6.2 MEANING MAKING
6.2.1 TRANSFORMATIVE THINKING
During the second focus group discussion there was an indication that the first discussion had inspired the learners and caused them to engage in some transformative thinking. The
dialogue process and collective meaning making in the group discussion appeared to have played a crucial role in helping them not only to understand the message that the poster intended communicating, but also to process new understanding about love and trust:
F4: You shouldn’t trust a person. One should love but not trust the partner.
R: Hmm! This is interesting. Is it possible that you can love but not trust?
F2, F3, F4&F5: Yes, it is possible. It can happen.
F1: How can you love me if you don’t trust me? And the person would want to know how you can love him yet you don’t trust him.
F3, F4&F5: Don’t let him know that you don’t. Why should you let him know? You don’t have to tell him that you don’t trust him. (TIL: 2492-2502)
M3: But the problem is you yourself can go out with only one person, but you wouldn’t know how many that person is going out with at the very same time.
F1: That is why I think what we’re being made aware of here is that it is important to protect ourselves at all times, no matter how much you love a person, not that we wouldn’t be trusting our partners, but I think people should by all means protect themselves… to be on the safe side. (LCE: 1912-1920)
F6: Can you imagine? You could possibly be infected by a virus from the four-plus- one driver, because your person is going out with someone who goes out with him (the driver) and this side you’d be sure that you’re going out with…(NUL: 2429-2433) There were some important issues of concern that were mostly raised during the individual interviews. Until the group discussions some learners had thought that going out with multiple partners was something of a source of pride and they were looking forward to doing it.
However, individual interviews indicated that the discussions had stimulated elements of transformative thinking, which resulted in a change of attitude and a new discourse that said:
going out with multiple partners harbour a risk of being infected with HIV. This gave the impression that other learners may have experienced the same kind of fear, but did not want to mention it during group discussions to appear brave in front of their peers. The following comment came from one of the individual interviews:
F4: really they have made me aware that I should not get involved with many people, I should no longer take pride in having numerous love affairs but should always think about the risks involved before getting involved with a new partner (TIL: 3039-3043)
176 The second focus group meetings also established that the discussions helped equip learners with a sense of extended accountability and cautionary thinking:
F1: rather its message helps us to refrain from doing the wrong things
F3: when looking at this paper I realised that going from this one to that one was not right (TIL: 2646-2649)
F2: because even though I may trust him I would never know what he is doing while I’m not there (LCE: 3318-3319)
F4: I think or I can say it helped me to believe that people can cheat, no matter how much you love them and how honest you’re with them (NUL: 2529-2531)
These second discussions, however, seemed to have had the effect of updating or reminding the learners to take action to change the opinions that they had about themselves and also their perceptions about how they could possibly secure their future, rather than contributing new awareness or technical knowledge. The point being that they were already aware of the consequences of sexual interrelationships and HIV issues. But the discussions helped re- awaken their critical senses and generated new perspectives, and, more importantly, new thinking on how to handle their love affairs in order to keep safe from HIV. This included the idea of taking regular HIV tests together with their partners), in order to guard against HIV.
Even though it was not clear whether it was that some of these envisioned strategies were going to be used to keep themselves safe from HIV, or if it was out of jealousy, the discussions had still helped them to think of doing things that they had never thought of or done before:
M5: my advice to her, I think I can start by making her aware that AIDS seems to be capable of attacking people regardless of their status. So it dawned to me that it would be better if we go to check our HIV status every month. In this way I believe it will help to ensure that we don’t cheat each other. I see this as a solution to allay my fears as I’d never know what she does when I’m not with her. So I can say this poster made me feel it’d be better for us to visit the hospital regularly in order to test (LCE: 2891- 2901)
The poster seemed to have opened some learners’ eyes to new perspectives in that, for example, they were reminded that loving someone did not necessarily mean being the only one loved by that person. This realisation appeared to have also induced in them a lack of trust
177 towards their partners, which, in turn, would require some further action on their part to protect themselves from HIV:
F2: well I can say it reminded me that no matter how much I may love somebody I should always remember that I may not be the only one (LCE: 3336-3338)
Apart from questions about detailed elements that constitute the comprehensibility of the poster, respondents were asked what they thought the gist of the message was. To this, learners were asked to mention what actions they thought they were expected to take after having read the poster. The message was supposed to be understood as generic advice or a
recommendation to act wisely or refrain from doing risky or unhealthy things, congruent with the story of linking the ‘nice time’ (ho kena baneng) with exposure to HIV. This means that respondents were expected to interpret the message not so much as simply showing images, text or the aforementioned facts of life, but rather as prescriptions of what they should do or refrain from doing:
M1: it wants us to look at ourselves
F3: to respect ourselves. To shun away from this kind of life, if we had already started (TIL: 577-579)
M5: yes we used to talk about AIDS related issues but in a different manner. For instance now I realise that we did not talk about them in regard to our health, but we used mention it when for instance we heard of somebody’s death, maybe linking his death to that of the girlfriend. But we never actually pointed fingers at ourselves, as if it can never touch us. We never asked ourselves what our situation was, as if we were immune from infection. Honestly I never really thought about the risk I might be involved in until the discussions (LCE: 2860-2870)
F2: like if a person is not careful enough she might get infected with HIV and others.
