In our discussion this past week about love and theories about love, I was immediately reminded of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Tony acceptance speech from last year- “Love is love is love is love…”. The speech was very clearly politicized, as the Tony’s were right after the tragic events in Orlando. “Love is love” seemed to reflect specifically what was happening for LGBTQ folk around the country during that time, but could have also been intended to reflect an idea our country should have been keeping in mind the whole time. Purely semantically, Lin-Manuel is reducing love to be the same thing in everyone’s minds, but I think there is a disconnect between what some people think love is, and what others think love is. In part, his message came off as an attempt to link the two, but when put in conjunction with bell hooks and Sandoval, I am hesitant to believe this is achievable in a political domain. When there is so much opposition, the middle-voice, or différance, that Sandoval explained may be too powerful to overcome. When the binaries are so different, it is difficult for me to understand how love itself can bring the two together. Additionally, hooks applied this to an activist perspective, yet I am still skeptical that love itself is enough. Lin-Manuel’s message was perceived very well, potentially due to the fact that the Broadway community and audience at the Tony’s is known to be more accepting of LGBTQ folk. However, the speech should have been more widely accepted, since as we have learned, love can be demonstrated through an infinite amount of capacities.


%d bloggers like this: