The idea that the hegemonic, pure, heternormative nation can only exist in the presence of a toxic other stands out to me as the most illuminating point that Beth Berila makes in "Toxic Bodies? ACT UP's Disruption of the Heteronormative Landscape of the Nation." The integral role that "abnormal" plays in defining "normal" and demarcating the elusive boundary is, as Berila notes, rarely recognized. Reading this article made me question how definitions of purity and hegemony would be different if the nation did, in fact, purge itself of socially constructed toxicity. I assume the likely scenario would be a snowball effect in which the definition of normal would become more and more exclusive as new categories of abnormality would become created. Ultimately, this toxic purging would only constrict the societal construct of normal.
In this passage, Berila emphasizes the extent to which binary social constructs are defined relative to each other. In this vein, toxic is defined as what is not pure; stained is defined as what is not unstained. After reading this, I speculated as to whether or not an absolute definition of pure and unpure would be better than defining them as they relate to each other.
From the article itself, ACT UP did not come across as being a militant/angry organization, but rather a clever group of activists. After the presentation and class discussion my impressions of the organization changed drastically. This is not to say that I have a negative impression of ACT UP now (anger is not intrinsically bad and is completely acceptable and even admirable in specific circumstances), but I do feel that some of the actions they took (specifically against the Roman Catholic church) were on the extreme side.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with your ideas here. This article really made me question the "right way" to be an activist. The other day we questioned our own passive nature, trying to figure out why our generation seems to be quieter. Thomas Friedman wrote in the NYTimes that we should be "angrier," but to me it seems that we're just taking a different approach. Instead of staging die-ins or walk outs, we're more content with pursuing more humanitarian/analytical careers. It seems we've made activism a personal goal so each person can strive on their own to be committed to his/her own cause rather than take part in the type of group anger we see here. Only time will tell which is more effective: white collar changes or numbers and loud voices.
Post a Comment