The documentary brought me back to Foucault and his ‘Rule of
Immanence’, seeing power and knowledge as continuously connected. At first the
documentary seemed to encompass Foucault’s ideal, Larry Kramer made a comment
in the video informing the viewer that individuals had to themselves ‘become
scientists’ in a sense, to gain the knowledge that was not readily available to
them. It was with that knowledge that they were able to band together and
attempt to make change. The documentary opens with a protest, a protest that
demonstrates the power of the collective many in possession of the necessary knowledge.
The prominent activists are able to use their knowledge in order to move
forward with the cause.
I was also able to relate Foucault to the individual’s that
had limited their knowledge. The segment that discussed the Catholic Church’s
ban on the use of condoms due to the fact that they believed it would only
spread the AIDS virus further and faster. The officials of the Catholic Church
already harbor power and influence but it is their lack of knowledge on the
AIDS virus and the benefits of contraceptives that will grant a greater impact.
The lack of knowledge or lack of understanding seems to warrant an uneducated
power. This still relates to Foucault but it toys with his ‘Rule of Immanence’.
Upon first reading it, I had only interpreted that power and knowledge were
linked, but in fact the lack thereof is just as connected to power. The
Cardinals and other officials that decreed that the use of condoms would
further the AIDS epidemic, is a power influence upon their followers as well as
an ill informed scare tactic. They manipulated their power by combining their
lack of knowledge and understanding with their own opinions, assumptions, and perceptions.
The above are my opinions, with no intent to offend. The documentary got me a little heated J
The film also made me think about Focualt's idea that life and death follow on an axis with sex in the middle. And certainly the AIDS crisis is about bio-power--targeting entire populations for death. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree! Bio-power relates to the AIDS crisis on so many levels. Relating back to my post, the issue with the Catholic Church was an expression of power in order to regulate the actions and beliefs of the population of their followers. Beyond that however, brings me to the opening scene of the documentary. Two powerful populations warring against one another, both governed by separate ideals and these separate ideals are being actively demonstrated by various techniques from either side in attempts to gain control over the situation and other populations, through means of knowledge and power.
DeleteAlso, I encourage you to tag your posts. Wado!
ReplyDeleteTo help us follow you, where does Foucault talk about the rule of imminence. Will you cite that for us?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the rule of immanence is in part four, chapter two. I would lead you to the exact page numbers, but I have the NOOK version of the book and my page numbers are not the same.
DeleteDo you have a quotation to help us follow the conversation? Is it the "rule of immanence" Focualt talks about on page 98?
DeleteI really like the idea of uneducated power in that without knowledge or understanding we have the same power (not necessarily on the same vector)of our voice and actions. This chimes into the slogan of "Silence=Death" that Act up used. If you're not speaking up or actively helping a cause then it is comparable to you actively working against the cause. We can also see this in the Japanese drug company which had done nothing for these people for two years even though they had initially said they would. Their silence and inactivity towards developing a new drug was killing off those infected with AIDS.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think it might also be useful to point out that many of the members who educated themselves about the virus were already college educated, which may have facilitated their understanding of the information. It also highlights the split that happened within ACT UP and the formation of TAG, wherein those members who formed TAG were seen in many ways as “elitist” or “in bed with the drug companies.” It is frustrating to see the college-educated white men portrayed as leading the charge and instigating the most change through the long-established channels of negotiation and business relationships. This is why in my post I argued that many of the events depicted in the film did not fundamentally challenge power.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting, because I think that in some ways they did challenge power, but also didn't understand how power is "mobile units" that they were simultaneously part of. ACT UP did important, life-changing/saving work. But now we have to ask the same things that many of them were asking: who is granted the power to live and who is condemned to death?
DeleteI like the way you put that better than the way I did. Instead of saying they did not challenge power, it seems more fitting to say that their lack of understanding about the nature of power as Foucault describes it may have impacted their trajectories and goals. The fact that many of the men in the film discontinued activist work after they were able to access the medication they needed to stay alive is what led me to comment on the challenge of power. They did, in fact, challenge it, but the results of having challenged it only enough to improve the quality of life for the most historically privileged subgroup (themselves), are that those who began the struggle at a disadvantage have continued to face worse circumstances (people of color, low income, limited/no access to health care). The existence of drugs to manage HIV raises the bar for the quality of life that is possible, and for them to be inaccessible to so many reflects Foucault's ideas about bio-power and gives preference to the bodies of some while denying those of others.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete