5.3 Attitude towards HIV and AIDS and People Living with HIV and Its Impact
5.3.1 Mixed Attitude
In response to segment a) of the question, three categories of attitudes are expressed. Firstly, some participants affirm that some people in the Church have a positive attitude towards PLWHA. This attitude is observed in the way PLWHA freely disclose their status, are accepted among other groups, and are not judged. This attitude is also seen in the way some people in the Church are involved in addressing HIV and AIDS. Still others recognize that in the past, there was stigma against PLWHA but today this stigma is no longer prominent. The following excerpt of an interview illustrates the positive attitude expressed by the caregiver, CG39:2:
CG39:2: At the moment – at the moment I cry. Because, I‟ve got a lot of children I am doing feeding scheme for those children who have lost their parents through this AIDS. I‟ve got a lot of children whom I am feeding, I am looking after, and I just feel sorry!
Interviewer: How many about? [...]
CG39:2: I‟ve got 112 children that I am feeding every day. But I know the parents have died – most of them – not all of them. But I know – I have been to the funeral of their parents, being there and seeing the symptoms of their parents before they die. But I cannot stand here and confirm that – because in this country we can‟t just stand and say that, unless you have got certificate. But I‟m not a child.
Interviewer: But do you have among those children those who are HIV positive?
CG39:2: Yes, I have got them. I don‟t have certificate but I know because the father or mother has died in this manner. I even know some children [that] are taking ARVs tablets. So, I feel like – I don‟t know – but I love them. I just pray that God [may help them].
In this excerpt, this caregiver speaks about his own positive attitude towards PLWHA characterised by his compassion and support to vulnerable children, including those who are HIV positive. Like him, other participants also speak about their own positive attitude or the attitude of other church members and leaders. But not all are positive as is evident from the next point.
Secondly, participants in the study express a negative attitude towards PLWHA displayed by persons within or outside the Church. This attitude appears in certain names given to PLWHA;
their rejection by church members, what participants call, ‗out-stigma‘; and in the isolation by PLWHA themselves, what they call, ‘in-stigma‘.70 Other people in the Church associate HIV and AIDS with sexual immorality or sinfulness. The following excerpt illustrates how the caregiver, CG7:1, explains the negative attitude developed by church members.
70 See for example CL20:3
124
CG7:1: The attitude that we have as the Church, I would admit in a very sad way that it has been very secular. It has been very worldly and in previous times you will find that when people speak privately you hear them that [...] they give people who are living with virus certain names [...] Certain names; like we do not call AIDS, AIDS; we call it „iqhoksi‟71; [or] we call it „The Three‟72 [...] We attach sigma to people who are living with that – with the disease. And always when it comes to Church, whenever somebody comes forward and says that they are living with HIV, there is thinking that the person has been immoral in a way. So [...] now we have associated HIV and AIDS with the devil. We see it as something that people have to be cleansed from. So that is what we have and it is a problem [...].
Interviewer: So, do these things happen here in Panele73 [curcuit]?
CG7:1: It is a problem everywhere [...] I would not specifically say that people are like that but at the back of our minds that‘s how we are. So now as Panele, the attitude is like that. We share with everybody in our country that attitude towards HIV and AIDS.
For this caregiver, the ridiculous naming of PLWHA and the association of HIV and AIDS with immorality and the devil are instigated by the community members, including church members.
He therefore observes that the attitude of the Church towards HIV and AIDS and towards PLWHA is negative.
Thirdly, some participants display a mixed attitude, showing a partly negative attitude and a partly positive attitude. This is expressed in situations where they seem to show love and compassion to PLWHA while they consider that the conditions of these people result from the commission of sin. The other way in which this attitude is expressed is when church members do not have a negative or positive attitude towards HIV and AIDS but remain totally silent, seemingly neutral, while they are surrounded by PLWHA or are themselves infected and affected by HIV. In this case, no-one discloses their HIV status and no-one asks about it. In some interviews, participants understand that PLWHA‘s avoidance of this topic or of disclosure results from the fear that other people will stigmatise them if they know their status.74 Participants also observe that the church members‘ avoidance to speak about this problem signifies that they do not feel concerned about it or that the sufferers are seen as the ‗others‘.75
In the following excerpt, the church leader, CL37:11, displays some elements of such an attitude while he was discussing how some church leaders call PLWHA sinners. He states that:
71 Iqhoksi is a Zulu word which means, heel of a shoe. According to Ntokozo Zitha, a Zulu woman, fieldworker of Memory of HIV and AIDS Project of Sinamlando Centre, University of KwaZulu-Natal, this word is referred to in order to indicate that HIV infects loose women who wear shoes with narrow high heel and short skirt (I discussed this word with her on August 10, 2012, Pietermaritzburg).
