Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Let's Stop HIV Together - Research Paper Example

? Section/# Sociological Perception of AIDs The following analysis provides a discussion of the way in which perceptions of HIV exist within current society. Although the amelioration of the disease itself oftentimes receives a tantamount level of discussion as compared to the way in which it is perceived, the overwhelming consensus among experts is the fact that perception in and of itself is a powerful mechanism towards seeking to improve the overall outlook for AIDs within the current environment. One of the most difficult constructs to change is sociological constructs. Because these constructs are oftentimes not the result of a single piece of misinterpreted information but rather a set of reinforced beliefs combined with misunderstood/misinterpreted or otherwise warped information, certain sociological perceptions can persist and pervade the definition of key terms for even longer than is necessitated for them to be proven false. Such a sociological perception is exhibited in nearly every aspect of our modern world. Due to the fact that more and more people are integrated into the information exchange via the means of mass media and other factors, the level and extent to which these sociological perceptions define the modern world has only exponentially grown over the past several years. The purpose of this essay will be to make careful note of the ways in which sociological constructs have helped to define and ms-represent the issue of AIDs to the global community over the past 30 years. Furthermore, the analysis will consider the key means that will be necessary to reverse the seemingly intractable inference that such sociological perceptions have affected on the population (Earnshaw et al., 2012). Firstly, in order to under sociological perception, one must seek to broadly quantify the levels of inference that society as a whole has attributed to the AIDs virus. Naturally, when AIDs first came to prominence, it was understandable that many individuals would have an incomplete and rather parochial definition of how the virus affected people (Ferrand et al., 2011). However, the most negative aspect of sociological perception is the fact that oftentimes, regardless of the revelation of new and important information, these sociological concepts remained seemingly unchanged; moreover, they are willfully recalcitrant to broaden any prior understanding as they have seemingly been accepted as summarily true by the many individuals who have already incorporated such an understanding into their worldview. This can of course especially be seen as a function of how many people originally identified AIDs with the homosexual male communities in which it was most prevalent. Due to the fact that the news and media greeted their respective populations with such imagery, the information shareholders accepted this wholesale as being the solitary determinant of the spread of AIDs. Most obviously, such a narrow-minded understanding of the virus contributed to a very shallow and incomplete understanding of both the means of transfer as well as the possible demographic groups that would be affected by it. By identifying AIDs with the homosexual male community, the extent to which the virus could be exhibited among other individual in different sexual orientations and demographics was successfully warped. It is important to note that although such an incorrect sociological interpretation and/or perception is inherently flawed, it is unlikely that such a perception was molded by any inherent attempt to misrepresent the information in the first place; rather, it is merely the result of the fact that human beings attempt to classify and categorize any and all information that they might come in contact with in convenient, simplistic, and understandable terms that are not always amenable to adequately explaining the full scope of a given issue. As a result of such a sociological perception, key shareholders around the world were fundamentally convinced that AIDs could be acquired through a diverse range of harmless activities to include: holding hands, kissing, or touching something that an infected patient had touched. Obviously, such broad and inherently incorrect theories with regards to the spread of the disease did nothing to enhance the public’s understanding and perception of means by which it could be avoided and only served to instill a type of panic with relation to those individuals within the community that might have been infected by the virus (Akinboro et al., 2012). Moreover, such an incorrect sociological percept meant that in addition to a fundamental lack of understanding of the biological means by which the disease was transmitted, many of those within society that suffered from AIDs were further ostracized due to the fact that many individuals within society believed that they could somehow become infected via simple means and that therefore those with AIDs must be kept at arm’s length and treated as a type of pariah with which society must not engage for fear of contamination/illness. Lastly, with regards to the extent to which the AIDs virus is represented within our own society, this is a sociological perception that incorporates nearly all of the previously mentioned conventions that have thus far been discussed. As a matter of convenience and easy denotation, AIDs is primarily thought of as present, albeit widely relegated to the communities of drug users, homosexuals, and others who are oftentimes incorrectly viewed as operating on what some may deem as the fringes of society; however, such a sociological construct has been reinforced by countless individuals, friends, family members, and others as it has been passed along (Orisakwe et al., 2012). In this way, the true nature and danger posed by the AIDs virus is minimized at the overall expense of conveniently creating a false construct within which the disease, and those afflicted by it, can be categorized. Such an understanding necessarily limits the extent to which the individual shareholder is willing to cope with understand and empathize with those afflicted with the virus within their own community. As such, this final sociological perception, perhaps more so than any other, works to relay a sense of calm and relief to the shareholder; convincing them that although the problem exists, it is somehow relegated to regions and individuals outside of the scope of those that they interact with on a daily basis. Such a sociological perception has the direct effect of calming those within its sway as it seeks to relate the true nature of the threat of AIDs by a means of understanding that is something other than the true nature and scope of the disease. Each one of these sociological perceptions that have been discussed within this analysis are shared by and espoused by countless millions around the globe. Unlike a world view, the differing cultures around the globe have, at least in some small part, bought into various understandings that have herein been presented. Moreover, for the most part, societal misrepresentations of the disease have meant that a further understanding of, and empathy for those individuals that suffer from the disease, has been almost invariably reduced. This fact alone is perhaps the most powerful in representing the negative nature and effects of the societal mis-representations that have been enumerated upon and discussed within this brief analysis. Likewise, as has been evidenced, the amount of time and money that is necessary to be spent in order to attempt to reverse many of these sociological perceptions comes at a staggeringly high cost. Oftentimes, even if the information is correctly transmitted and reaches the individual who holds an incorrect perception, it is still powerless to change such a perception. In this way, the level to which change can be effected is oftentimes limited; however, as this paper has demonstrated, a further understanding of the scope and range of incorrect beliefs surrounding sociological perceptions of it only serves to help in acquainting the reader with the ways in which knowledge of HIV/AIDS exists within the current world and/or society. References Akinboro, A. A., Adejumo, O. P., Onibokun, C. A., & Olowokere, E. A. (2012). Community health care workers' risk perception of occupational exposure to HIV in Ibadan, south-west Nigeria. African Journal Of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine, 4(1), 1-9. doi:10.4102/phcfm.v4i1.338 Earnshaw, V. A., Smith, L. R., Chaudoir, S. R., Lee, I., & Copenhaver, M. M. (2012). Stereotypes About People Living with HIV: Implications for Perceptions of HIV Risk and Testing Frequency Among At-Risk Populations. AIDS Education & Prevention,24(6), 574-581. doi:10.1521/aeap.2012.24.6.574 Ferrand, R. A., Trigg, C., Bandason, T., Ndhlovu, C. E., Mungofa, S., Nathoo, K., & ... Corbett, E. L. (2011). Perception of Risk of Vertically Acquired HIV Infection and Acceptability of Provider-Initiated Testing and Counseling. American Journal Of Public Health, 101(12), 2325-2332. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300250 Orisakwe, E. E., Ross, A. J., & Ocholla, P. O. (2012). Correlation between knowledge of HIV, attitudes and perceptions of HIV and a willingness to test for HIV. African Journal Of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine, 4(1), 1-8. doi:10.4102/phcfm.v4i1.376 Read More