Bonus Post-Thomas Frank's "Commodify your Dissidence"

Within the eclectic essay “Why Johnny Can’t Dissent,” author Thomas Frank describes the appropriation of ideologies by capitalistic industry that once only ran in the vein of those who spoke out against consumerism. Throughout his text, there are details concerning the sides that either side encompassed in the past and the transformation of the business due to their incorporation of ideas that defined those who railed against capitalism. Specifics aside, within his essay one defining point of the entire argument was summed up in a quote stating, “any idea, deed, or image can become part of the sponsored world.” This assertion can be seen to be true in his examples such as the corporate industry’s use of ideas of individuality, once herald as slogans of dissidences and rebellion, to draw in consumers. The key argument of Frank’s seems to revolve around the apparent inertia of the one groups ideology while the other embraced it the others. The gap that was prevalent before between the two groups has closed due to the corporate industry adopting the ideologies of the anti-conformity movement to attract its members and establish a new standard of consumerism based on the notion that it can provide the individuality that a consumer wants, while on a grand scale, the industry is really giving out this individuality to many.

            This has usurped the countercultural in a way that Frank describes it as “harmless” now. How does this relate to the articles studied during this semester’s class? The base of movements rest in ideologies and whatever means are used; the end is the incorporation of a new ideology or the removal of an old one. The counterculture movement is a movement that decried the negativity found in the capitalistic industry, yet it has not evolved to face this changing industry, while the industry has implemented its accuser in a way that “subverts” the very people that were trying to subvert them. The lack of transformation in the counterculture has resulted in its newfound implementation as a cog in a corporate machine, a new point and method of sales. It is in essence dissidence commodified. At this point it should be clear that the next step for the counter movement would have to be to enact a new ideology or means of framing this corporate entity, rather than attacking just one aspect (for instance, conformity); attack its profit driven nature and the need for controlling corporate business models to prevent abuse. The newfound commodity of individuality is not negative in itself, but the apparent yet subtle overtones of the evil nature of the corporate industry is not lacking in Frank’s essay. Yet in the end, whatever product that an industry provides is limited to the demands of its consumers, therefore it caters to whatever it has the ability to sell and even more so to whatever it can sell well. It consumed the burgeoning ideas of the counterculture movement; it can do it to any movement unless that movement is against the very structures of the industry and its apparent apathy for anything but the profits. What is known within the business world as the bottom line would be a prime edifice of the corporate industry to attack. It is the foundation.

            Throughout this course in the politics and art of protest it seems clear that art is just a means to an end: the protest. The protest is founded in the ideas of change. Politics are intricately tied to nearly every instance of protest. In Thomas Frank’s essay, complacency is the enemy in a changing environment and poor aim nearly always results in mediocre gain of objectives.

Urban Work of Public Art-Robert Hickman's Convex Disk at Roosevelt Island

Between Manhattan and Queens lies Roosevelt Island. This island seems to contain an essence found little elsewhere: a community spirit where people still know each other and the hustle and bustle is not the norm. In this somewhat sheltered place, a small item of notice lays dormant in the F subway station. This public work of art is labeled the “Convex Disk” and is composed of near half a million hand-cut and reassembled glass pieces. It directionally faces Manhattan within the upper quarters of the F subway station and is described as “capturing, concentrating, and reflecting light like a beacon” (www.hickmanindustries.com).

            Many of the features of this description seem to invoke an image of the complexity that it faces; that is Manhattan and very diverse conglomeration of multicultural, multilingual, and multinational elements. This vastness is best seen in the jigsaw like way it is assembled and the numerous individual pieces used to great it. While it may seem to state elements of the Manhattan that do not seem to be as prevalent on Roosevelt Island, it is its location on Roosevelt Island that one can get an amazing view of the city’s upper east side in close proximity. The manner in which it focuses light is an excellent analogy to describe how complexity does not seem to lessen the closer you get, as one can see by the plethora of pieces within the artwork itself, however the manner in which it all comes together is something unique and delicate in itself. This last fact seems to bring one to image all the racial tensions and cultural diversity of immigration that convex

            Hickman is a contemporary artist who has been commissioned for many different works around the city. He works primarily with sculptural objects, installations, and public sculpture. His art has been exhibited in many venues such as the art museum/gallery PS1 and the Robert Lehman Gallery. He has commissions throughout the city, of which include the one on Roosevelt Island and another at Verdi Square, 72^nd street station in Manhattan. Incidentally he graduated from Hunter College, which lies just across the river from the art piece on Roosevelt Island, with a Masters of Fine Art in Sculpturing.