72 This word refers to the three letters: H-I-V (conversation with Zitha, 2012).
73 This is not the true name of the circuit. The true name is hidden for ethical purpose.
74 See for example CG8:1; CL23:3.
75 See for example CL33:8.
125
As an evangelical Church, there is that dimension. I can‟t say that we say that HIV and AIDS is a sin. No, no, no [...]. But the mode of transmission of HIV and AIDS, by being sexual, it brings out the issue at some point how it‟s being – the infection is done. It brings the issue of immorality. If people are faithful to each other in the context of marriage, if they were abiding by the teaching of the Bible that someone should not fornicate [...] that you cannot have sexual relationship outside marriage [...] there is possibility of being able to control HIV and AIDS. And even coming to the issue of homosexuality [...], that also is propagating because some people who are doing same sex marriage – I mean not marriage but who are doing same sex cohabitation, and go with multiple partners, are also propagating this. So, I also believe that if people are abiding by the teaching of the Bible to not fornicate, to not commit adultery, and to abstain, it can be a good way of controlling the spread of HIV and AIDS. But is our Church focusing – taking that – to start telling people that if you are HIV positive you are sinner? I don‟t think so because we consider that it‟s not only sex that is the only sin. We sin in many ways [...]. So for us in the Church I believe – yes we tell people that [...] they should abstain, but at the same time we acknowledge the fact that those who have sinned be it because they committed sex before or outside marriage, that is as equal as those who have stolen money, or who have lied [...] So that‟s our own view [...]. So, there is no reason to take these ones to hang them publicly and those who stole to pamper them (CL37:11).
Four concerns emerge from this excerpt. Firstly, this church leader restricts HIV infection to conditions that some conservative evangelical churches call sexual immorality such as fornication, adultery and homosexuality (Richison, 2008; Goldingayet al., 2011; Legge, 2004)76, discounting that faithful monogamous heterosexual married people may also be infected with HIV through sexual activities (Byamugisha, 2007; Chitando, 2007:10).77 Secondly, he looks at sex as the only way of HIV transmission, ignoring other modes.78 Thirdly, he considers that abiding to the Bible‘s teachings is the only solution to HIV infection, overlooking other possible strategies (Heath, 2009:71-73). Lastly, he seems to insist that the Church does not associate HIV and AIDS with sin and that PLWHA are not seen as sinners, but he compromises his views by saying that they are not the only sinners. In other words, his views show that he regards them as sinners much like we regard thieves as sinners. Although this church leader appears to be sympathetic towards PLWHA, his attitude – as well as in all other similar cases – is totally negative as he considers their condition as the result of sin.
76 However, the language about right and wrong sexuality is no longer the same among churches, including evangelicals. As an example, for Richison (2008), the regular (right) sex for evangelicals is done in heterosexual monogamous couples within a ‗divine institution of marriage‘ while other forms of sexual relations are irregular or wrong. Conversely, Goldingay et al. (2011: 2-3) inform that at the August 2009 meeting of Evangelical Lutheran Church in America the two-third majority of voters accepted the ordination of homosexuals as clergy, the decision from which other churches such as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals and Methodists seem to distance themselves (:2-3). Moreover, we are informed that Anglican Communion in North America has integrated homosexuals among the ordained clergy and members of integrity while African provinces of the Communion such as Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda have opposed that decision and, because of that, have tried to sever relationships with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada (Goldingay et al., 2011:
2-3. See also Legge, 2004 about the acceptance of homosexuals in the United Church of Canada). This therefore shows that all Christian churches are struggling to accommodate forms of sexuality that were traditionally seen as
‗immoral.‘
77 See also Chapter 2.
78 Other modes of HIV transmission include the transmission of the infected mother to the child during labour, delivery or breast feeding (Coovadia, 2010:201); transfusion of infected blood (Heyns and Swanevelder, 2010:226);
and the sharing of needles and other sharpen materials (Leggett, 2010:240; Teklu, 2008:115).
126
In observing the attitude to HIV and AIDS and PLWHA within different categories of participants, it appears that these three kinds of attitude are common to all groups. Table 6 clearly illustrates this point.
Table 6: Frequency and Percentages of Responses on Attitudes of the Church to HIV and AIDS and PLWHA per Categories of Participants
Attitude towards HIV and AIDS and PLWHA
Freq and % per Categories of Participants
Total [40]
CL [17] CG [15] FGD Y [4] FGD Ad [4]
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
1. Mixed 12 75.0 13 81.3 3 75.0 3 75.0 31 79.5
2. Negative 11 68.8 6 40.0 3 75.0 2 50.0 22 56.4
3. Positive 10 58.8 3 20.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 15 37.5
Source: Field Research Results, 2011, 2012
Legend: CL=Church Leaders; CG=Caregivers; Y=Youth; Ad=Adults; Freq=Frequency
In responding to the question that led to the generating of this data, each participant expressed or reported at least one attitude towards HIV and AIDS and PLWHA displayed by church members within or outside the Church. In the above table therefore, it is evident that a mixed attitude is expressed in about 80% of all sessions. Likewise, the explicit negative attitude is expressed or witnessed more frequently than the positive attitude in all categories. When decoding the transcripts of all the interviews and FGDs, it emerges that every session points out at least one kind of negative or mixed attitude. In some sessions, the view is held that everything concerning HIV and AIDS and PLWHA in the Church is negative.
Drawing from these explanations, it therefore, seems that within the FMSKZN, the attitude towards HIV and AIDS and PLWHA is mostly negative79 and that this attitude rests on the association of the pandemic with sinfulness, with special reference to sexual practices considered as sexual immorality. How do discourses explain the cause of this association?