This week, we read Susan Sontag’s “AIDS and Its Metaphors.” Similar
to “Illness as Metaphor,” Sontag criticizes the way we talk and think
about AIDS and how we picture the disease to be worse than it really is. The metaphorical discussion of AIDS increases the patients’
suffering and creates unnecessary concern among the larger society. Like the
discussion of the metaphorical uses of tuberculosis in the 19th
century and cancer in the 20th from “Illness as Metaphor,” Sontag
reveals how language distorts the reality of AIDS and keeps patients from
seeking the most beneficial course of treatment.
A strong association people have made
with AIDS is homosexuality. During the onset of AIDS in the United
States, it most severely affected homosexual men. Sontag claims that because
society at the time believed the sexual practice among homosexuals
was willful and unnatural, those who contracted AIDS were more deserving
of it. She states, “An infectious disease whose principal means of transmission
is sexual necessarily puts at greater risk those who are sexually more active –
and is easy to view as a punishment for that activity” (Sontag 26). Why was
society at the time so quick to point out the flaws of the homosexual community and its practices because of AIDS when they weren't even how the disease originated? Do we still refer to AIDS as a disease of
promiscuity today after all the knowledge and scientific advancements that have
been made since Sontag’s time period?
Another metaphor Sontag discusses is
the thought of AIDS as a plague as opposed to an epidemic. She believes that
the plague association represents AIDS as a punishment, similar to how people
viewed the Black Death as God’s punishment. The punishment of AIDS is for moral
indulgence – a perspective stemming from the disease’s association with
homosexual practices, despite the absence of this connection with the disease
in Africa where AIDS originated. Sontag adds that the plague image also is
detrimental to society because it contributes to a sense of inevitability: “The
plague metaphor is an essential vehicle of the most pessimistic reading of the
epidemiological prospects. From classic fiction to the latest journalism, the
standard plague story is of inexorability, inescapability” (Sontag 141). What
is it about the apparent finality of AIDS that makes the disease so
intimidating? Sontag admits, “one cannot think without metaphors” (Sontag 93),
so regarding the way we think about AIDS, are its metaphors ill or well chosen? Is the disease itself, not the way we talk about it, the true source of
fear?
AIDS was pinned onto the homosexual community because it was found that many gay men had AIDS (which we now know is because of unsafe sex), and it was easy to accost men that society already viewed as “lesser.” The church could allow itself to believe that the disease was a divine punishment for these men, who did not know why they were falling ill to this disease and could not defend themselves scientifically. AIDS can be sexually transmitted, so it makes sense that it could still be seen as a more sexual disease than cancer or the plague. Sontag states that “AIDS, like cancer, leads to a hard death” (126), unlike tuberculosis with its “soft death” (126). She explains that the “most terrifying illnesses are those perceived not just as lethal but as dehumanizing”(126), which would explain the fear that many have of AIDS, because of its sexual and historical implications.
ReplyDeleteAIDS as a metaphor itself holds the same risk that all associations have for people with the disease: the internalization of the associations. If people as prominent as a Cardinal of Rio de Janeiro call AIDS “‘God’s punishment’”(149) or “‘the revenge of nature’” (149), then those afflicted would feel as though they had committed a great enough sin to have contracted it, no matter how moral a life they had lead (this is assuming they care about what a Cardinal in Rio de Janeiro says). But even if they did not care, enough of society parrots similar views that even a non-religious person suffering from AIDS would feel inferior to those that did not have it. I think that the fear of death and the fear of what others may think of you are the strongest factors, not exactly the disease itself. We associate AIDS with death and “immoral” sexuality, and it is these associations that we fear.
I think it's interesting that you brought up how Sontag compares AIDS to a plague. While reading AIDs and Its Metaphors and also while briefly studying HIV/AIDS during my epidemic presentation project last week, I found that there were several parallels between AIDS and the bubonic plague of the Middle Ages. These parallels are especially prevalent in the need for a scapegoat for both of these diseases. Back then, Jews (who already faced plenty of prejudice in that era) were often blamed for the plague's arrival, even if we now know that the plague was spread by fleas on rats etc. Similarly, in your blog post, you mentioned how homosexuals were blamed for the arrival of AIDS, especially because AIDS was rampant among the gay community due to the lack of safe sex. During the 80s, gay people were already considered perverted and "sexually deviant" and like the Jews, they were already highly discriminated against. In fact, what made AIDs so common in the gay community was the already existing prejudice towards their sexual practices that made them unable to obtain materials, medications etc. for safe sex. Despite being completely different eras, the similarities between the Black Death and the AIDS epidemic of the 80s show that in times of extreme difficulty, people tend to chase after someone to blame, specifically people who is already mistrusted because it is easier to shame or hurt a person that is perceived as "evil" than it is to take the time or even risk one's life/resources to search for an authentic cure/method of prevention. In terms of AIDS today, since homosexuality is generally better received and tolerated in modern society than it was back then, AIDS no longer carries the dreadful connotation of being a "gay cancer," especially because we now know that anyone could get it, no matter if they're heterosexual, homosexual or anything in between, from unsafe sex or sharing needles. However, I feel that AIDS still carries some connotations of sexual promiscuity or irresponsibility. In any case, I think that what makes AIDS so terrifying and final is that it's true deadliness arises from how it tears down the body's immune system, opening the way for not one disease but multiple diseases to infect someone.
ReplyDeleteIn Susan Sontag’s “AIDS and its Metaphors,” we learn about the way society refers to AIDS and different metaphors associated with this disease. When AIDS became more prevalent in the US, it was seen as a disease which targeted homosexuals, and was soon referred to as a “gay cancer.” In desperate times, people tend to look for others to blame, and because AIDS was hitting the gay community hard, due to unsafe sex, they were seen as the perfect target. I find it interesting that AIDS was referred to as a sort plague because when reading the Decameron, the plague was seen as a disease that did not discriminate between the rich and poor, or the religious and non religious because everyone was being infected. Whereas unlike the plague many believed that AIDS only pertained to homosexuals. Throughout history, homosexuals have been targeted and discriminated against, and when the AIDS epidemic hit those who did not agree with them, they believed that this disease was a punishment for their sins. The idea of disease being a consequence of sin is seen in the Decameron as well. Now that we have the technology and resources to learn more about AIDS, it is no longer seen as a disease of promiscuity, yet one that can target anyone no matter one's sexual identity.
ReplyDeleteJust like cancer, there is treatment but not a concrete cure for AIDS. The idea of being diagnosed with a disease which does not have a known cure causes fear within society, a fear associated with the unknown and in essence death. The metaphors and associations we place on diseases seem to enhance or degrade their severity. If TB was referred to as insidious disease which made one less attractive would it instill more fear in society?
I think that it's important to consider the reasons that AIDS was associated with the homosexual community. I don't think we can safely say that people targeted the gay community as a scapegoat for the disease considering the fact that it seemed to be obvious that the gay community was especially affected by the disease. I think people were making observations which then turned into the metaphors and associations they created about the disease but it wasn't intentioned to be an attack on the homosexual community.
ReplyDeleteEven today we have changed our association with AIDS. When we hear AIDS, many people think of Africa and not the homosexual community. I think the associations of the types of people who have the disease in some part at least come from the amount of people who are sick in different communities.
That being says, "to get AIDS is precisely to be revealed, in the majority of cases so far, as a member of a certain 'risk group,' a community of pariahs (112-113). The stigma surrounding the disease doesn't necessarily have to do with who has the disease, but the ways in which people contract the disease.
As with anything that is deemed "not normal" or not fitting into the normalcy of society is a prime candidate for blame. Whether it was blaming AIDS on the gay population in the 80's or the collapse of society based off of reproduction rights for women, anything that does or did not fit the clean and exact definition of society was seen as a problem. Society just was not used to the idea of homosexuality and when a large number of homosexuals started to develop the disease, it was just "common sense" to blame the outliers of society.
ReplyDeleteI do not think society views AIDS in the same light it did earlier on in history. With better advances in medicine and a better understanding of the disease, we have hopefully come to realize that AIDS/HIV is a disease that can affect all people, not just homosexuals. I do believe that there are still those, as Sontag writes, "want to view aids metaphorically-as, plague like" (148). And this ties into her assumption that AIDS is starting to take over cancer's position as a shameful disease.
One thing you pointed out in your post in particular, that others have addressed in their comments, was asking about why society instantly condemned the homosexual community for the spread of AIDS, despite them not knowing the way HIV actually was transmitted and functioned once inside the human body.
ReplyDeleteThis taps into several issues outside of just disease - everything from yellow journalism, to tribalism, to the impact Christianity has had on the United States, to the sheer prejudices influenced by mid-20th century American society all contributed to the homosexual community effectively being the scapegoat for AIDS, even as more information was being uncovered scientifically every day.
We see this happening today as well, though perhaps on a different scale most of the time. The problem of 'fake news' is often politicized, but truly it's a problem with how American society has functioned in its past and how it functions now. A media that's sole purpose is to attract as much viewership as possible is one that cannot be impartial when it comes to serious issues, such as the AIDS epidemic.
Obviously we view AIDS differently now, thanks to wider education on the subject, although the effect of the media on AIDS during its inception as an American epidemic still has lasting damage to this day. We view AIDS with a different sort of fear and reverence - it combines many of the associations we've recognized with other diseases in this course, from the plague to syphilis to cancer. Hopefully in our roundup discussion we can further dissect the complex history and issue that is AIDS, and who it has historically affected.
