I'm afraid this will be brief as I am typing single-thumbed (small accident in Angel Heart's kitchen. scary knife. Three stitches. I'll live).
So, to follow up on Allysa's question, I'd like to start with another quote Allysa found in her reasearch on the movie Philadelphia.
A woman in the movie who received HIV/AIDS through a blood transfusion says during fher court testimony:
"I don't consider myself any different than anyone else with this disease--I'm not innocent, I'm not guilty...I am just trying to survive"
To what extent do you think fear of contracting HIV/AIDS "innocently" contributes to a societal tendency to pronouce people living with the disease "guilty"? In other words, could other reasons people give for having an aversion to people with AIDS or the topic of AIDS (moral concerns about homosexuality/drug use, etc.) simply be the manifestation of their fear? If fear is a significant problem, what (if anything) do you think could/should be done about it?
I can't wait to hear what you guys think!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Oops. I think I need to clarify my original question. It should read:
To what extent do you think fear of contracting HIV/AIDS “innocently” (that is, through blood transfusion or another non-sexual, non-drug-related way), contributes to the societal tendency to pronounce those living with the disease “guilty?”
I think that this is a huge problem in our society. The results of research that announced that most victims acquired the disease through actions that were societally taboo resulted in its current stigma as something that is whispered about rather that discussed in public like any other illness. AIDS has become something to 'fear' mostly due to our inability as of yet to find a cure.
The kind of mentality that Sarah is talking about creates the idea that those who developed the disease "guiltily" asked for it in a sense by committing the actions they did while those who contract it innocently should be pitied and assisted. Its a pathetic double standard! No one wants to contract AIDS and no one has asked for it. I don't think that the terms guilty and innocent can even apply to this situation because both imply a certain kind of control or choice in the matter. Although there are certainly ways of limiting your risk, nothing is foolproof. I believe that it is concepts like this that help to fuel the societal view of the disease as something dirty and obscene.
The fear that it creates results in berating those who contracted it "guiltily" and fawning over (yet still fearing) those who contracted it innocently. We fear the unknown and until we simply learn to accept its existence and the possibility that none of us are immune to it, the societal stigma will still stand and those who have AIDS will continue to suffer not only from the pain of the disease itself, but also from the pain that society thrusts upon them in the form of rejection.
The difference between those that are "guilty" and those that are "innocent" is very similar to how much of the public views diabetics. Diabetes can be acquired due to lifestyle and can occur naturally in people, thus there is a seeming parallel present. Therefore, when looking at the public perception to diabetes, everyone is lumped into the same group, i.e. people who donate to diabetes organizations would not see a dichotomy between those two types. However, the case is not the same for AIDS. Today, there is a very rare chance to acquire HIV/AIDS from a blood transfusion or by any other means than intravenous drug use or unprotected sex, which are both much more common in AIDS patients. Thus there is solely one group to be viewed and judged as it will, by society. In the early years of AIDS, the image was also clouded as its standing as the "gay disease", placed a negative connotation around the entire disease. Furthermore, as more light is shed on AIDS and those who suffer from it, the public tends to and has tended to recognize the humanity of the disease; effectively making no one "guilty" for contracting the disease, just unfortunate.
I think this quote is incredibly revealing because it humanizes the HIV/AIDS illness. This woman’s quote has the remarkable ability to unite people in the understanding that the physical consequences of HIV/AIDS are the same for each person, regardless of the vehicle of transmission. I’d like to point out that the HIV/AIDS virus “treats” everyone equally: whether contracted through drug activity, sexual contact, or a blood transfusion, the symptoms are, for the most part, consistent from person to person. In other words, the illness doesn’t distinguish between “guilty” and “innocent”—so how can we?
Yes, I absolutely think that fear is the root of the “guilty” and “innocent” labels; if individuals are able to separate themselves—even if only in some superficial way—from something they fear, it provides them with a sense of security, perhaps even immunity. Quite honestly, I am not sure how we can begin to undermine this thought process. Even if we try to combat the labels, we are still left to fight the mentality that those labels represent. In this case, I’d like to echo Susan Sontag’s belief that until a cure is found and the illness is “demythicized,” it will be difficult to erase these assumptions and beliefs.
I’m sorry if this is going to sound repetitive, but I only have so many new thoughts devoted to the subject of HIV/AIDS.
