A quote from this reading that stuck out to me was, “Conflicts do not destroy movements (330).” Gould follows this by explaining that it’s the dimensions of the conflict that determines whether or not a movement survives through the conflict, not necessarily the conflict itself.
I thought that this was an important thing to note, as we are in a class called Feminist Conflict. It felt like an important reminder that there is nothing wrong with conflict within a movement as long as solidarity remains in tact, and if that is recognized, then it’s more likely to survive.
In regards to ACT UP’s fate, it seems that the activist’s feelings of ineffectiveness, nonrecognition, exclusivity, and betrayal resulted in hostility between identities. As time passed, there was little progress in addressing or curing the epidemic and this caused members to point fingers. The differences that were felt to be irrelevant before were now being blamed for the lack of success. Gay white men were upset and leaving the organization because they were upset that AIDS was not the number one item on the agenda (“after racism, sexism, and gay and lesbian visibility” (346)). Women felt unacknowledged for their efforts and offended because their motives were called into question.
Regardless of the status of the organization, the government notoriously failed to prioritize a response to the AIDS epidemic and I think that played a big role in the fracturing of ACT UP. As stated above, said lack of response resulted in an undeniably slow enactment of improved conditions for people with AIDS and peace of mind for those at risk. This surely caused a great deal of unease, especially for the activists that had been causing scenes in public to raise awareness and devoting years of their lives to bring about change. This stagnation inevitably would have resulted in frustration and a call to look inward to see what is not being done correctly. As there was already a split in the movement, it is easy to see how each side looked at the other and deemed the other side as the root of the problem. My point is, I’m curious how the situation would have proved to be different had the government prioritized it as “public enemy number one” sooner. If it hadn’t been neglected as it was, it would be interesting to see if the movement could have progressed differently and if their solidarity would have remained in tact.