"Toxic Bodies? ACT UP’s Disruption of the Heteronormative Landscape of the Nation" by Beth Berila

Berila begins by initiating a discussion regarding the relative “purity” or “toxicity” of bodies and the ways in which certain bodies are constructed as “impure.” She creates a link between environmental justice activism (and the rhetoric surrounding it) and this dichotomous pure/impure frame of reference. Berila argues that the hegemonic “American way of life” is defined and upheld by high volumes of consumption and waste. This waste is inevitably funneled into poor communities and communities of color, and as a result of the high cost of this “Americanness” (by which I imply that our ethics of consumption has been so fully integrated into our national psyche as to become inseparable from our ideals of ourselves), the physicality of both the landscapes of the communities which suffer from this and the bodies residing within said landscapes become compromised. This dumping of waste into poor communities is telling because 1. it highlights what communities and people must bear the brunt of the “American” way of life (despite the fact that usually, the communities which receive the detriment of rampaging “Americanness” are not the same ones living this “American dream”); and 2. it shows which communities and bodies are deemed valuable within structures of American hegemonic ideals.

Basically, what the author of this article is arguing is that there is a certain idealogical notion of the “American people” and the “American lifestyle” that is often perpetuated through a dependence upon members of communities and bodies not considered a part of this “Americanness.” Thus, bodies and communities become “toxic” because they are forced to pay for this “lifestyle” and are simultaneously deemed valueless because of their status as outside of said lifestyle.

Similarly, Berila focuses on the ways certain bodies, specifically those of individuals living with AIDS, are rendered “impure” and are viewed as “contaminating” to the “purity” of national hegemony. She draws parallels between environmental justice activism’s work to make visible the high cost being paid by members of certain communities and with certain bodies, and the ways in which the bodies of people who have AIDS are constructed as “toxic” and threatening to the “purity” of the “American” lifestyle. Thus, both movements are interested in who (what types of people, bodies, and communities) counts towards national conceptions of “Americanness,” as well as underlining who (what types of people, bodies, and communities) pays for this “American” lifestyle so dependent upon consumerism.

In a parallel fashion, the construction of the “toxic” bodies of those who have AIDS is not a static work, but a continuously shifting process. The bodies of people living with AIDS are surrounded by perceptions of being “toxic” to public health, similar to the poor communities who become (literally, in some instances) toxic as a result of the massive consumption of the “pure” of the nation. In both cases, there is a stark divide between those viewed as “pure” and “uncontaminated,” and those who are “toxic” and threatening, as well as a power structure that necessitates the exploitation of the one for the sake of the other

. However, it is through the construction of the “contaminated” that the “uncontaminated” is also created.

ACT UP, or the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, then, works to trouble this construction of the bodies of those with AIDS as “toxic” to public health. Members of ACT UP challenge these constructions of “toxic” bodies by infiltrating public spaces, often through a manipulation of the privileges (being white, financially well-off, etc.) available to them, and “passing” for a member of America’s heteronormative landscape. Berila writes that, via ACT UP, “passersby are implicated in the production of some bodies (usually those who are healthy, white, not poor, and straight) as the ‘general population’ of the nation precisely by marking others (usually those who are queer, poor, HIV positive, or people of color) as stained and toxic, and therefore as ‘contaminants’ of the nation.” This, again, focuses on Berila’s point that there can be no “purity” without first rendering others “impure,” and that it is through this construction of “toxicity” that national ideals of hegemony are upheld.

*photo credits unknown

“Race-ing Homonormativity: Citizenship, Sociology, and Gay Identity” by Roderick A. Ferguson

In “Race-ing Homonormativity: Citizenship, Sociology, and Gay Identity,” Roderick Ferguson explores how sociology identified sexuality as being a social construction and how the social construction of homosexuality privileges white gays and lesbians in the United States. Ferguson says that by examining sociological arguments about the social construction of sexuality, you can see how white gays and lesbians became increasingly more accepted as American citizens. The author also believes that this white gay and lesbian acceptance into American citizenship is due to the race and class of that particular group of people. Most importantly, Ferguson believes that this acceptance has led to homosexuality being socially constructed as white, middle-class, and adhering to so-called traditional gender roles so much so that it has resulted in “homonormativity.” This homonormativity is viewed as being close to the heterosexual norm; however, this homonormativity is not inclusive of LGBTQ people who are people of color, working-class, and/or do not adhere to the usual social construction(s) of gender.