I’ll assume that HIV/AIDS does in fact present a “guilty” and “innocent” stigma. On the small chance someone did receive HIV/AIDS from a blood transfusion, I would tend to see them as more of an innocent than someone sharing needles in an alley so he can get his next fix. Maybe I’m just a bigot, but that is my impression: I would see my condolences as better served on the person who was under the process of being healed rather than the person who was destroying himself intentionally.
Fear has been mentioned as a possible cause for such stigmas. I would tend to think ignorance is the actual culprit. If that were the case, education would be the solution to the problem of stigmas and intolerance. As Sontag explains: the more an illness is understood, the less mystery can revolve around it. Regardless of some opinions expressed in our last post, I do not think HIV/AIDS stigmas are nearly as oppressive as they were in previous decades. Given this, education might already be doing its work.
I think this could be a very valid point. If I find myself attempting at all costs to avoid those who have contracted this disease, I might say my reasoning has to do with the fact that I feel they have been irresponsible or even reckless in their relational endeavors. If this was the thing I found most disagreeable it is probably less about the patients, and more about me. Perhaps in my own life, my greatest fears are of instability and loss of control. If this were the case, it could be said that I manifested my greatest fear to apply to the “guilt” of the AIDS victims and would thus have justified my distaste for these people in my own right.
My opinions need to take this topic in a different direction. It may be callous to say so, but I disagree with the fact that no one “asks for” AIDS. I would have to say that in regards to certain types of people, there is no distinction between those who guiltily contract AIDS and those who innocently contract it. If someone is participating in a reckless activity that they very well know may lead to AIDS, they are guilty of contracting it.
Intravenous drug users and people who partake in promiscuous, unprotected sexual activity (regardless of their sexual orientation), are willingly exposing themselves to AIDS. Why are we letting them off the hook by trying so hard to reduce the stigma surrounding their lifestyle choices that led to AIDS? Why are we condoning their careless behavior by classifying them as innocent? We wouldn’t say that a drunk driver who wrapped his car around a tree is “innocent.” He got himself drunk, and he got behind the wheel. He killed himself. We would say that he was asking for it.
I think the same is true to those who contract AIDS through promiscuous sexuality or drug use. With all the information available on AIDS and the ways it can be contracted in our society today, ignorance is no excuse. The person who was sleeping around, not using protection, was fully aware of his or her actions. They got AIDS. They were asking for it. The heroin addict got himself addicted, and he chose to shoot up with used needles. He got AIDS. He was asking for it.
I apologize if this post offends anyone in any way. But my firm belief is that we should hold others to as high a standard as we hold ourselves. It’s simply not acceptable to placate people who knowingly hold themselves to a low standard of respect for their bodies. People who destroy their bodies through reckless behaviors and contract AIDS shouldn’t be pardoned for their mistakes.
This is a very thought-provoking question, especially because I, like Travis, am beginning to find the topic of guilt/innocence/civic virtue concerning HIV/AIDS a bit tired.
In the class reading for Monday, Deans cites Tyler Bouldin and Lee Odell in saying "any phenomenon can be viewed as a system." While Deans applies this tenet to writing, I would like to take this opportunity to apply it to our societal fear of HIV/AIDS. This theory involves the consideration of "the larger meaning-making process". I interpret this "system" of the fear of HIV/AIDs as a system of misunderstanding and ignorance. Not only do we not understand what it is like to live socially, emotionally, economically, etc. with HIV/AIDs, but we do not fully understand the biological elements of it either. This system dictates that we, as a society (not individually) have chosen to fear HIV/AIDS, because while we know that it is a horrific and devastating phenomenon, we do not know specifically those things that can protect us or those that can hurt us. For example: I know that if someone with HIV/AIDS approached me and offered a handshake, I would hesitate, maybe even rebuff the gesture, not as a measure of disgust, but as a measure of fear. I recognize - as many others probably do - the destitution of our humanity in this reasoning, but all the same it is still a human tendency, and we are likely to always recoil from those that we fear could endanger us.