In Sontag’s view, the metaphors associated with AIDS, particularly the plague and military associations, are not only ill chosen but also harmful: “The metaphors and myths, I was convinced, kill” (Sontag 102). She argues that because the metaphors surrounding chemotherapy, for example, are so frightening, people with cancer are less likely to seek treatment, so that indirectly, the metaphors lead to their deaths. I would argue that speaking about the experience of chemotherapy in its literal terms— “intravenous delivery,” “nausea,” “vomiting,” “alopecia,” “red blood cells,” “anemia,” etc.—is not much more likely to assuage the concerns of potential chemo patients.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, all metaphorical associations with diseases are not themselves automatically detrimental. They are often double-edged swords: helpful in one way and harmful in another depending on how they are used. Associating AIDS with the plague and using this association to judge and shame gay communities is certainly detrimental. Associating AIDS with a battle in order to imply that those who survive are “victors” and those who do not are “losers” or “surrenderers” is also detrimental. Associating AIDS with alien invaders because it originated on a different continent is detrimental. However, the plague is widely known to have caused extreme pain and suffering, and using these well-known ideas may help to convey the sense of a human experience of suffering. I also understand that the military metaphor is exactly what Sontag most strongly argues against, but the idea of a battle could conceivably lend strength to a sufferer; militaries do not fight alone, but rather with a whole team of support (friends and family) and weapons (medical treatment).
When Sontag wrote Aids and Its Metaphors, significantly less was known about AIDS/HIV, causes, and treatment options than is known today. Humans often come to understand new information through comparative terms. Absorbing the idea of a lifelong disease or a premature death can be challenging and unfathomable to people, especially when the disease itself is not well understood, so to put these extreme challenges in more common terms can be helpful. I think it depends on the suffering individual to decide what type of language she most prefers in navigating her experience with disease. My thoughts on metaphors as they relate to AIDS and other diseases are certainly not fully collected or set in stone for me, but these are some of the thoughts I had as I read Sontag’s work, and I would really like to further discuss this in class.
I think as time has progressed so has the associations with AIDS. Back when AIDS was first diagnosed I believe it was called GRIDS, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome, because it was primarily diagnosed in gay men. As the gay community or the idea of someone being gay wasn't largely accepted until fairly recently, and even now there is still hate towards homosexuals, it was easy for people to jump to conclusions that AIDS was a "gay epidemic".
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that AIDS is solely a "disease of promiscuity", although it is associated with sexual relations because of how it is transmitted. I also associate it with drugs or injections. Heroine users often contract AIDS because of the use of non-sterile needles. I think that although it is largely associated with unsafe sex that "promiscuous" would not be the correct word to describe AIDS.
For me the finality of AIDS comes with its incurability and that is an auto-immune disease. A virus would have to find it's way into my bloodstream and into my DNA and consequently reconstruct my DNA structure to destroy myself from the inside out. It is final because it is like ink and paper, impossible to erase and eradicate from my body.
Fear can rise from many circumstances, even that of how people talk. The world was supposed to end in 2012, and although there wasn't any science behind it, everyone believed it. People were so scared they took their life savings from the bank, quit their jobs, and set out to see the world. Fear of a disease like AIDS could develop from talk about it and the science. I think in a predominantly homophobic time majority of people feared it, not because of it's crippling symptoms, but because they didn't want to be seen or thought of as gay.
The idea of AIDS being seen as a "gay cancer" has to do a lot with homophobia and the idea that AIDS was not a disease that was well known. As with many other widespread diseases in history, the gay community was the scapegoat for this epidemic. Such as the Jews were blamed for the plague outbreak in 14th century and the Mexicans were blamed for the plague outbreak in 20th century Los Angeles, the gay community was seen as the primary suspect for the AIDS epidemic.
ReplyDeleteAIDS and HIV are now treatable diseases through cocktails of drugs and research continues to be done on it. I believe that the metaphors connected with AIDS, while slowly fading away are still present, stem from the 1980s outbreak. Its connections with the gay community are fading because we know that it affects everyone, however, the stigma around the sexually active are still there. The metaphors are not there because of the disease itself but for the shame, it brings upon those who have it. Much like cancer, HIV/AIDS is whispered in the dark and between parents behind closed bedroom doors, however, HIV/AIDS brings a special metaphor of irresponsibility and prevention that cancer does not have. We understand how AIDS works and those who have it are generalized as not caring about sexual health or being too sexually active. In a more religious community the latter is much more socially detrimental because of the sinful aspect sex has outside of marriage in religion. However, as we have discussed in blogs before, this is another example of "large inefficiencies" in society Sontag was writing about.
ReplyDelete