Which means one is not supposed to agree to unprotected sex because the person told her that he loves her or promises her marriage (NUL: 3404-3407)
By the end of the discussions, learners were of the opinion that the process of dialogue had facilitated this critical reflection, through which they were able to perceive HIV as a tangible risk that they could take some responsibility for prevention with a change in behaviour.
Another example was a response from one of the woman interviewees to the question on whether or not she had developed any attitudinal change towards HIV-related issues after exposure to the poster, revealing that the discussion had stimulated her to read such materials,
178 whereas previously she had simply ignored them. This response indicated that previously her learning had been hindered by denial, which resulted in limited or no learning at all. But the transformative process seemed to have occurred only after the discussions:
F4: I would read them. At first I used to ignore them, I never looked at them with interest or never tried to understand what they were all about because I thought there was nothing more to learn about AIDS (TIL: 3074-3078)
M5: Yes, had we not discussed it, I don’t think I would have understood it (LCE:
2211-2212)
F2: I think the difference is we’ve had time to discuss them and I suspect that maybe all materials would be interesting if we don’t just read them on our own, but have time to discuss them and that’s it (NUL: 2579-2582)
The outcome of the first focus group discussion had wider implications than the learning that took place in the meeting itself. During the second group discussions, learners indicated that the first one had motivated them to go on learning, and they even expressed the wish to access more “teaching aids” (IEC materials for HIV). Other than helping learners to go through phases of new understanding about love and trust, the responses from the second group discussions reflected that dialogue continued to play a crucial role in helping respondents to not only understand the message that the poster was intended to communicate, but also to make sense of their reaction to the poster. Thus, the discussion helped them acquire new knowledge and a change of attitude towards HIV-related issues. It helped them realise that certain practices grounded in youth, and related perspectives of meaning that are familiarised with ‘nice times’, consequently harbouring a high risk of HIV infection:
M4: I can say I used to envy those who seem to be “in” but hi! I no longer want to after the discussion. It made me realise that I’ll be doomed if I follow that desire (TIL:
2478-2481)
Furthermore, the second meeting revealed an important additional contribution that indicated the acquisition of new information on HIV issues for the learners. It seemed that the first discussion had helped some of them to gain more knowledge, and thus boosted their confidence to advise others through technology-based social networks such as cellphone messages, face-book and others. It also implied that verbal communication had supported the visuals in order for it to become explicable and more convincing. This indicated that a verbal
179 message alone is not enough, and that people also needed the materials (such as the poster) for them to understand the intended message of the communication. It also appeared that for some learners, use of a print medium validated the information, as they suggested that if it is written down and printed then it must be true:
M1: no but I could say I’ve always preferred to discuss them rather than to read about them. In a way I can say these discussions have boosted my confidence in discussing these issues through social networks like cellphone messages and face-book. For instance at first I used not to have answers to some of the things that I would have introduced, such as asking others about what they think about our social life and HIV and I was not able to stand for my concerns. But now I’m able to tell them what I think and have realised that even our discussions lately last longer, unlike before when I did not have confidence
R: meaning that you’re using what you gained from our discussions to advise others through the social networks?
M1: yes madam and wish I had the materials to support what I talk about because sometimes some of them don’t want to believe what I tell them (TIL: 2920-2937) M4: …if I were to choose, I would choose something we didn’t discuss at all to see what I can make of it (LCE: 1894-1896)
F6: ... I can say it has made me develop interest and wish we could have had time to discuss other materials with you (NUL: 2546-2548)
Efforts to establish the signs (text and images) that made up the poster indicated some gaps in how NUL learners thought the poster should look. The following section briefly highlights the messages that respondents considered to be missing.