I not believe in any specific placement of "guilt" or "innocence" when it comes to HIV/AIDS. But I think we are all guilty in a sense, but not of our own volition. We have been moved to fear by society, and not just in regards to HIV/AIDS. It is in this sense that we are all guilty, for fear based in stereotypes, and stereotypes based in societal generalizations.
i'm going to have to agree with, really, everyone else who has made this comment - there is only so much we can say about the guilt/innocence of those who contract AIDS. i really agree with what erin said - if you're going to put yourself into a potentially dangerous situation that you know could harm you, and then whoops! it does, then it is your fault! i don't see that as rude or offensive in any way - it's simply the truth (which always seems to be perceived as such a negative and offensive thing - why is that?). but i really do think this topic is getting exhausted.
to a certain extent, those that are living with AIDS innocently, so to speak, are tainted by those who contract the disease guiltily. and as we've all said countless times, this perception is harmful and tragic and we all wish that it didn't have the power that it does.
in an attempt to stir up something new, does anyone believe in karma?
I see this issue in the completely opposite way. Rather than the fear creating the guilt, I think it is the guilt creating the fear. Rather than simply the people being afraid of the disease and trying to distance themselves from it by pronouncing those with it guilty, people are afraid of the guilt itself.
We are raised in society that has a strong position towards morality. It makes sense when the U.S. was founded by English protestants. Guilt seems to define this religion, where all of the practitioners are instilled with a deep sense of right and wrong. To be found guilty, just like in the Crucible or the Scarlet Letter, was a stigma that haunted the victim. What the victim did did not create a large sense of fear, in and of itself. They may become fearful after the deed is down, but this comes more from being found out, of being found guilty. So, no, I don't believe that our fear creates this guilt.
I agree with Erin as well. Social stigmas attached to AIDS were formed for a reason, because they are based in truth. The promiscuous and/or drug-using individuals who were at least originally the sole bearers of the disease are the reason that a negative connotation is attached to AIDS. Controversial actions led to consequences. And while it is terrible that these consequences are so severe (when they come in the form of disease), the societal belief that such outcomes are somewhat deserved is just. The stigma surrounding persons with AIDS is therefore defensible and on top of that, can be considered helpful as well. While the most common means of contracting AIDS (promiscuity and intravenous drug use) are still looked down upon by society, a disincentive will exist for individuals to engage in such high-risk behaviors. And this is beneficial to slowing the spread of the disease. This is not to say that we should treat AIDS patients any differently than we treat lung cancer patients (with compassion) or victims of other diseases where choice is involved, but rather that we as a society do not have to strive to remove the stereotypes associated with such diseases.
HIV/AIDS does not seek out the people it affects. It doesn't discriminate between different ethnicities, genders, or age groups. So, by saying someone contracted HIV/AIDS "innocently" or that someone who has it was "guilty" of something is somewhat...odd.
However, when a person is infected with the disease, most of the time it is not the diseases choice, so the above argument is irrelevant. There is so much information available through medical research, campaigns, and publications that it is well known how people contract HIV/AIDS.
From sleazy tattoo shops to sharing dirty needles to sexual intercourse with someone who is affected, there are a million places where it could be contracted, and people know this. They know that if they do drugs (illegally) and share their needle with some homeless person on the street, that they have a greater chance of contracting the disease. They know this chance exists, and it is a great risk.
However, if someone goes to the hospital for a blood transfusion they expect certain standards, especially for a medicial facility.
Idealistically, there should be no distinction between guilty and innocent, but there is. I don't believe that people deserve to contract the disease. I am far from that. However, I have difficulty sympathisizing with people who engage in activities where they know it is not just more likely, but it is surely going to cause them to contract the virus. Perhaps it is their blatant disregard for the life they were given that I am so frustrated with.
In the end, once a person has HIV/AIDS, what does being guilty or innocent matter? By labeling them as guilty or innocent, it changes nothing about their condition or the illness. However, it does change is how we, as a society, choose to whom we give help. There is where the problem lies.
It is funny, because now that we have "conquered" our discrimination against those affected with HIV/AIDS, we have created a new discrimination within those afflicted. Where does it end?
I personally believe that the social stigma associated with AIDS are in reality justifications (albeit detrimental and harmful ones)for what is the larger issue: our fear of death. We as a society fear death, more so than any other society in our modern world. More than this, we fear the unknown, and when the unknown is the source of death our fears grow exponentially. These social stigmas are a defensive tactic we employ; we say to ourselves, "well, this group has AIDS, so I can't possibly have it."
