Watanabe 1

In New York City, 1981, over 80 gay men gathered in playwright and activist Larry

Kramer’s apartment to discuss the spread of a novel “gay cancer” and to raise funds for AIDS

research (Gay Men’s Health Crisis [GMHC], n.d.). This group, which officially became the Gay

Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC) in 1982, was the first community-based service organization

created to support people living with HIV and AIDS. Created when nothing was known about

AIDS – how it spread or how to treat it – and no action was taken by the Reagan administration,

the initial goal of the GMHC was to accumulate as much information about this novel health

threat and to educate the public and people in their community. The GMHC’s goals quickly

expanded to not only provide care services to people living with HIV and AIDS but also to

advocate for increased AIDS policies and funding. Correspondingly, the GMHC provided

various services, such as the first AIDS hotline, legal services, and recreational services, and they

implemented programs, such as the Buddy Program, to support people living with HIV and

AIDS. Through their nonviolent, service-oriented approach, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis’s AIDS

activism was successful and fell short of success in several ways. In this paper, I explain how the

Gay Men’s Health Crisis successfully supported and demonstrated why it is critical to support

people living with AIDS during the epidemic, and I argue how the active participation of lay

people, the campaign’s framing of what’s at stake, and the use of body rhetoric in health activism

contribute to its rhetorical effectiveness, as demonstrated by the Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

One way the GMHC supported people living with AIDS, especially in the beginning of

the epidemic, was by educating the public and people in their community. They released

newsletters about AIDS, updating people about statistics and the latest research, and they

published brochures detailing safer sex guidelines (The New York Public Library Archives and

Manuscripts, n.d.). GMHC also implemented AIDS prevention programs and helped organize
Watanabe 2

conferences and community forums to publicly discuss AIDS. Their successful education efforts

resulted in the media, physicians, and health organizations often referring to the GMHC for

accurate information about AIDS (The New York Public Library Archives and Manuscripts,

n.d.).

In addition to education, the GMHC supported people living with AIDS by providing

services for the community, including the first AIDS hotline, the Buddy Program, counseling

services, legal services, and recreational services. The first AIDS hotline was on the answering

machine of volunteer Rodger McFarlane, and on the first night, over 100 calls were received

(HIV.gov, n.d.). Of all GMHC’s services, however, their most prominent one was their Buddy

Program, in which volunteers would help people living with AIDS with day-to-day tasks,

including grocery shopping and laundry, and they would provide nursing care, especially to

those who were denied care by hospital staff (The New York Public Library Archives and

Manuscripts, n.d.). Their other services included group counseling, recreational workshops and

trips, free meals, and legal advocacy (The New York Public Library Archives and Manuscripts,

n.d.). Through their vast array of services, the GMHC successfully served their community by

helping people living with AIDS navigate through a discriminatory health care system and attain

better health in the face of stigma by the public and silence by the government.

Although the GMHC was a service-oriented organization for AIDS, they also supported

people living with AIDS by advocating for AIDS policies and increased funding for research.

GMHC’s political involvement was limited in comparison to a more politically active group like

the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP). However, their advocacy for increased funding

for AIDS research, greater health care, and civil rights protections for people living with AIDS
Watanabe 3

was still pivotal, as they served as advisers on city agencies and influenced local and state

policies (The New York Public Library Archives and Manuscripts, n.d.).

In supporting people living with AIDS through education, community services, and

political advocacy, the success of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis in terms of rhetorical

effectiveness can be largely attributed to the active and direct involvement of lay people from the

community. In general, for health activism campaigns, the participation of lay people and the

community of those who are directly impacted by the health issue or condition plays a pivotal

role in driving the campaign’s argument. This is because lay people humanize the campaign and

break down barriers to turn a once private health issue into a public health issue. From a

rhetorical perspective, this means that lay people’s participation can merge the personal sphere

(private interactions), technical sphere (experts in the field), and public sphere (general public

and the media) of argument (Friz, 2021). The GMHC’s campaign demonstrated this effect when

lay people educated the public about AIDS and became a critical resource for the media,

physicians, and health organizations. Thus, AIDS and personal health became a concern not only

for the individual and their physician but also for the general public. This created new avenues

for the campaign to have a greater rhetorical and social impact; as Brouwer (1998) argues, “By

making AIDS a public issue, elected or appointed officials, institutions, and social prejudices

became targets of criticism and judgement.” In other words, lay people create the space through

health activism campaigns for the public to effectively demand social and political change.

The rhetorical effectiveness of health activism campaigns is not only dependent on who is

participating but also what the leading argument is. In other words, what’s at stake? As

demonstrated by the GMHC’s activism and other AIDS activist groups, including ACT UP and

TAG (Treatment Action Group), their campaigns were rhetorically effective because they clearly
Watanabe 4

argued how human lives were at stake. Amidst an emerging HIV and AIDS epidemic and a

negligent government, their campaign’s message and corresponding advocacy for greater

funding for AIDS research and effective health care instilled a sense of urgency that demanded

and pressured the government to enact changes (Lune & Oberstein, 2001). In another health

activism campaign, such as in the “Ashley X” case, the arguments by people with disabilities

against the surgical operations conducted on Ashley were rhetorically effective because of their

framing of what were at stake: the bodily autonomy of people with disabilities and what is

considered a “healthy” or “normal” body (Jordan, 2009). These cases demonstrate that by clearly

defining what’s at stake, a health activism campaign can more successfully convey its

significance and real-world implications.

