The power of language: HIV/AIDS edition

“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”

I don’t know about you but, words usually hurt more than stick or stones. With sticks and stones the pain goes away pretty quickly whereas words can stick with us forever. So as far as that old time quote goes, I’m calling bullshit.

So where do we do learn how to communicate about a topic that is otherwise rather discreet? THE MEDIA! When I refer to mass communication I am henceforth referring to mass media (tv, news, social media, etc). A communication scholar by the name of Elihu Katz created the theory known as Uses and Gratifications. This theory suggests that we are able to recognize that people use mass media for a variety of different reasons, one of those reasons being to gain information (1). If the general public trusts the media to “accurately” depict information related to HIV/AIDS to them then why wouldn’t they trust that the language the media uses is the correct way to refer to and about people living with HIV/AIDS?

Whether you realize it or not, the language that is communicated through mass media influences our everyday lives. The media frames each story in a specific way in order to perpetuate their dominant ideologies upon us, which then reinforces the hegemonic power that those outlets hold over society — I know that sentence may have seemed like a lot, but if you keep reading you’ll come to see what it truly means.

The mass media always has an agenda and most times it seems to be telling us the same things over and over again — they tell us who the dominant groups are and aren’t. This creates a divide among people and allows for there to be a standard that we are all expected to live within. How does the media achieve this? Through their language. The communication agenda-setting theory states that: “the mass media has the ability to transfer the salience of items on their news agendas to the public agendas” (2). This pretty much just means that the media takes what they think is relevant and pushes it onto us so that way we think it must be relevant. The media then looks to frame a story a specific way knowing that it will then influence what we are thinking about, and by doing that they are also telling us how to think about it (3). As previously stated the way in which the media is able to tell us how to think about a topic is in the language that they choose to represent it.

So how does all of this relate to HIV/AIDS? Well, the difference between referring to someone as a person living with HIV/AIDS and telling someone that they are infected with HIV/AIDS makes all the difference. This sets apart whether you see that individual as a person or just as an infection.

http://blog.thestigmaproject.org

The language that we use regarding people living with HIV can either further stigmatize them or empower them. It is common for researchers, clinicians and other professionals to use the terms “HIV infected” and “HIV infections” rather than “person/people living with HIV” (4). The difference between those sayings are that one further stigmatizes a group of people deviating them farther from the norm — while the other reinforces that they too are a living person which allows them to feel valued and a part of society. These words reflect directly onto the way people living with HIV view themselves as well as how the rest of the world views them. Would you want to be referred to as your health condition first, or as a person first?

http://blog.thestigmaproject.org

The stigma of HIV/AIDS then consequently affects prevention, deters getting tested for HIV, as well as making disclosure more difficult (5). Self disclosure is difficult as it is, if you attach a health condition that most people don’t understand to it you’re pretty much automatically in danger. If the language and stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS were to change then people might be more likely to take more action regarding getting tested and taking preempted preventive action. Therefore having to be less likely to disclose that information. Until then, however, if someone is able to disclose to you then you should think about your response before you say something that might be offensive.

The term HIV is extremely loaded in itself and has many different connotations and myths attached to it. Such myths attached to HIV include the idea that those who are living with HIV are more sexually active than those who are not, as well as those who have sex with a person living with HIV are automatically going to contract it. Both of those are truly myths. The truth of the matter is that those living with HIV who are being medicated properly and have no detected viral load serve no chance of transmitting HIV to someone who is not already living with HIV (6). The stigma that becomes attached to such language results in discrimination and the marginalization of groups. The language that we hear whether it be from friends, family, the media or research headlines, becomes our own language, which we then use to describe others, along with ourselves.

Each person living with HIV/AIDS will have their own perspective and standpoint on the language used to represent them. Our perspective is a way of viewing the world based on personal experience, which is a result based on a person’s status in the social hierarchy (7). A standpoint is then a place from which we view the world that determines what we focus on as well as what we don’t (8). Therefore, our perspective influences our standpoint on a topic. The communication theory based on standpoint looks to show how the marginalized groups of society have the most accurate depiction on society yet it seems that the dominant groups are the ones representing society. If communication is used to both shape and transmit standpoints shouldn’t those who are able to best represent a social group be communicating about their groups? You’d think that makes sense, but in our society it’s all about power differences. Those who hold that dominant power don’t want to give it up, so they will continue to misrepresent and use language to downplay those of marginalized groups, like those with HIV/AIDS.

Since we are talking about those in power we might as well break down what hegemony is and what it means to have hegemonic power. Hegemony is the unspoken privileging of one set of ideologies over another, which in turn creates a form of social control that reinforces and maintains the dominant ideologies (9).​ If someone is to have hegemonic power they are the ones who are perpetuating the ideologies onto everyone else. In the case of HIV/AIDS and language representation, the media, doctors, and researchers hold the hegemonic power and tell us how and what to think about HIV/AIDS as well as how to talk about it.

All language is loaded, which is why we need to educate ourselves on what is deemed appropriate and what is not. HIV/AIDS have not only been misrepresented in our society but have been looked over for decades. Talking about HIV/AIDS is important but talking about it correctly is more important.

In regards to moving forward, Richard J. Wolitski, acting director to the office of HIV/AIDS and infectious disease policy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a statement in 2016:

“We need to recognize and celebrate those who are getting tested regularly, using condoms, taking PrEP, or using other effective risk-reduction strategies that are keeping them free from HIV infection. And we need to recognize and celebrate the efforts of people living with HIV who are doing their part to make sure they do not pass HIV to anyone” (10).

Two years later and society has yet to reach this point. Which is unfortunately not that surprising, however, if more people are able to recognize and challenge loaded language, misrepresentation, and the stigma attached to HIV/AIDS then maybe one day this will be possible.

For further information on this topic and what is considered proper terminology, refer to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) guidelines below (11).

References:

1. Griffin, Em, Ledbetter, Andrew, and Sparks Glenn, A First Look At Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.
2. Griffin, Em, Ledbetter, Andrew, and Sparks Glenn, A First Look At Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.
3. Griffin, Em, Ledbetter, Andrew, and Sparks Glenn, A First Look At Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.
4. Dilmitis, Sophie, et. al. “Language, identity and HIV: why do we keep talking about the responsible and responsive use of language? Language matters.” Journal of the International AIDS Society 15, 2 (Jul 11 2012): (n.p.). doi: 10.7448/IAS.15.4.17990.
5. “Why Language Matters: Facing HIV Stigma in Our Own Words.” The Well Project. April 29, 2018, http://www.thewellproject.org/hiv-information/why-language-matters-facing-hiv-stigma-our-own-words.
6. “Why Language Matters: Facing HIV Stigma in Our Own Words.” The Well Project. April 29, 2018, http://www.thewellproject.org/hiv-information/why-language-matters-facing-hiv-stigma-our-own-words.
7. Griffin, Em, Ledbetter, Andrew, and Sparks Glenn, A First Look At Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.
8. Griffin, Em, Ledbetter, Andrew, and Sparks Glenn, A First Look At Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.
9. Tyler, Erin and Woodean, Scott, “Mass Communication Theories.” Weebly. March 29, 2018. https://masscommtheories.weebly.com.
10. Wolitski, Richard, “Words Matter: Communicating to End HIV-Related Stigma.” HIV.gov. March 14, 2016, https://www.hiv.gov/blog/words-matter-communicating-to-end-hiv-related-stigma.
11. “UNESCO Guidelines:on Language and Content in HIV- and AIDS- Related Materials.” United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), October 2006, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001447/144725e.pdf.