I chose this piece of art because I work on Roosevelt Island and I have always wanted to know more about it. Passing it everyday to work, I have glanced at it and have always been confused about what is was all about, but since doing the project, I have taken a closer look and have realized how complex it is and how much I relate that to the complexity of New York City itself. My interpretation of its meaning is my own and reflects the past six months of working on the island, interacting with the locals as well as the tourists who come for a magnificent view of Manhattan. Its often easy to forget how complex New York City is until you step outside of it and look in. I am not a native of the city, so my perception has not always been of a normalcy when viewing the city, but over time I have adjusted in ways that make this work of art take on even more meaning than when I first came to the city.

             

revision of first draft

The Cultural Act of Coming Out: A Harvey Milk Brand of Political Theater

Coming of age for many people consists of driver licenses, first dates, and college acceptance/graduation. But in the case of the gay community there is a dichotomy present in the coming of age. The onset of a growing sexuality over the adolescent years marks another coming of age of sorts. Coming out of the closet, the act of pronouncing gay sexual orientation is an act of social attribution and delineation from traditional heterosexually defined statuses and roles assumed in many societies. This act often comes with sever persecution from the individual’s family and friends, but also the potential for an embrace. Coming out of the closet for a gay person is an act that occurs in many different ways. The need to speak out in light of oneself often comes in a weight that people carry for years. In to a story published on the website of “Human Rights Campaign,” a woman took two years after coming out to her husband to tell her daughter about her sexuality (Elizabeth). The manner in which people often come out to friends and family can differ: some write letters to a best friend, others leave it in doubt till moments of compromise do not equate to their identity. Such is the case with another girl who posted her story stating, “[after attending a prom with a male date] the after party was a big sleepover at [the dates] house, where I hooked up with a female classmate” (Jen). Here it is interesting to note the ritualistic elements of her story, which parallel the common story of the prom date, coming of age, hook up. The girl later states in her story, “what happened had felt so natural, much more natural than anything had been with former boyfriends” (Jen). One wrote at the end of his story that, “coming out means so much more than telling someone that you are gay; it means freeing yourself from the bondage of self-hatred and fear. It means empowering yourself. It means you allowing the opportunity to love and be loved” (Karl). This last statement evokes images of high emotional content in an act that has very personal implications and also conveys how this one event can change the course of not just one persons life, but the also the lives and perceptions of those who know them.

Within the United States the gay community has created a presence over the years through a collective act of coming out as a culture in itself. This coming of age as a culture manifests itself through the coming of age of many people of alternative sexual orientation. As this community grows larger, the tendency to expose oneself as gay on the individual level has increased, and thus so has the level of awareness that ultimately perpetuates this tendency to come out via acceptance and/or understanding of homosexuality in the community. This iconic act of coming out has held many meanings in the past and now. While primarily regarded as a disclosure of ones sexuality and entrance into a culture, it has also carried a political past intricately tied to the struggle for gay rights. Over the last half of the 20^th century many gay groups have attempted to lobby the government for their human rights. This has met with firm resistance from a society that has long held notions of homosexuality as a social disease, a part of a self-destruction urge to flirt with danger, and moral decadence (Reed 180, Shilts 17). Much of this image stems from lack of knowledge about the gay community and the arrogance of religious beliefs that find their way into government policies and legislation. To counteract these obstacles, proper representation in government is necessary as well as widespread social awareness; in the case of the gay community in 1977, San Francisco’s first openly gay city supervisor Harvey Milk led these acts.

