In the past decade, AIDS has entered the world’s consciousness, the photographs of people, often young men, ravaged both in body and in mind by the consequences of HIV making death startling imminent. These representations of people who have died of AIDS-related illness shape our response to what is, for many of us, our personal experience of hiv, either as carriers of the virus or as those who know carriers. As a number of critics (perhaps most notably Simon Watney) argue, the cultural production of response to hiv and aids-related illnesses is extremely important. aids, in Western culture, is seen as the social peril brought to the world by the sexual practices of gay men. The identification of aids with male homosexuality has given rise to virulent homophobia which reinforces the long-held perception in Western culture that gay sexual practices are the enactment of a death-drive which implicitly courts fatality.1 Elements of the gay community actively counter this discourse through a range of cultural interventions – the celebration of Gay Pride Day, the demonstrations of ACT UP and in the theatre, numerous plays from As Is, The Normal Heart, Warm Wind in China, The Panel, Flesh and Blood to Angels in America. Jeff Nunokawa has suggested that the status of these sorts of interventions is problematic for, while they respond to the virulent homophobia which sees homosexuality as death and aids as the logical consequence of that sexuality, precisely because they are responses, they serve to reinforce the very homophobia which they challenge. As Nunokawa writes, “[I]f the majority culture is not inclined to recognize the death of the male homosexual, it is also not inclined to recognize anything else about him ...” (319).
Read full abstract