Given Paula Treichler’s discussion in today’s reading, how was (and perhaps still is) AIDS an epidemic of signification? Why must we, as she argues, democratically determine what AIDS signifies?
After you reflect on these two questions, I’d like you to pose a question about the reading that you think will help generate an interesting class discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Treichler argues that the general population's and the medical community's view of AIDS are different, but not entirely seperated. For instance, at the outset of AIDS, both everyday Americans and distinguished scientists attributed the disease to homosexuality or promiscuity. Today, we know this is entirely untrue, but it simply goes to show how infused with meaning AIDS is. The majority of Americans, especially in the 80s, held extremely negative views of homosexuality and promiscuity, which was reflected even in the medical description of AIDS, which most people expect to be unbiased.
ReplyDeleteSo, we must strive as society to determine a truthful description of this disease, especially because the medical community is not always completely correct. As we have seen, they are often far from truth.
Discussion Question: While AIDS is not viewed so much today as a strictly homosexual disease, do there still exist unfair assumptions about people who have contracted this disease?
Treichler says AIDS is an epidemic of signification because she believes that the implications surrounding the disease and the stigmatization of the disease is a more powerful and influential force than the actual disease itself. She believes that the metaphors surrounding the illness cannot be eliminated, as Sontag would demand, but must rather be dealt with as an inevitable consequence of the presence of disease. Treichler believes, thus, that the meanings we ascribe to disease are the most critical element of disease. She then believes we must define these meanings democratically in order to control what inevitable metaphor will result. If we can control the metaphor instead of trying to eradicate it, we can more effectively deal with the implications of AIDS for its victim as well as local and global communities at large.
ReplyDeleteThe question I would ask for class discussion is this: We often discuss the meanings of AIDS and illness with relation to writers who wrote about it in the 80s, and we sometimes discuss modern conceptions of illness, but something we haven’t yet touched on is the popular conception of AIDS in today’s American society. Treichler offered a numbered list of 38 possible “meanings” of AIDS, but what does the class think? What has become the meaning of AIDS as of today?
Treichler argues that we must democratically determine what AIDS signifies because peoples’ perceptions of the disease are not based just on scientific evidence or on social stereotypes, but rather on a combination of the two.
ReplyDeleteAIDS is an epidemic of signification because of all the misconceptions associated with it and the effect that these associations have on interpretation of the disease. She says “we cannot therefore look ‘through’ language to determine what AIDS ‘really’ is… we must explore the site where such determinations really occur and intervene at the point where meaning is created: in language.”
On page 102, Treichler says “it is tempting – perhaps in some instances imperative – to view science and medicine as providing a discourse about AIDS closer to its ‘reality’ than what we can provide ourselves.” Do you agree? Which do you think is more important to or more influential on our perception of AIDS: our personal opinions of the “reality” of AIDS or a more scientific “reality?”
In Paula Treichler's article AIDS/HIV was given many names before AIDS/HIV was finally decided upon. At one point the disease was known as GRID (Gay Related Immuno Disease) and at another the disease was known as the "Toxic Cock Syndrome". The disease has always been the same but the connotations have changed with the change of the name. At first the disease was thought to be a punishment for homosexuals for an immoral life style. This idea persisted until people who received blood transfusions and shared needles for drug intake contracted the disease. Eventually people realized that the disease was not solely confined to homosexuals but many countries refused to admit that the disease was problem in their own countries and they labeled it a "foreign problem". Even though we know much more about AIDS/HIV today than at the time Paula Treichler wrote her article, the disease is still linked to promiscuity which is often not the case.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting question for class discussion is AIDS still stigmatized to the same degree as it was in the past? If not what generalizations are still made for people who do contract AIDS?
AIDS was an epidemic of signification due to many factors. One of the main factors was the commonly held ideas behind how AIDS was transmitted. During the outbreak of the disease, many people feared contracting AIDS through giving blood and simply being in the same room as someone with AIDS. This resulted in the further alienation of people who had AIDS. At first, the common thought was that only homosexuals could give the disease to other. It wasn't until 1986 that AIDS began to be seen as a threat to heterosexuals. During the course of the outbreak, many wrong conceptions were created due to the uncertainty surrounding the disease. Since this was a new disease and scientists didn't all agree on the specifics of the disease, it resulted in many different thoughts and ideas about the disease that were not true. That is why it is important to determine what AIDS signifies. By determining what AIDS signifies, it will help patients cope with their disease and others understand it.
ReplyDeleteMy question about the reading is if people today still think there is an assumption behind people who contract the disease and whether or not these assumptions (if there are any) are the same as the ones during the outbreak of the disease.
The AIDS epidemic was of signification because of how its origins were for a long time unknown. People were dying of a mysterious disease, and it was given many nicknames and possibilities by the public, ranging from a ‘gay disease’ to an alien-induced disease that allowed them to take over the world. We must as a society come up with what AIDS signifies so it is no longer this mysterious disease with a stigmatism that is different for each person you ask. It is important for the credibility of immunology to determine what exactly AIDS is, so people trust that they can test for and prevent its transmission. When AIDS first became an epidemic it was only interesting to epidemiologists who were gay, because it was thought to only affect, or mainly affect, the gay community. It was not given attention by mainstream scientists, because it was believed to just be a side-effect of being gay.