            Harvey Milk entered office during a very controversial time. Despite a growing liberalism in politics, in part due to the growing population of the gay community within the city, there was enormous opposition to gay rights in general. This was specifically directed towards openly gay people and those who supported them. This came in the form of Proposition 6, initiated by Californian politician John Briggs and reiterated by San Francisco Chronicle reporter and Milk’s biographer Randy Shilts, as banning “public homosexual conduct” as “advocating, imposing, encouraging, or promoting of private or public homosexual activity direct at, or likely to come to the attention of, school children and/or other [school] employees” (Shilts 240). The result of any violation of the initiative would result in job termination and thus conveyed direct legal oppression of the gay community. One reverend spoke openly about the dilemmas that would ensue by the passing of proposition 6 in a sermon saying, “jobs are at stake…but far more importantly, lives are at stake…those of us who have heard the debates and read statements on the subject believe the bigotry and poison spread by John Briggs need speaking to, not only by those studying the phenomenon of homosexuality, but by those of us who can give you a clear example of who we are…now more honestly…I am gay” (Shilts 242). The personal dimensions that were exploited by Proposition 6 led many others, such as the reverend, to come out as a result. This effect of the stakes becoming ever higher for the gay community also began to shed light on the issues at hand leading to the inquiry of society into this “phenomenon of homosexuality” that began to grow as the subject gained more media and trans-social attention. Channels that Milk would use to his advantage to move forward the key aspect of his political work of art: the revelation of gays en mass.

Harvey Milk’s goal in getting elected was simple; his view was that the government should be there to solve people’s problems (Shilts 203). His bid for supervisor was therefore as much about to his own persecution in the past for being a gay man as it was to work for the interests of those he represented. This took on even more meaning when it became a matter of politics that would legally affect him and the entire gay community, which he represented, through Proposition 6. In T.V. Reed’s book, The Art of Protest, he states, “all movement politics involves a degree of cultural politics” (179). Milk was in the midst of a cultural movement and to respond to these legal oppositions he would instigate a cultural revelation. Harvey called upon the gay community to come out of the closet and reveal the reality of alternative sexuality. This is best summed up in a speech in which he said, “Gay people, we will not win our rights by staying quietly in our closets…we are coming out to fight the lies, the myths, the distortions…we are coming out to tell the truths about gays…you must come out…to your parents, your relatives. I know that it is hard and that it will hurt them, but think of how they will hurt you in the voting booths…(Shilts 224). Coming out went from being a part of a culture to an act of protest against the ignorance of the culture.

            What Milk was striking at were the powerful social norms that permeated society. Reed describes this as “social norms that define what is normal, natural and appropriate versus what is abnormal, unnatural, and deviant” (Reed 186). Milk’s goal was to show society that gays were normal productive members of society that did not contribute to moral decadency and crime in society. This revelation of gay’s ubiquitous presence and their ability to contribute to society had profound political implications as gays came out of the closet to friends and family. Shilts reported, “voters who knew gays personally were twice as likely to support gay rights than those who said they had never known a homosexual” (245). This ultimately turned the tide of anti-gay sentiments in society that initiated oppression such as Proposition 6 thus allowing society to embrace the gay community as their own.

            Despite the assassination of Harvey Milk less than a year after his election to city supervisor, the gay community carries on inspired by his acts and incorporating his legacy in their fight for rights. This has happen in both in Milk’s time and more recently. Harvey’s leadership in the gay community was both a catalyst and navigator. The gay community, though greatly afflicted by the loss of their leader, swelled in active ranks after his death to pursue their rights in tandem with Milk’s political legacy. Milk often commented that his life would end before the age of 50 and labored to leave the gay community some continuity in spite of his expected early demise. Recorded on audiotapes played after his death, Milk spoke about his role in politics and the gay community stating, “I have always considered myself a part of a movement. I think there is a distinction between those who use the movement and those who are part of the movement... almost everything was done with an eye on the gay movement” (Shilts 276). This echoes the statement by Reed, which underscores the cultural influence in politics and the “impossibility of fully separating cultural from political dimensions of movement activity” (Reed 179). By combining politics with a cultural piece, Milk was able to undermine the ideas embedded deep with society that perpetuated the oppression of the gay community. With the exposure of the gay community through the coming out of homosexuals, the ideas concerning what was  “normal” in society were changed. This is a process with not just cultural, but also political ramifications.

