Action = Vie is the first comprehensive study of Act Up Paris for Anglophone audiences. It thus makes a significant contribution to the recent uptick in analyses of AIDS activist groups across the Global North. Specifically, the book expands our understanding(s) of the political underpinnings of sexual liberation strategies, activist mobilisation and historical health promotion. Action = Vie excels at tracing the cultural and social contexts of Act Up Paris, using 20 years of ethnographic data to construct an intimate history of AIDS activism in France. As an anthropological study, it narrates the scientific and activist controversies that span weekly meetings, personal relationships, activist ‘zaps’ and formal literary and journalist publications. In this way, it builds upon Steven Epstein's now-classic study Impure Science (1998) by assembling a highly convincing image of activist politics in France. The book is composed of ten chapters that chart gay liberation epistemologies from the ‘homophile movement’ in the 1960s and 70s to the rise of AIDS activism in the 80s and early 90s to the emergence of the gay marriage and civil liberties movement in the 90s and 2000s. It is largely accessible for both academic and non-academic readers and will appeal to audiences interested in sexuality studies, media studies, health activism and health promotion.

Broqua's central argument uncovers competing notions of health activism and sexual rights which led to unique activist interventions in France. Linking increasing demand for civil partnerships with the rise of AIDS activist politics in the 1980s, Broqua demonstrates how a normative politics—enhanced by a largely gay-male population in Act Up Paris—underlined key activist strategies. The group's first public action took place at the 1989 Gay Pride parade, during which the group demonstrated ‘the first instance of a die-in in France, [the] silence act of simulated death practiced by all Act Up groups worldwide’ (pp. 36–37). As a gay-oriented organisation, crucial tensions arose between the service-oriented groups, such as AIDES, and Act Up's desire to ‘spearhead the “new generation” of AIDS activist organizations’ (p. 19). This resulted in Act Up's primary agenda to create ‘the new public expression of HIV-positive individuals and the inclusions of a claim to gay identity in the fight against AIDS—both of which could not find a voice in most of the older organizations’ (pp. 19–20). In ways that he argues differs from the US context, Broqua uses interviews, critical readings of journalist and literary texts to bring together gay and AIDS politics and convincingly claim that Act Up Paris foregrounded gay rights through AIDS activist interventions.

As an intellectual project, Action = Vie poses some important questions about the histories of AIDS activism in the Global North. He asks: How has early AIDS activism changed perceptions of sexual life during the AIDS crisis, and what kind of identities coalesce around and emerge from activist participation? In answering these questions, Broqua suggests that the political tensions within the group helped to change both personal stakes in health activism as well as the long-term goals of Act Up. Rather than simply appealing to an eradication of HIV transmissions, Broqua demonstrates how the integration of sexual rights within AIDS activism—including the tensions between normative and radical sexual practices amidst AIDS crisis in France—helped to produce contentious and multiple futures beyond identification with HIV infection. Act Up Paris's early objective, according to Broqua, ‘was not to have people testify about individual experiences’, in the way that many North American activists sought to draw out (see Alexandra Juhasz's AIDS TV (1996) and Roger Hallas's Reframing Bodies (2009)). Indeed, the group formed ‘a “we” that stood in contrast to the highly individualised “I” of first-hand accounts or patient support’ (p. 49). Following the transformation of the social collective, in which gay rights were negotiated and naturalised through the activist development of a French ‘gay community’, Broqua problematises the long-standing idea that health activism is necessarily (or only) a struggle between access to biomedicine and the individual right to care. Health activism is these things and also advocacy for structural changes to enable greater sexual rights.

Overall, the impact of Action = Vie is clear. The book draws out key concerns about the ongoing development of health activism, setting the stage for greater exploration of the intersections of political ideologies, activist strategies, and HIV interventions in past and present AIDS activist practices. This is no less timely for an evolving pandemic that demands new interpretations of AIDS histories and the adaptation of activist practices for the future. The book's claims will enable careful and critical junctures for the futures of AIDS activism, a domain of study which Action = Vie situates as ripe for discovery.