ReplyDeleteMy question is: What differences do Treichler’s argument have with Sontag’s argument about AIDS?
I found Treichler’s discussion of AIDS as an epidemic of signification particularly compelling. She supports Sontag’s assertions that while AIDS is certainly a biomedical threat to our society, much of its meaning and significance is socially constructed – that is, the ways in which we perceive and discuss the disease (often with great fear and panic) do not necessarily correlate with the medical truths about the disease. Through this, the social constructions of the disease overpower the disease, and the discourse around AIDS becomes an epidemic in itself. Essentially, she argues, “We cannot therefore look ‘through’ language to determine what AIDS ‘really’ is. Rather we must explore the site where such determinations really occur and intervene at the point where meaning is created: in language” (101).
ReplyDeleteTreichler focuses mainly on the discourse surrounding AIDS and homosexuality. She discusses many culturally held misconceptions about these topics, arguing that too much stigma and blame is placed upon the homosexual population in discussions about AIDS (this comes from feelings of homophobia as well as from fear of the disease, attempting to remove the heterosexual population from blame and from risk). She says that we must democratically determine the truth about AIDS so that we can understand and fight back against it, and to ensure fair treatment of all people – including homosexuals and those who are living with AIDS. It is not so much the disease that she wants to combat, but widespread misconceptions and judgment attached to it.
Because this text is slightly outdated, I would like to bring our discussion into the present. I want to ask how each of you believe that the discourse around AIDS and homosexuality is represented today. How has it (not) evolved from Treichler’s portrayal? Have we moved in a positive or negative direction?
The part of the reading that I thought most signified the past and current stigma of AIDS was the list she proposes of ways that AIDS is often characterized. Even though some of these characterizations seem far-fetched, they demonstrate the different ideas surrounding the disease and provide a basis as to why the metaphors presented by Sontag exist.
ReplyDeleteWe must democratically determine what AIDS signifies because it is not enough to base our policies, regulations, rules, and practices on only scientists' and other experts' views. Since AIDS carries with it a social implication, a purely medical perspective is not sufficient. Many groups must work together, patients included, to not only treat but also support those infected and educate those who are not to prevent the spread of the virus. The disease is not just for homosexuals, drug users, heterosexuals, and even children are contracting AIDS.
My question is on p.102 of the reading, does one characterization of AIDS carry a stronger negative connotation than the others and why?
AIDS is an epidemic of signification because it seems that it is defined in our culture through popular ideas and not necessarily true facts. These ideas have become so powerful that they often outweigh the power of the disease itself. The disease has been characterized in so many ways that they now generate meanings that almost everyone seems to take as fact, even though it may not be so. In the beginning of her essay, Treichler lists 38 ways AIDS has been characterized, showing how AIDS is an epidemic of signification.
ReplyDeleteShe argues that the definition of AIDS must be democratically determined because the “facts” the definitions are based on are in turn based on “deeply entrenched cultural narratives.” These cultural narratives have been, for the most part, determined to be false. AIDS is not only a homosexual disease, although it has been defined as such in the past.
My question is: Do you think the general population is any more knowledgeable about the true facts of AIDS, or is it still seduced by the popular ideologies of the past? Are there any other diseases today that are diseases of significance?
AIDS is an epidemic of signification because the spread of the ideas and metaphors surrounding AIDS are more widespread than the disease itself. Treichler argues that we must democratically determine what AIDS signifies in order to destroy those symbols, in a way. Her writing is very similar to that of Susan Sontag. Her main point is that how we view the disease is often more powerful and influential than the disease itself.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the reading was when Treichler listed all of the ideas and stereotypes associated with AIDS. Some seem completely absurd, but others are more valid. Do any of these ideas still pertain to AIDS today, and as a follow-up, do these views extend into modern diseases?
Paula Treichler argues that while science and public are very closely entwined, there are definitely some discrepancies between the two. She puts forth the idea that one greatly impacts the other. With this phenomenon in mind, Treichler states that we need to democratically decide upon a meaning for AIDS. She says that a good definition of anything comes from many voices. In her paper she emphasizes the need for every group to be represented. She even sights the lack of voice present in the community of intravenous drug users.
ReplyDeleteAll throughout Treichler's paper she illustrates the metaphors with which AIDS has been pinned. She sites a list of 38 ways AIDS was characterized. Thirty-eight ways. All of them full of negative and belittling connotations. This list of meanings is clearly very one sided. There is no possible way that it represents the voices of multiple parties. Treichler's call for a democratic decision relates to the current (to her time), biased, and disgusted definitions.
Treichler is clear in that she attributes some of this bias to science and its misuse of language. When a scientist is too ambiguous, it is far too easy for people to interpret fact however they want and make it into opinion and public culture. Is there any way to avoid this tendency or are people always going to hear only what they want?
Paula Treichler argues that AIDS is a disease of significance because the meaning and metaphor behind the disease affect more people than the disease itself. She says we must democratically decide what the meaning of a disease is inorder to reign in the widespread and varying ideas on a disease and come to a consensus. She says that the metaphor of a disease is not solely based upon scientific ideas or personal ideas but that the metaphors that individuals identify are a combination of both.
ReplyDeleteMy question is whether it is necessary for a the meaning of a disease to be democratically decided upon or if it is okay for dieases to mean different things in different contexts and situations.