The political work of art of coming out has several degrees of influence within society and in the end politically. It begins in society through the exposure of facets that have otherwise been hidden, such as gay family members or gay members in the community at large. Henceforth, embedded ideologies of society are compelled to be examined and then reinforced or changed. For example, many of the ideas that were countered by this process of coming out derive from fundamental Christian ideologies. Dictated by an interpretation of the Bible, a common base for many social ideologies have been slowly ingrain into the society’s subconscious and/or at other times is purposely instigated. This can be seen as the catalyst in the case of the Briggs initiative, where political measures were taken to suppress homosexuality and its cultures dissonance with beliefs held by society. In response Milk called gays to come out of the closet and show who they were and to expose how many people knew gays personally, but did not realize it. These tactics revolved around what some call “bridging,” which focuses on relationship between people as a means of acceptance or tolerance. New York Times commenter Robert Wright says it well stating in an article on tolerance in society, “a few decades ago, people all over America knew and liked gay people ¾ they just didn’t realize these people were gay…once they, having already accepted people who turned out to be gay, accepted gayness itself – more gay people felt comfortable coming out” (Wright). This cultural act does not immediately extend into the political realm, but the social impact can be profound. In the past, coming out implied “disgrace, despair, and, to some, even suicide” but with the advent of a cultural awareness, via bridging, it became conceivable for gay acceptance and tolerance.  Soon thereafter, the disclosure of homosexuality of many public figures such as Elton John or Dave Kopay, a linerbacker for the Green Bay Packers, shows “the extent to which the social pressures for staying in the closet had crumbled” due to this shift in awareness (Shilts 124-125).

Politically speaking, the government works to represent its people and provide them with what the Forefathers called their inalienable rights. With the needs, wants, and the beliefs of the people at the helm of a politicians rise or fall, it is only reasonable to assume that even the most corrupt and bigoted politician would concede to the demands of a society at large. This follows suit with the democratic ideals in which the United States operates according to the voice of the majority. In this instance, it is a society that has been introduced to the normalcy of “gayness” and a familiarity with its members. Thus, coming out invokes a sense of who a politician is working for and ideas/wants of the majority in society, whom ultimately elect its government’s leaders. One of Milks associates once said, “Harvey’s legacy is a legacy of hope. Hope in the political process” and another stated, “Harvey is the first guy I know of who could see coming out as a political tool. That was his word all the time…come out” (Milk). In response to a culture in oppression, Milk began a crusade of honesty in his own style of exposé, with the consequences in the hands of those receiving this honesty. He critiqued the legal oppression of homosexuals by highlighting their membership in society not as pests, but people who deserve equality and freedom like everyone else. In comparison, coming out stirred up a notion in society similar to famous literature pieces of exposé such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Toms Cabin and Upton Sinclair’s, The Jungle: transparency and exposing of issues leads to change by garnering a demand for the correction of injustices provoked by social oppression and lack of governmental representation of rights. As one can see, this is not just applicable to one issue; it is a process that occurs within many instances of protest whether it is the political act of pronouncing ones homosexuality or a protest novel concerning the corruption in a nations food production.

            After his Milk’s murder, the gay community continued its fight for gay rights, the political act of coming out contributed to the defeat Proposition 6 and led to a society charged with new ideas and concessions towards the gay community. The legacy and ideas of Milk also evoked an aspect of gay visibility in society that was further elaborated on by gay rights groups such as ACT UP of the 80s and 90s. This group took an active stance on spreading awareness and medical welfare for AIDS. Using similar tactics of exposing to society the reality of an issue, ACT UP initiated reforms not only in medical offerings for AIDS victims but also a challenge to cultural assumptions. This was done through provocative artwork and protests that emphasized the facts of AIDS and essentially “taking on socially constructed medical knowledge, and in analyzing and using mass media framings of the ‘real’” (Reed 184). Using such slogans as “silence=death,” ACT UP methods were often reminiscent of Milk’s political work of art of coming out against Proposition 6 and brought about similar idea changes within society about a deemed gay disease.

            Outside the gay community and its drive for its rights, coming out has become an act of political protest appropriated by groups such as illegal immigrants. In a New York Times Magazine article describing the plight of these “undocumented” immigrant college students who arrived in the US as babies. The article states, “Borrowing tactics from civil rights and gay rights movements, in the last year [advocates of undocumented immigrants] have orchestrated dozens of demonstrations, hunger strikes, [and] “coming out” events…” (Jones 38). “Coming out” in the words of one of these “undocumented students” is necessary due to the confinements of their illegal status. Their act of protest revolves around their exposure of their status and their predicament in hopes of garnering media and social attention that could bring about change. While mixed results have ensued, this exposure sets a foundation in society as well as politics for further change.  It stands to reason that their rights will follow soon after, just like coming out did for the gay community.

            Over thirty years ago, Harvey Milk beckoned the gay community to come out of the shadows and change society’s idea of them. His legacy lives on in his ideals of showing society the heart of issues. His zeal for the opera manifests in an interesting parallel to the politic act of coming out. Within San Francisco’s city hall there was a grand marble staircase that Milk would call his stage where he put forth the spectacle that Shilts called “[Milk’s] unique brand of political theater” (Shilts 189). For the gay community, this invokes the exhibition of homosexuals and their lives as not deviants, but equally human and deserving of human rights, not oppression. Following in the Milk’s footsteps, the understanding of the situation for undocumented immigrants and the recasting of legal attitudes towards them begin by showing society that they are a part of it. It is the coming of age; the grasping of an identity and acknowledgment from society, and ultimately a coming together that truly validates that “Living in the shadows [is] no longer acceptable” in the face of prejudice (Jones 38).

Works Cited

Elizabeth, By. "HRC êComing Out as Batman." HRC êHuman Rights Campaign ê Home. 2010. Web. 7 Dec. 2010. <http://www.hrc.org/issues/3767.htm>.

Jen, By. "HRC êThird Time's the Charm." HRC ê Human Rights Campaign ê Home. 2010. Web. 7 Dec. 2010. <http://www.hrc.org/issues/3765.htm>.

Jones, Maggie. "Coming Out Illegal." The New York Times Magazine 24 Oct. 2010: 36-39. Print.

Karl, By. "HRC | Following In My Sister's Footsteps." HRC | Human Rights Campaign | Home. 2010. Web. 07 Dec. 2010. <http://www.hrc.org/issues/3768.htm>.

Milk. Dir. Gus V. Vant Sant. Perf. Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Diego Luna. Universal, 2008. DVD.

Reed, T. V. The Art of Protest: Culture and Activism from the Civil Rights Movement to the Streets of Seattle. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2005. Print.

Shilts, Randy. The Mayor of Castro Street: the Life & times of Harvey Milk. New York: St. Martin's Pr., 1982. Print.

Wright, By Robert. “Islamophobia and Homophobia – NYTimes.com.” Opinion – Opinionator Blog – NYTimes.com. New York Times, 26 Oct. 2010. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/islamophobia-and-homophobia/>.

Sources

“Milk” (2008)

         Milk is a biographical film of Harvey Milk, particularly his life in San Francisco campaigning and his death as an elected official. This film depicts the life of Harvey Milk during his culturally inspired political campaign against anti-gay propositions in Californian and some of the tactics he used. The film in itself was used as such against a more recent anti-gay proposition that to be voted on two weeks after the film was released.

“The Times of Harvey Milk”

         This is in-depth documentary of Harvey Milk and his life in politics. The documentary focuses on his dissonant relationship with political opponent Dan White, who later murdered Milk along with the current mayor, George Mascone.


"The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk"


I have not actually looked at this source, but apparently it is one of the few written works I have been able to find. Hopefully, I will get it (via the cuny graduate center) in time to write the essay.

Response Five: Question One

In analysis of the two texts, “Fifth Avenue, Uptown: A Letter From Harlem” and the first chapter of Malcolm X’s autobiography, the manners of African Americans in resisting injustice and gaining power is not overt. In many cases examples would only conjure implied definitions. What is more clearly seen is the differences between southern injustices in the manner of explicit “Jim Crow” like oppression and that of the Northern oppression of African Americans in the form of a covert, socially manipulated degradation. It is inherently conclusive that in addressing the manners of injustices the coping manners of African Americans are addressed as well. This leads into an ultimate analysis Civil Rights resistance techniques, in the north and the south, and a conclusion as to possible alternatives.

         In examining “Jim Crow” law in the south in previous assignments and comparing its similarities and differences with the treatment of African Americans in the south, a quote comes to mind from “Fifth Avenue, Uptown: A Letter From Harlem.” “…It is not possible for anyone who has endured both to know which is ‘worse.’ I know Negroes who prefer the South and white Southerners [over white Northerns], because ‘at least there, you haven’t got to play any guessing games!’ ” (Baldwin 64). Irrevocably, author James Baldwin, explains how profound this is by quoting a man who says, “the spirit of the South is the spirit of America” (Baldwin 64). The manner of oppression here is implied as the difference between covert and overt.