Now, is there anything wrong with this? Of course. Not only are social stigmas harmful to the targeted group, they sidestep the actual issue of the AIDS epidemic (or, for that matter, any serious issue). How, then, do we address this issue? I honestly can't say. I do believe, however, that simply finding and stating reasons why social stigmas are harmful will do absolutely nothing in the long run. We as a society know the harm social stigma can do--just look at today's anti-stereotype efforts for evidence. I hypothesize that the best way to spearhead this effort would be to confront our societal fear of death head-on. Yet, I have no evidence to support this, and--even if I did--it would be difficult for society to accept this. In the meantime, I suppose all we can do is combat the social stigma of AIDS on the individual level. Perhaps we can make change leading by example rather than preaching from the proverbial soapbox.
I personally believe that the social stigma associated with AIDS are in reality justifications (albeit detrimental and harmful ones)for what is the larger issue: our fear of death. We as a society fear death, more so than any other society in our modern world. More than this, we fear the unknown, and when the unknown is the source of death our fears grow exponentially. These social stigmas are a defensive tactic we employ; we say to ourselves, "well, this group has AIDS, so I can't possibly have it."
Now, is there anything wrong with this? Of course. Not only are social stigmas harmful to the targeted group, they sidestep the actual issue of the AIDS epidemic (or, for that matter, any serious issue). How, then, do we address this issue? I honestly can't say. I do believe, however, that simply finding and stating reasons why social stigmas are harmful will do absolutely nothing in the long run. We as a society know the harm social stigma can do--just look at today's anti-stereotype efforts for evidence. I hypothesize that the best way to spearhead this effort would be to confront our societal fear of death head-on. Yet, I have no evidence to support this, and--even if I did--it would be difficult for society to accept this. In the meantime, I suppose all we can do is combat the social stigma of AIDS on the individual level. Perhaps we can make change leading by example rather than preaching from the proverbial soapbox.
I, like Jon,see the clear parallel between diabetes and AIDS. Since Adult Onset Diabetes is a largely preventable disease that takes some serious neglect to catch as a child, I often blame the diabetic at least partially for their condition. I follow the same process with obesity and other preventable diseases, including AIDS. It is tragic that a small number of "innocent" individuals contract the disease each year but the portion is so small that I do not have a separate category for them when casually thinking about AIDS. Simply because I think this way though does not mean that I do not believe these people do not deserve the best care possible. It is possible to assign blame and still wish to help.
Here is Sarai Glass's comment:
The fear of contracting HIV/AIDS in no way “innocently” contributes to a societal tendency to pronounce people living with the disease “guilty.” Society has no innocent intentions about it- the reason guilty stigmas even arises is due to intentions of ostracizing those who contract this illness via “immoral” activities. The moral concerns about the stereotypical lifestyles of AIDS victims manifest the fears of society. However, these concerns are not the sole manifestation of these fears. The mystery that AIDS brings to the medical world also brings great fear. Humans are naturally afraid of what they can’t know or solve- and AIDS now stands as an incurable virus. It is unstoppable and this of course frightens humans. Contracting a virus that is not curable may be one of the most unsettling feelings known to mankind. Anything out of human control provokes fear. The combination of these two characteristics of AIDS, as thought by society, establishes the fears society has tow ards AIDS.
The fact that HIV/AIDS can be contracted "innocently" did a tremendous amount in promoting AIDS awareness. It wasn't until former President Reagan met Ryan White, a young boy that had contracted AIDS through an infected blood transfusion, that the government was able to pronounce that AIDS was not a "gay disease."
As we've discussed, the 1980s were filled with tension surrounding AIDS. Bob Hope made a comment (in his recognized one-liner style) while entertaining the Prime Minster of France and the Reagans in 1986 saying, "I just heard that the Statue of Liberty has AIDS, but she doesn’t know if she got it from the mouth of the Hudson or the Staten Island Fairy." Surely Hope was trying to lighten the tension but here is a perfect example of the "guilt" factor associated with AIDS.
I feel that we have come a long way since the bitter 1980s and with the help of movies and books such as Philadelphia, Angels in America, Rent, and People in Trouble, that we are making positive strides in trying to see past the causation and care for the ill. Project Angel Heart certainly has.
Post a Comment