Ferguson discusses how, historically, white American society was very concerned about immigration of ethnic people (both white and nonwhite) because of fears that immigrants would contaminate white racial “purity” in America through sexual reproduction. However, eventually, white Americans accepted the immigrant ethnic whites as American racial whites, which shows that race is a social construction that can be adjusted to fit the needs of the social and historical context at the time. Ferguson states that now that ethnic whites were considered racial whites who were culturally a part of white America, black people and other racial non-whites were still culturally un-American. The author also states that white came to be associated with heteronormativity while non-white was associated with nonheteronormativity. Ferguson says that once this occurred, culture became the determining factor in whether or not you were seen as a “normal” American citizen.

Ferguson agrees with Epstein, who is another author, that once white, middle-class gays and lesbians were viewed by other white, middle-class Americans as being “the ‘same’ as straights to the extent that they are ‘different,’” then they became American. Ferguson uses Marx to say that for white, middle-class lesbian and gays, homosexuality is viewed as being a difference that is a private matter, and not one that affects their ability to be American citizens in public matters. Ferguson goes on to discuss other writers’ examinations of marriage, hate crimes protection, military inclusion, and the focus on the need to “come out of the closet” as proof that contemporary gay rights and the construction of homosexuality is centered on white, middle-class gays and lesbians who adhere to traditional gender roles. Ferguson says that this homonormative social construction leaves out LGBTQ people who are immigrants, people of color, and/or working-class since its goals are centered on helping white, middle-class, gay and lesbian Americans become more integrated into white, middle-class, heterosexual America.

"Queer Theory." by Annamarie Jagose and “Who is that Queer Queer? Exploring Norms around Sexuality, Race, and Class in Queer Theory.” by Ruth Goldman

In her article Queer Theory, Annamarie Jagose discusses the meaning of the term. She talks about queer theory being used to disrupt beliefs about "natural" heterosexual desire, two gender system (man/woman), and two sex system (male female). Queer theory asks questions about the assumption that heterosexuality and all that we associate with it is natural and normal (heteronormativity). She also warns against queer theory being used to mean lesbian and gay studies and queer being used as an umbrella term for lesbian and gay identified people. The tension between gay and lesbian identity and "queer" questions around the stability of identity is a really important tension that needs to continue to be explored.

Similarly, Ruth Goldman explores what queer means in her article "Who is that Queer Queer? Exploring norms around sexuality, race and class in queer theory." Goldman explains how queer was used initially to get away from identity categories but how the term has still come to mean white gay male and middle class. In particular she talks about how queer is used as an umbrella term for gays and lesbians and often excludes bisexuals. Bisexuals have a unique experience to bring to queer conversation as their desires are not built on a single track of desire. She even discusses the limits of a term like bisexual to talk about the real ways that bisexual desire does not necessarily focus on gender as a way of choosing partners. Goldman also discusses the ways that "queer" is generally used by white and middle class folks. While there is in interest in other perspectives, because queer theory is so closely tied to the academy and people of color are invited in to an already existing conversation as opposed to allowed to center themselves, queer theory reproduces its own norms even as it tries to challenge others. She asks that queer theorists not just think about sexual oppression but also about racial, class, and gender oppression as well as they all work to maintain each other.

These two works explain where queer theory is and offer suggestions about where it should go. It's important to think about how sexuality is connected to other systems of oppression. Queer theory is not an identity but a way of looking at and examining hierarchy in our world. A big piece of undoing oppression is going to be making queer theory accessible outside of academic places like colleges and universities. We have to meet people where they are and not just talk abstractly all the time. This is what "making accessible theory" means.