Baldwin introduces us to his essay with a descriptive history of his neighborhood, a dilapidated project or as he states, “the turf” (Baldwin 55). This description of his home conjures a visual of the oppression that is embedded in Northern society. After “fighting on the right side of the Civil War” the North seemed to have acquired and left to waste the reaping of the fight, the Negro man (Baldwin 64). Baldwin describes the plight of the Northern Negro man as placed in projects, manipulated by their landlords, bereaved by a socially delineated status even when one attempted to join “the man” and work in the “white mans world” (Baldwin 57). The treatment of blacks by whites only creates a downwind spiral in which black “generations keep being born, [and] bitterness is increased by incompetence, pride and folly” (Baldwin 66).

         In contrast to Baldwin’s essay, a look at the first chapter of Malcolm X’s autobiography reveals the environment in the South. In the opening paragraphs of this chapter, Malcolm X tells the story of overt oppression and terrorizing of his family by Klansmen. “[One night], a party of hooded Ku Klux Klan riders galloped up to our home…Surrounding the house, brandishing their shotguns and rifles, they shouted for my father to come out…[warning her] that we had better get out of town because ‘the good Christian white people’ were not going to stand for my father’s ‘spreading trouble’ among the ‘good’ Negroes of Omaha with the ‘back to Africa’ preachings of Marcus Garvey” (Malcolm 1).

Here it the oppression of African Americans takes a much more vocal position that is also conducive to violent measures. Malcolm’s family soon moves to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Here we find the discussion of the African Americans condition in the North, as discussed by Baldwin, explicitly stated in examples from Malcolm’s own life. After the death of his father, by what is claimed to be a suicide, but in all likelihood was the result of some white supremacists, Malcolm’s family is slowly torn apart by the Welfare system. His story invokes the same ideological resent towards blacks when he confers the stories of his “white [looking]” mother who lost jobs when her “white” employers found out she was really black, and the constant presence of the Welfare system in their lives. Malcolm conveys resentment similar to the “Negro man” found in Baldwin’s essay, saying, “…I have no mercy or compassion in me for a society that will crush people, and then penalize them for not being able to stand up under the weight” (Malcolm 22). This succinctly summarizes the purpose of Malcolm’s essay and development of Malcolm’s attitude toward this stratification of society as well as conveying the environment for African Americans in the North.

While not explicitly stated, resistance to these forms of oppression are limited in discussion within both Baldwin’s and Malcolm’s writings. Assimilation retained the status quo and resistance only resulted in the occasional “[drop of a match] in the powder keg and everything blows up” (Baldwin 63).  Baldwin states in his essay that Northern oppression was “another, not-less-deadly variety” of Jim Crow (64).

In many ways this is stifling to the typical methods of the civil rights movement. Sit-ins and civil disobedience are not capable of revealing the manipulative tactics of a society that purported a new form of acting out racial prejudice. The “Negro man” is helpless in this circumstance, as his methods are launched as politically and culturally active statements. An alternative to these methods would be in changing the ideas of those who oppress. In the words of Baldwin, “the country will not change until it reexamines itself and discovers what it really means by freedom.” 

Research Topic: The Political Work of Art of Harvey Milk

What is art without visibility? How can it exude any meaning without the means to convey it? If darkness is the opposite of light and black the absence of color, then brightness is essential to art. Although merely a means perhaps, it is a necessity for purpose of the art. Thus I have decided to study and incorporate the ideas, as political pieces of art, of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay individual to be elected to public office, and the legacy of his life and political ideas and beliefs that have been expounded upon by the gay and lesbian community into political work of art in itself.

Milk’s political work centered around two ideas: gay rights and the exposing or in better words, the cliché “coming out of the closet”, of gay people. According to an article printed in the Gay and Lesbian Review Magazine, “…”Milk’s dream: visibility” (“If they know us…” by Andrew Holleran). His tactics, i.e. his political work of art, was tied to his belief that gays should be equal in the eyes of the government and in practice only a change in the social environment that countered this could change be achieved. Resistance to the gay movement came predominately from the Christian church and Anita Bryant, a leader within the movement. Those within these groups spent copious amounts of time denouncing gays as “thieves and prostitutes” whose goal was to undermine the structure of the nuclear family and the institution of marriage, conceded as a union between only a man and a woman (“If they know us…” by Andrew Holleran). At that time Proposition 6 was introduced. Proposition 6, if passed, would have kept teachers who were gay or lesbian from working in California public schools. This proposition was supported by the ideas of Anita Bryant and other groups who countered the gay movement. Ultimately, Proposition 6 did not pass and this was due mostly to the campaign and political acts of Milk.