“行动 = 竞争”是针对“英语行动者”的Act Up Paris的第一个综合研究。因此，它为最近对全球北部艾滋病活动家群体的分析激增做出了重大贡献。具体而言，这本书扩大了我们对性解放战略，激进主义者动员和促进历史健康的政治基础的理解。动作 = 竞争擅长追踪Act Up Paris的文化和社会背景，利用20年的人种学数据来构建法国AIDS行动主义的悠久历史。作为一项人类学研究，它叙述了科学和激进主义者之间的争议，这些争议涉及每周的会议，个人关系，激进主义者的“快速打折”以及正式的文学和新闻工作者出版物。这样，它建立在史蒂文·爱泼斯坦（Steven Epstein）现在经典的研究《不纯科学》（Impur Science）的基础上（1998）通过在法国组建一个极具说服力的激进主义政治形象。该书共分十章，从1960年代和70年代的“同性恋运动”到80年代和90年代初期的艾滋病活动主义到90年代和90年代同性恋婚姻和公民自由运动的兴起，描绘了同性恋解放的认识论。 2000年代。它对于学术和非学术读者都是可广泛使用的，并且会吸引对性研究，媒体研究，健康行动主义和健康促进感兴趣的受众。

布罗夸（Broqua）的核心论点揭示了健康激进主义和性权利的相互竞争的概念，这导致了法国独特的激进主义干预。Broqua将对民间伙伴关系的需求与1980年代艾滋病激进主义政治的兴起联系起来，表明了规范性政治如何强调了关键的激进主义战略。该小组的首次公开行动是在1989年的同性恋骄傲游行中进行的，在此期间，该小组展示了“法国死刑的第一例，[全世界所有行动起来的团体都在实行模拟死亡的沉默行为”（第pp。 36-37）。作为一个以同性恋为导向的组织，在以服务为导向的团体（如AIDES）与Act Up希望“带头领导艾滋病活动家组织的“新一代””之间产生了严重的紧张关系（第19页）。这导致Act Up的主要议程是创建“艾滋病毒阳性个体的新公开表达，并在抗击艾滋病工作中加入了对同性恋身份的主张-这两者在大多数较老的组织中都找不到声音”（第19-20页）。他以与美国背景不同的方式辩解说，布罗夸利用访谈，新闻记者的批判性阅读和文学著作，将同性恋和爱滋病政治融合在一起，并令人信服地宣称，《行动起来巴黎》通过艾滋病活动家的干预使同性恋权利成为前景。

作为智力项目，行动 = 竞争对全球北部的艾滋病行动主义的历史提出了一些重要的问题。他问：在艾滋病危机期间，早期的艾滋病激进主义如何改变了人们对性生活的看法，而激进主义者的参与又融合了什么样的身份？在回答这些问题时，布罗夸（Broqua）建议，该组织内部的政治紧张局势有助于改变个人在健康行动主义中的利害关系以及Act Up的长期目标。Broqua并不仅仅是呼吁消除艾滋病毒的传播，还证明了性权利与艾滋病行动之间的整合-包括法国艾滋病危机期间规范性行为与激进性行为之间的紧张关系-如何有助于产生有争议的多重未来，而无法鉴定出艾滋病毒感染者。根据布罗夸（Broqua）的说法，请行动起来巴黎的早期目标，艾滋病电视（1996）和罗杰·哈拉斯（Roger Hallas）的《改造机构（2009）》。的确，该小组形成了一个“我们”，与第一手账目或患者支持的高度个性化的“ I”形成鲜明对比（第49页）。随着社会集体的转变，其中同性恋权利是通过法国“同性恋社区”的激进主义发展而得到谈判和归化的，布罗夸对长期存在的观念提出质疑，即健康激进主义必然（或仅）是获取生物医学之间的斗争。以及个人的照料权。健康行动主义就是这些东西，也是倡导结构性改革以实现更大的性权利的主张。

总体而言，“行动 = 竞争”的影响显而易见。该书提出了对健康激进主义的不断发展的主要关切，为进一步探索过去和现在的艾滋病激进主义实践中的政治意识形态，激进主义策略和艾滋病毒干预措施的交叉搭建了舞台。对于不断发展的大流行病来说，这同样是及时的，它要求对艾滋病的历史进行新的解释，并对未来的激进主义者进行适应。这本书的说法将使艾滋病行动，研究的领域，其中期货小心，关键时刻行动 =  Vie的座落作为成熟的发现。