How a health activism campaign’s argument is portrayed and communicated to the public

is also a critical determinant of its rhetorical effectiveness. Whether the argument is

communicated through words or through body rhetoric, this aspect of health activism amplifies

the rhetorical effect of who is participating and what is being argued. Body rhetoric is defined as

“rhetoric that foregrounds the body as part of the symbolic act” (Friz, 2021). In the case of the

GHMC, part of their campaign to shed light on why it is necessary to support people with AIDS

is communicated through body rhetoric – specifically, the body enacting the argument, or

serving as evidence of the argument (Friz, 2021). This body rhetoric is demonstrated by the

people with AIDS in the beginning of the epidemic who were dying and physically incapable of

completing daily tasks. As the GHMC created various services, such as the Buddy Program, in

response to their community’s needs, these people with AIDS were evidence of why it is critical

to support people with AIDS by highlighting the debilitating effect of AIDS on their bodies.

Similarly, another type of body rhetoric – when the body is the argument (Friz, 2021) – was
Watanabe 5

methodically used by the AIDS activism campaign ACT UP through their “die in” protests, in

which the physical bodies of the community were the argument, for example, over unethical

clinical trials, drug pricing, or government negligence (Lune & Oberstein, 2001). These

examples demonstrate how communicating through body rhetoric can make health activism

campaigns more rhetorically effective.

When examining these factors that contribute to a health activism campaign’s rhetorical

effectiveness, it’s important to consider their real-world implications and questions raised. For

instance, although the participation of lay people can expand who can participate in these

conversations around health in the public sphere, it raises questions of whether all lay people are

equally encouraged or are able to participate, who is and is not considered to be a part of the

public, and what are the implications. Additionally, the significance of how a campaign frames

what’s at stake raises some questions about whether the stakes are true for everyone because of

their potential subjectiveness. Depending on how the activists perceive a health condition or

threat, they can frame it so that what’s at stake is life or death, for example, although others may

disagree, such as campaigns against abortion.

As successful and rhetorically effective as the Gay Men’s Health Crisis was in supporting

people living with AIDS, they fell short of success in some aspects of their health activism

campaign. For example, because their target population was primarily white gay men,

particularly in the beginning of the epidemic, many of the resources, programs, and services they

implemented were tailored for this specific group of people (The New York Public Library

Archives and Manuscripts, n.d.). Consequently, this promoted one dominant image of people

affected by AIDS and marginalized the others. Another area where they fell short of success was

demanding for as much radical change as some AIDS activists desired, particularly in the realm
Watanabe 6

of politics. Because its creators wanted GMHC to professionally cooperate with the government,

some members felt as if the organization valued that political partnership more than the fight for

policy changes and greater research funding (Lune & Oberstein, 2001). Furthermore, as more

communities became affected with HIV and AIDS, some members argued that GMHC lacked

the same level of urgency or “crisis” that motivated its creation in the first place (Lune &

Oberstein, 2001).

Some may argue that the GMHC was less successful or rhetorically effective than ACT-

UP, particularly in the realm of politics. However, I contend that these organizations cannot be

directly compared to each other because although they both endeavored to fight against AIDS

and support people living with AIDS, they served different purposes. While ACT-UP was

created to be “street activists” and be the voice of people living with AIDS, GMHC was created

to serve people living with AIDS and provide their day-to-day needs (Lune & Oberstein, 2001).

In other words, the GMHC and ACT-UP worked alongside each other rather than against each

other. In fact, the balance between these separate organizations that had different focus areas but

simultaneously worked towards the same larger goal contributed to the overall rhetorical

effectiveness of these AIDS activism campaigns.

In essence, the success and rhetorical effectiveness of health activism campaigns are

largely determined by factors such as who is participating, what is being argued, and how the

arguments are made. For the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, these factors contributed to their success

to fight for social and political change during the emerging HIV and AIDS epidemic. It’s also

important to consider, however, the implications of these factors, including who or what is not

being included in the campaign’s argument.

Watanabe 7

References

Friz, A. (2021, November). Day 12- Health Activism 1: What is the Public Sphere? [PowerPoint

slides]. Canvas@UW.https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/1479564/files/83982532?

module_item_id=14285497

Friz, A. (2021, November). Day 14- Health and Bodies [PowerPoint slides].

Canvas@UW. https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/1479564/files/84294615?module_item_id

=14319847

Gay Men’s Health Crisis [GMHC]. (n.d.). History. https://www.gmhc.org/history/

HIV.gov. (n.d.). A Timeline of HIV and AIDS. https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-

basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline

Lune, H., & Oberstein, H. (2001). Embedded Systems: The Case of HIV/AIDS Nonprofit

Organizations in New York City. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and

Nonprofit Organizations, 12(1), 17–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27927706

The New York Public Library Archives and Manuscripts. (n.d.). Gay Men's Health Crisis

records. https://archives.nypl.org/mss/1126