Initially the idea for my research paper centered around the release date of a feature film titled “Milk,” which was two weeks before the vote for proposition 8, more adequately called the Californian Marriage Protection Act, which specifies that “only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in Californian.” However in preliminary research, a more elaborate spectacle ascends into a sublime, yet ornately pragmatic spotlight: the “visible” component of Harvey Milks political campaign. The highlighted theme of my research essay and presentation will be the political work of art of visibility as purported by Harvey Milk and as seen in the latter works drawn from his life, such as the feature film “Milk” and other documentaries.

Primarily focusing on the objective nature of his political works, I intend to analyze his ideas, gay rights, and the means to achieve them, mainly that of visibility of gays in society, as a collective work of political art that is manifold in practice and encompasses both social and political ideology.

         Ultimately, my concession to the political work of arts of Harvey Milk is based on its objectiveness. Milk upheld values that affirmed a person’s value regardless of their sexual orientation, and he intended to truncate the process of change in the social attitude towards gay by showcasing gays as who they were: human beings. The objective nature of this act is both intellectual and invokes without first intention, the emotion that propels a movement forward. Gay rights may have been the ultimatum, but without the visible component of the movement, initiating collective and individual reinforcement as well as social presence, it could not have achieved its goal.

Response Three-"Wheres the Voice Coming From"

“Where is the Voice Coming From,” is a short story composed by Eudora Weltry following the thoughts of Byron De La Beckwith, the murderer of civil rights leader Medgar Evans. Within fictional prose, the thoughts of Byron De La Beckwith are exposed in an attempt to confront the reasons for his killing of Evans and the afterthoughts of his act. Before the murder took place, it is of importance to note the change in the political atmosphere towards the civil rights movement. A few hours before Edgar’s murder, President John F. Kennedy announces via television that congress is passing bills in support of the Civil Rights movement. His voice his heard across the nation exclaiming, “We are confronted primarily with a moral issue… The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated” (Weltry 51). This lead in within the preface of Weltry’s story sets the stage for the man the readers are soon to meet. A man determined in his ways, but facing a changing climate from the civil rights movement

            “You can reach and turn it off. You don’t have to set and look at a black nigger face no longer than you want to, or listen to what you don’t want to hear. It’s still a free country” (Weltry 52). From the beginning of the story, the voice and intent of Beckwith rings ever so clear with this statement. In regards to the changing stance of politics in Washington towards the civil rights movement, Beckwith shows his way of dealing with it, with eyes closed toward the inevitable. This is the stance of the man facing the summit of controversy regarding the ways of his life. This controversy is uninvited, a change that he does not approve nor will allow to continue without protest.

In many ways it is possible to perceive a man who is quite unstable in the mind. But this is not the purpose of Weltry’s short story. As a source of the speculative nature of the events, Weltry proposes a different tone. It is the nature of change in society and in the individual. In the Deep South where this event took place historically and within the story, there is a socially divided society with white upper class oppressing blacks through segregation and social disposition. The ideas that prevailed in society were so strong that in many instances even blacks considered the oppression legitimate and their inequality normal. Its easy then to see that whites, such as Beckwith, would want to retain the status quo, for their position was much higher in social class and esteem.

            Weltry invites her audience to see the events of Evans’ murder from this perspective. Beckwith imagines himself not a hero of some counter-movement to the civil rights movement, but a protector of his own way of life and the way he believes things to be, decided by himself. The exchange in one ideology with another is a shift that exchanges blows to each other as the former leaves and the latter takes its place. This is easily seen in the chaos in and resistance to the civil rights movement. Beckwith constantly remarks throughout the short story about how everything is hot and growing hotter, a metaphor for how change was effecting him. “And it’s so hot. It looks like the town’s is on fire already, whichever way you turn…I was already tired of seeing a hundred cops getting us white people nowhere” (Weltry 56). The wave of change has conceived not just a disapproval of the way things are going, but also lack of faith in the government for dealing with the civil rights movement.

“I done what I done for my own pure-D satisfaction” (Weltry 53).  In the end Beckwith is apathetic towards the outcome, merely contented by the consolation of his act upon his ideas and views. “On the TV and in the Papers, they don’t know but half of it. They know who Roland Summers was without knowing who I am. His face was in front of the public before I got rid of him, and after I got rid of him there it is again—the same picture. And none of me” (Weltry 55). Although it is hard to empathize with Beckwith, an understanding of the conflict at the root of his action is gained through Weltry’s story.