Writing and speaking mindfully in the age of HIV/AIDS
Those working in the field of HIV/AIDS, particularly
in prevention campaigns and general awareness training,
will have encountered not only an alarming insufficiency
of knowledge in terms of basic facts about the epidemic,
but also disturbing levels of misunderstanding when
it comes to the concepts of and terminology used around
the subject. This confusion arises, in large part, from
careless use of language in the media and in general
social discussion, even amongst well-educated individuals.
For example, in numerous research projects and campaigns
involving interpersonal educational exchanges with target
audiences across a range of sectors, evaluative findings
reflect that many people do not grasp the difference
between the terms "HIV" and "AIDS".
Hence, we so often hear individuals mistakenly referring
to the "HIV test" as an "AIDS test"
- which indicates a fundamental misconception of the
commencement, progress and end-stage of the disease.
Activists and specialist writers have insisted, and
rightly so, on combining the two acronyms thus: HIV/AIDS
- so as to establish and entrench the link between the
two concepts (i.e. that the "Human Immunodeficiency
Virus" [HIV] causes the "Aquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome" [AIDS]). However, this combination now
appears to have blurred the meaning of each one, so
that everyday use of the two terms now makes them interchangeable.
As a result, awareness trainers are finding it increasingly
necessary to explain what the acronyms or "shortened
names" actually stand for, and the important difference
between them.
The need to clarify this distinction might seem like
a nit-picking English lesson to some, but in fact, such
correction lays the foundation for a clear understanding
of, for example, what is involved in voluntary testing
and counselling. When one is deciding on whether or
not to be tested, a person needs to know that one is
being tested for the presence of the HIV Virus - and
that if the result is "HIV-positive", it does
not necessarily mean that one has "AIDS" -
which is the shortened name for the medical condition
of an immune-system so weakened that it cannot fight
the illness caused by a range of infections, from the
common cold to diarrhoea or TB, and as such, is the
final result of untreated HIV infection.
While it is by no means a pleasant finding, knowing
as early as possible that the virus is present in one's
body can be advantageous in the sense that one is able
to make informed life choices in order to stave off
the onset of full-blown AIDS. Understanding this might
well motivate more people to come forward for testing,
and to decrease the stigma that dissuades so many from
finding out about their status.
Also problematic is the common usage in the mainstream
press of "Aids" as a proper noun instead of
the full acronym "AIDS". This reduced version
has resulted in the very meaning of the disease condition
being lost, along with its full name. So, what seems
like a minor detail in the production of information
materials and reportage about the epidemic, could in
effect be an underlying factor in the widespread confusion
about aspects of it, which in turn makes every one of
us vulnerable to HIV infection. After all, "Aids"
as the formal name of this disease condition means nothing
without knowing the source of the term - logically speaking,
who would ever have coined such a name for such an awful
illness?
In a third example, the creation of the verb "condomise",
deriving from the noun "condom", is another
emerging term that, while it may sound and look conveniently
catchy and expressive, has oversimplified the action
of using a condom. Again, seasoned HIV/AIDS awareness
trainers know that it takes practice to fit and remove
a male condom correctly. So, quite apart from negative
personal beliefs and attitudes about its usage (not
to speak of using the female version, which has only
recently become available), the actual experience of
"condomising" is not as easy as it is made
to sound. More practitioners, be they in the fields
of media, education, medicine or even government, need
to be mindful of these issues when devising or promoting
HIV/AIDS information materials and strategies.
There are many other examples one could cite with regard
to language and HIV/AIDS, particularly in advocacy work,
which aims to reshape social attitudes as a means of
confronting the many problems that underlie, surround
and govern the spread of the epidemic. Some, with good
reason, decry the use of words that cast those who are
HIV-positive as "victims" (which is seen as
disempowering), or that label HIV/AIDS as a "scourge"
(which implies "punishment").
Some would argue that this level of preoccupation with
language in relation to HIV/AIDS is pointless and indulgent.
However, there can be no disputing that knowledge is
power, and that words, whether written or verbal, along
with the packaging of such wording, are a means of entrenching
certain ideas and conceptions. This is therefore a call
to those who are committed to the struggle against HIV/AIDS
to give their messaging due care and thought.
Do you
have an opinion about these views? HIVAN welcomes yours,
and invites you to send your thoughts to our Webmaster
at webmaster@hivan.org.za
for publication on this site.
