The Plague Isn't Over.

In the documentary, 'How To Survive A Plague,' we see the struggle to curb the AIDS epidemic in the 80's and 90's.  While this is a film about a lack of power and the related struggle, the individuals whose role is central to the development have more power and a louder voice than those who suffer disproportionately from HIV/AIDS and may not have access to health care, education, or a political voice; namely people of color.  That being said, when considering the question of power, it is important to also consider the notion of relativity.  Foucault’s idea that power is in constant motion and nearly impossible to pinpoint is clear here.  There are instances where politicians hold power, but then become subject to the power of activists demanding action, who are subsequently juggling power within their own movement, and so on.  What is also clear, however, is that those with power are almost always white and overwhelmingly male, which are only two of the issues brought up by the film.  Even the split within ACT UP and the formation of TAG highlights education-level and political literacy, both of which are further complicated by race, class, and gender.

The dominant group within the gay and lesbian community argues, correctly, that the need for medical research and care affects virtually every individual within all facets of the community.  However, their claim that it would or should reach everyone who could benefit from the medications and research is misguided.  By fighting for something that only ends up benefiting the top, those who do not feel the benefits are thus comparably worse off.  That is to say, that even though the white men in the film claim to be fighting for the wellbeing of everyone suffering, nearly every one all but stopped fighting for justice once the drugs were available and affordable enough for them to access, leaving millions of others without them. 

The end of the film treated the struggles enacted by these men and their survival as the only important piece of the wider AIDS awareness movement.  The acknowledgement of the millions who are still infected but unable to access treatment seemed like only an afterthought.  I in no way mean to minimize the efforts and struggles of the AIDS activists in this film, but rather point out that this is only one piece of the picture--the piece that is all too commonly the one that is made visible or acknowledged.  Their centrality within the struggle negates and invisibilizes non-white, non-male struggles and acts of resistance,   whereby “differences are implied in it but then simply taken for granted or even covered over” (De Lauretis, 1991).   I would argue that Foucault might very well point out that while some individuals and communities did and do benefit from the work shown in this film, their actions did not fundamentally challenge power.  Power changed hands and showed its face in different ways, but it was not destabilized.

As I mentioned, the work of these activists should not be discounted.  Their actions have undoubtedly impacted my life and the lives of millions, my loved ones included, and for that I am grateful.  It should, however, be only the beginning of a continued and multidimensional fight.