Article Review

By Kevin Welch

ENGL 7765

Dr. Frost

1/24/2017
Article Review 1

An important article in the field of rhetoric of health and medicine, Passing, Protesting, and the
Arts of Resistance: Infiltrating the Ritual Space of Blood Donation (Bennett, 2008)
accomplishes its goal of showing that the act of passing or protesting the federal prohibition
to donate blood are dialogically dependent on one another as two separate but related tactics of
resistance used by gay men (Bennett, 2008, p. 23). These tactics are intentionally used by gay
men to enact social change. To demonstrate the correlation between blood donations and
enacting social change through resistance tactics, Bennett effectively describes how blood
donation is a ritual that symbolizes an altruistic relationship between members of a society in
which an intimate bond is formed between strangers and civic identity is affirmed (p. 23). He
also emphasizes the importance of blood donation as a public ritual that demonstrates trust and
sacrificial reciprocity among anonymous citizens (Bennett, 2008, p. 23). Bennetts research
reveals the importance of rhetorical interpretation and communication in the civic ritual of blood
donation between the gay community and the polity, which could serve as a paradigm to further
our understanding of the rhetorical discourse in health and medicine.

Bennett chose the events of September 11th, 2001 as a prime example of federal law barring gay
men from displaying their altruistic motivations and affirming their civic identity through blood
donation. According to Bennett (2008), uncounted numbers of queer men volunteered to donate
blood and were turned away on account of their high risk for spreading HIV, regardless of
their safe sex practices and monogamous relationships (p. 24). The article delineates the
relationship between passing (lying about sexual orientation to give blood and affirm ones
civic identity) and protesting (verbally expressing the problems with telling queer men that
they cannot donate blood) and the complex rhetorical relationships that exist between these men
and their polity.

Bennetts interviews with these men reveal that they interpreted the act of blood donation as a
right of citizenship, but that their exclusion from donating made them feel like second-class
citizens (2008, p. 31). Bennet states that the men that passed described their actions as a
method of performing a civic duty while also creating a hidden transcript of subversive
discourse that could then be shared with their family members, friends, and community to expose
the discriminatory policies of the government (p. 32). Those that openly protested the
discrimination believe there is integrity and pride in embracing those elements of their identity
used to position them at the margins of the polity (Bennett, 2008, p. 34). Most of these men
claimed that their primary purpose for refusing to lie was to publicly resist negative stereotypes.

As I read Passing, Protesting, and the Arts of Resistance I couldnt help but notice the myopic
approach that Bennett took to studying the rhetorical discourse between blood donation and the
gay community. One important element that he neglected to address is the rhetorical engagement
of gay females, which left many vital regions of rhetorical discourse unexplored. Did the women
pass or protest in the same bifurcated ways as the men did? Did they pass or protest for the same
reasons? Did any gay women show up to donate blood at all? If they did, did they show up for
the same reasons? If they didnt, what does this say about the rhetorical discourse between the
entire gay community and the act of donating blood? What does it say about the gay community
Article Review 2

and civic rituals at large? And how would the combined passing and protesting of both men and
women correlate to other acts of protest within health and medicine?

Astute observers might argue that Bennett focused on gay men because scientific research must
ask specific, focused questions. This line of reasoning is immediately invalidated when the
observer realizes that the inclusion of females doesnt limit the understanding of the rhetorical
discourse between blood donations and the gay community; it fully illuminates it. Bennetts
research could be a useful paradigm for establishing how the gay community engages the polity
in rhetorical discourse, except that it eliminates an entire sex from the equation. This also limits
the ability to extend Bennetts research to discuss the human (gay or straight) engagement of
tactical resistance in the health and medical fields.

The unintended consequence of limiting his research to gay males is that his work serves as an
artifact of a rhetorical engagement with the gay community. Ironically, the attempt to reveal
government sanctioned discrimination through the civic ritual of blood donation illuminates a
male-centric discrimination of its own. The conspicuous absence of any mention of women in
Passing, Protesting, and the Arts of Resistance implies that only gay males engage in a
rhetorical discourse with the polity through blood donation, and that only gay males pass or
protest these discriminatory practices.

Not all of the limitations of Bennetts study have a negative connotation, however. More
research is needed to determine if passing and protesting are employed in non-gay related
issues in health and medicine, such as when people are asked personal questions when engaged
with their personal care physician. Do people lie, or outright protest? Do they lie or protest for
similar reasons? More research is also needed to determine if passing and protesting are
rhetorical situations that are applied to other medical situations by the gay community.
Regardless of the limitations, Bennetts research demonstrates that various forms of social
resistance are coenacted through silent refusal (passing) and through physical and verbal
expressions (protesting), and that these resistance tactics alter the rhetorical discourse between
the gay community and larger polity.

In conclusion, Passing, Protesting, and the Arts of Resistance is an important work in the
exploration of the rhetorical engagement of gay males civic rituals and the polity. Although it
excludes any discussion of gay women, the research demonstrates that passing and
protesting are rhetorical stances that exemplify the primary methods for intentionally and
tactically resisting the government sanctioned discriminatory practice of blood donation.
Understanding how these gay men respond to such a situation has great implications for
understanding the wider human experience of tactical resistance in health and medical situations.
Article Review 3

References

Bennett, J. A. (2008). Passing, Protesting, and the Arts of Resistance: Infiltrating the Ritual
Space of Blood Donation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 94(1), 23-43. DOI:
10.1080/00335630701790818