Prejudice in Philadelphia Case Study Project
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
Prejudice in Philadelphia Case Study Project
Philadelphia is a story of Andrew Beckett, a successful lawyer, fired from his job because he has AIDS. The movie follows Andy’s road to empowerment by suing the law firm for illegal termination of his employment. The audience progresses with his litigation lawyer, Joe Miller, as he confronts his homophobia and prejudice against people with AIDS. Joe’s personal experience with racism allows him to understand the discrimination Andy faces, and shows the interplay of different forms of oppression that exist at multiple levels of analysis. While the movie is well intentioned in its attempt to educate the audience about AIDS discrimination and homophobia, it does not sufficiently dissociate the two, thus reinforcing the process of blaming the victim.
Andy becomes the victim of discrimination when he is fired just after being warmly accepted into the inner circle of senior partners once they discover that he has AIDS. The firm’s discrimination against people with AIDS provokes Andy to enter the first stage of Keiffer’s theory of psychological empowerment, the era of entry, as he loses the trust in the company to which he dedicated his entire professional life in the pursuit of justice for others (Dalton, Elias & Wandersman, 2001, pp. 350). This loss of trust leads him to develop deeper critical awareness of existing discrimination, moving him into Keiffer’s second stage, era of advancement. He no longer reinforces the status quo by concealing his illness and seeks the support of his family in his attempt to challenge the system. Preparing for the fight, he learns more about the law surrounding people with AIDS. In the era of incorporation, his newly acquired knowledge of discrimination law and his experience of searching for a lawyer brings Andy closer to his identity of a gay man infected with AIDS. He realizes his power to correct the injustice by suing the company. Andy finally becomes empowered in Keiffer’s fourth stage, the era of commitment, as he wins the lawsuit, setting the precedent for future cases of discrimination against people with AIDS.
The movie, however, overlooks Andy’s upper-class status that facilitates his empowerment. Andy is an educated white male, who knows his rights and has the time and money to assert them. Yet just as Michelle Fine argued (as quoted in Riger, 1993), “Trusting social institutions, maximizing interpersonal supports, and engaging in self-disclosure are strategies most appropriate for middle-class and affluent individuals” (p. 288). Andy’s empowerment, therefore, might not be possible or even desirable for less socially privileged people. At the beginning of the movie, the audience might think that the movie deals with issues of class as snapshots of people sleeping and begging in the streets are contrasted to those of people in suits going to their work. Alas, the role of class is ignored in the process of empowerment.
Although the film does not deal with issues of classism or sexism, it makes strong connections between the prejudices of race, sexual orientation and AIDS. The three forms of prejudices are brought together in the library scene as Joe, a black man who discriminated against Andy earlier, is faced with prejudice himself. Not only does he witness the librarian’s prejudice toward Andy as he asks him to move to a private room because he has AIDS and is assumed to be gay, but he also experiences prejudice in the form of long, uncomfortable stares because he is a black man in a law library. The opposing lives of the two men are dramatically united as Joe reads aloud the definition of prejudice. The strong interconnection between the two forms of prejudice is reflected in the encouragement of Andy’s mother, “Well, I didn’t raise my kids to sit in the back of the bus… you get in there and you fight for your rights!” The mutual understanding of prejudice, although stemming from different roots, allows the two men to fight against discrimination together.
Suing the law firm attempts to eliminate discrimination at an organizational level by changing the discriminatory practices of the firm. The implications of this case, however, have effects on a macrosystem level as well. Previously, “subsequent decisions have held that AIDS is protected as a handicap under law,” yet no legal precedents existed directly prohibiting discrimination against people with AIDS. The positive outcome of the trial on the macrosystem level, however, does not assure the disappearance of discrimination at the individual level. The dialogue between the judge and Joe illustrates that discrimination exists at multiple levels of analysis: “In this courtroom, justice is blind. With all due respect your honor, we don’t live in this courtroom.” Joe’s initial physical distancing from Andy and refusal to take on his case is just one of the many instances of prejudice and discrimination against people with AIDS at the individual level. Yet as Joe learns about AIDS and becomes better acquainted with Andy and his partner, Miguel, his homophobia and prejudices against people with AIDS dissipates.
Joe’s character is designed to be a person with whom the audience can identify and grow. The decision to portray Joe as a middle-class, heterosexual family man is indicative of the audience toward which the movie is directed. The asexual presentation of Andy’s relationship with Miguel and his confession that he is “not political” suggest that the movie targets a more conservative audience. The movie tries to gain the audience’s acceptance by minimizing the differences between gay and straight people, thus embracing gay and lesbian politics (as opposed to queer politics, which attempt to disrupt heteronormativity to end oppression). As the movie depicts Joe’s changing attitude toward Andy, the audience is expected to follow Joe’s journey into acceptance and understanding of gays and people with AIDS.
Being gay and having AIDS are deeply intertwined in the movie, revealing the early 1990’s attitude that AIDS is a gay disease. When Joe learns that Andy has AIDS, he automatically assumes that Andy is gay. Once those with AIDS are identified as “different” from the rest, their difference is viewed as the cause of AIDS and they are blamed for their illness. The defense attorney attempts to establish the cause of AIDS by examining Andy’s “promiscuous” sexual history. She expresses an exceptionalist approach to the solution of the AIDS problem, suggesting that the problem could be resolved once people stop acting “promiscuously” (Ryan, 1972, p. 17). She ignores the need for universalistic approach, subtly reflected in Andy’s testimony that he only knew of AIDS as “the gay plague” or “gay cancer” but “didn’t know how you could get it or that it could kill you.” The absence of sufficient research and education about AIDS in 1980s, as the source of the problem, is overlooked.
Named after the city where the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776,
Philadelphia attempts to extend “all men are created equal” to include people of all sexual orientations, regardless of whether they have AIDS or not. Issues of class and gender, and their roles in the process of Andy’s empowerment, are not considered in the movie. The movie reveals the interplay between multiple forms of oppression, but does not disconnect gay men from
AIDS, thus reinforcing the dominant narrative of blaming the victim (Ryan, 1972). Victimization is shown to occur on multiple levels of analysis. Philadelphia attempts to eliminate prejudice at the individual level of analysis through educating the audience about discrimination toward gay people and those with AIDS, by creating a heartbreaking story of life and death, justice and injustice in the context of a courtroom drama.
References
Dalton, J.H., Elias, M.J., & Wandersman, A. (2001). Community psychology: Linking individuals and communities. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Ryan, W. (1972). How to blame the victim. Blaming the victim.(pp. 2-30, 302-305). New York: Vintage Books
Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 279-292.