3.
Douglas Crimp’s reading was divided into two parts, but applied Foucauldian philosophy in both parts in Crimp’s analysis after his summary of history surrounding HIV medicine. First, Crimp criticized and explained Andrew Sullivan’s discussion of HIV medicine in society, but subsequently he discussed the AIDS outbreak in the 1980s with its portrayal as depicted in And the Band Played On. Crimp’s first part included an analysed the morality in sexuality and medicine through Foucauldian philosophy, then he analysed the role of the CDC and news sources during the aids outbreak of the early 1980s. The intersection between morality and sexuality would have fascinated Foucault, yet he would diverged and not spent time on the practices of the journalists …show more content…
Crimp continued to finish by stating that the private sector became “responsible for more than 70 percent of pharmaceutical research in this country" (Crimp 3). Apparently Crimp saw the profit from HIV/AIDS patients as a win-win scenario, because he justified his stance in “Pro Pharma” with affirmation that “they’re entrepreneurs trying to make money by saving lives. By and in large, they succeed in both. Every morning I wake up and feel fine, and I’m glad they do” (Crimp 3). Sullivan defended the entrepreneurs, and probably did not address ethics or morality as Crimp did when Crimp partially analysed Sullivan with Foucauldian thought.
The concepts of the Surveillance and Panopticon was faintly remembered in Crimp’s analysis of Sullivan’s “Pro Pharma” piece. Surveillance, in Foucauldian thought dealt with people of power actively observing their subordinates in a process to maintain their power. Panopticon dealt with behaving within the rules, which are boundaries for the social norms in Foucauldian thought. In Crimp’s response, he employs a Surveillance tactic to discredit Sullivan’s viewpoint on his actions and ethics that caused his infection of HIV.Crimp actually questioned "Who infected you? Why do they chastise you for having too much sex? How many sex partners
Douglas Crimp’s reading was divided into two parts, but applied Foucauldian philosophy in both parts in Crimp’s analysis after his summary of history surrounding HIV medicine. First, Crimp criticized and explained Andrew Sullivan’s discussion of HIV medicine in society, but subsequently he discussed the AIDS outbreak in the 1980s with its portrayal as depicted in And the Band Played On. Crimp’s first part included an analysed the morality in sexuality and medicine through Foucauldian philosophy, then he analysed the role of the CDC and news sources during the aids outbreak of the early 1980s. The intersection between morality and sexuality would have fascinated Foucault, yet he would diverged and not spent time on the practices of the journalists …show more content…
Crimp continued to finish by stating that the private sector became “responsible for more than 70 percent of pharmaceutical research in this country" (Crimp 3). Apparently Crimp saw the profit from HIV/AIDS patients as a win-win scenario, because he justified his stance in “Pro Pharma” with affirmation that “they’re entrepreneurs trying to make money by saving lives. By and in large, they succeed in both. Every morning I wake up and feel fine, and I’m glad they do” (Crimp 3). Sullivan defended the entrepreneurs, and probably did not address ethics or morality as Crimp did when Crimp partially analysed Sullivan with Foucauldian thought.
The concepts of the Surveillance and Panopticon was faintly remembered in Crimp’s analysis of Sullivan’s “Pro Pharma” piece. Surveillance, in Foucauldian thought dealt with people of power actively observing their subordinates in a process to maintain their power. Panopticon dealt with behaving within the rules, which are boundaries for the social norms in Foucauldian thought. In Crimp’s response, he employs a Surveillance tactic to discredit Sullivan’s viewpoint on his actions and ethics that caused his infection of HIV.Crimp actually questioned "Who infected you? Why do they chastise you for having too much sex? How many sex partners