Part 2: Fear of contagion, fear of intimacy

In this second part of the trilogy, I review the concepts of panic, the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, and how internally inconsistent opinions and attitudes can be made consistent (or consonant). The theory explains, in some measure, how AIDS has been socialized into our thinking about identity, and goes beyond a medical condition. The pervasive identification of gay men with HIV and AIDS has resulted for many in an over-identification with fears of contagion and on a societal level in a fear of all gays as pools of contagion. The conversion of dissonance to consonance has taken many forms; within the gay community it has resulted in the rejection of the "100% safe-100% of the time" safe-sex message, and the adoption (for many) of a new form of deviant label-someone who is not in conformity with the social norm of gay community sexual behavior. However, we shall see that this so-called norm is a sham-that many gay men do not, as a rule, practice safe(r) sex on a consistent basis. This information indicates that the educational efforts of the last decade have at best lost their potency, and at worst were less than efficacious to begin with. The dissonant messages have also informed both the construction of the gay community and its interpretation of what it means to be gay. The result has been a tri-lateral perception of HIV and AIDS as either a medical, political or a social phenomenon. This fragmented understanding has exacerbated the already polarized ASOs and GSOs in that each has determined its ideology based on a particular interpretation of HIV and AIDS. This polarization has been operationalized by the GSOs and ASOs primarily in the manner by which they define their target markets, and more importantly, in the manner by which they exclude certain gays from participation. At the extreme, some gay men feel entirely left out of the community, and are consequently unable to convert their dissonance regarding being gay into consonance, if only by developing some associational ties with the community. The central question of the sustainability of the gay movement is thus partly answered by restating the nature of the fractures in the community. Kiesler's determinants regarding change relate directly to the sustainability question-can GSOs and ASOs, given their pluralistic ideologies and constituencies, break free of the constraints that are posed by these determinants? Would the adherents and conscious constituents defect from their organizations, and form new ones (thus reifying the fractures that already exist)? On the other hand, is there a sense of community and identity that will function as a bonding agent to encourage coalition building and social reorganization? The matter may turn on the issue of selective rewards: can a coalition of ASOs and GSOs provide staff, volunteers and clients sufficient motivation for making the inevitable compromises? Given the selective nature of the rewards, as they now stand, the probability of being able to so do is remote. The influence of the non-gay community, as well as the attitudes and beliefs of the majority of gays who do not belong to any gay organizations, hampers success.