenology: Queer How to DotoThingswith How Words? , TheMIT ,

(ed. Douglas(ed.Crimp),237 Press,1988.pp. MIT Douglas(ed.Crimp), Press,pp.3 MIT Press,Cambridge:Massachusetts,London, pp.129 62 - 196. , The MIT Press, Cambridge: Massachusetts, Cambridge: Press, MIT The ,

Is the Rectum a Grave?: and Other Essays Other and Grave?: a Rectum the Is AIDS: Cultural Analysis/CulturalActivism AIDS:Cultural

, NewRoutledge., York, Melancholia and Moralism: Essays on Essays Moralism: and Melancholia

Oxford, Clarendon Press,Oxford,Clarendonpp.1 Is the the Is Introduction‖, n Rectum a Grave?: and Other and Grave?: a Rectum AIDS:Cultural 31 - 16. - 35.

- - 271. 30. , Duke University Duke , eacoi and Melancholia IS Cultural AIDS:

- - 149. 24.

,

CEU eTD Collection Press,Chicagopp.83 of Jonathan: Ned Katz, KluwerAcademicDordrecht, Publishers. [1931]: (1995) Edmund Husserl, 599. Perspective", Partial of Privilege Feminism in Question Science The Knowledge: "Situated (1988): Donna Haraway, DouglasCrimp),MIT Press,(ed. pp. 17 in: Keywords‖ ―AIDS: (1988): Zita Jan Grover, ActivismAnalysis/Cultural SanderL.:Syphilis:The Gilman, and ―AIDSIconographyDisease‖, of in: VintageBooks. York, (1973): Michel Foucault, New York.Books, [1976]: (1990) Hurley] Robert [trans. Michel Foucault, London.Ireland, in: Affect‖, of ― (1984): L. A. Epstein 83 Politics Queer and AIDS on Essays AIDS", with People of "Portraits (2002c): Douglas Crimp, - 107.

Occasional Paper Occasional

The

The Experience of Shame in Melanesia: An Essay in the the Essayin An Melanesia: in Shame of Experience The - 112. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences Human the of Archaeology An Things: of Order The Invention of Heterosexuality of Invention

( ed. Douglased.Crimp),87 Press,1988.pp. MIT

No. 40, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Britain Great of Institute Anthropological Royal 40, No. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology to Introduction An Meditations: Cartesian Feminist Studies Feminist , The MIT Press, Cambridge: Massachusetts, London, pp. London, Massachusetts, Cambridge: Press, MIT The , - 30.

63

AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism Analysis/Cultural Cultural AIDS: , Vol. 14, No. 3 (Autumn 1988), pp. 575 pp. 1988), (Autumn 3 No. 14, Vol. , , Chicago and Lonodn, The University The Lonodn, and Chicago , The History of Sexualit of History The eacoi ad Moralism: and Melancholia - 107. AIDS:Cultural

y I y ., Vintage .,

n the an , New , - ,

CEU eTD Collection Journal in: Crimp‖ Douglas with Interview AIDS: of Melancholia ―The (2003): Tina Takemoto, YorkTimesMagazine New S NewPress,York.Martin‘s (1987): Randy Shilts, 1991). Experience‖, of Evidence ―The (1991): Joan Scott, Phenomeno Jean Sartre, 267 pp. in: Note ―ThinkingGayleSex:(1984): Rubin, pp.311 Routledge, Theories Gay Theories, Mourning‖, Lesbian of Work Inside/Out: the and AIDS Men‘: Young Sad the ―‘All (1991): Jeff Nunokawa, DianaLondon Fuss),(ed. NewYo and Body‖, Hudson‘s ―Rock (1991): Richard Meyer, (1990): CindyPatton, Merleau Performance Kosofsky ullivan, Andrew (1996): ―When Plagues End: Notes on the Twilight of an Epidemic‖, in: Epidemic‖, an of Twilight the on Notes End: Plagues ―When (1996): Andrew ullivan, Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality Female Exploring Danger: and Pleasure

- , Vol.62,No.4.80 , pp. 318. - Ponty - Sedgwick, Eve; Parker, Andrew (1995): "Introduction", "Introduction", (1995): Andrew Parker, Eve; Sedgwick, logicalOntology -

Paul [trans. H. E. Barnes] (1996) [1943]: [1943]: (1996) Barnes] E. H. [trans. Paul , NewYork,Routledge,, pp.1 , Maurice [1945]: (1992) , - 323. And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic AIDS the and People, Politics, On: Played Band the And InventingAIDS

, November 10,pp.61 November ,

, Routledge,London., - 90 .

, New, York, Routledge. rk, Routledge,pp.259 PhenomenologyPerceptionof - 18. s for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality‖, Politicsof the Theoryof Radical a for s

64 (d Daa us, odn n Nw York, New and London Fuss), Diana (ed. ,

- Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories Gay Theories, Lesbian Inside/Out:

62. Critical Inquiry Critical

, (ed. Carol Vance), London, Routledge, London, Vance), Carol (ed. , Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Essay An Nothingness: and Being -

288.

, Vol. 17, No. 4. (Summer,4. No. 17, Vol. , , London,Routledge., efraiiy and Performativity , St. , Art

, CEU eTD Collection pp.35 3. Citizen‖,Sexual Jeffrey: ―The Weeks, Jeffrey(2010)Weeks,[1986]: DouglasCrimp),MIT Press,(ed. pp. 31 AIDS‖, of Spectacle ―The (1988): Simon Watney, Identity in: ‖, ―Queer (2000b): Simon Watney, 63 pp. Identity Gay and AIDS ―Emer (2000a): Simon Watney, in:Citizenship‖ Universal of Ideal the of Critique A Difference: Group and ―Polity (1989): M. Iris Young, 31 pp. Signification‖, of Epidemic An Discourse: Biomedical and Homophobia, ―AIDS, (1988): A. Paula Treichler, PublishingCompany,pp.SpringerLLC.,Vol.II. 351 (2008): S. Silvan Tomkins, - - 81. 70. ,(series: Soc ,(series: - 52.

AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism Analysis/Cultural Cultural AIDS: ialAspectsAIDS),of Routledge, NewYork London, pp.50 and , Vol. 99No.2.pp.250 , Vol. , (series: Social Aspects of AIDS), Routledge, New York and London, and York New Routledge, AIDS), of Aspects Social (series: , Affect Imagery Consciousness: The Complete Edition Complete The Consciousness: Imagery Affect Sexuality et eul dniis n HIV/AIDS‖,in: and identities sexual gent Theory, Culture &Theory, Culture Society -

70. (thirdRo edition),

65 - 274.

AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism Analysis/Cultural Cultural AIDS:

- 386. Imagining Hope: AIDS and Gay Gay and AIDS Hope: Imagining

utledge,LondonNewYork. and

(ed. Douglas Crimp), MIT Press, MIT Crimp), Douglas (ed. , Auguste, 1998, vol. 15. No. 15.vol. 1998, Auguste, , mgnn Hope Imagining , New York, New , - 63.

:

Top View