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 [email protected] for publication on this site.
Judith King
HIVAN Media Office
|
