This paper will analyse the AIDS/HIV epidemic by defining a crisis by Edgar Morin, a French philosopher. The definition of the term so used ‘crisis’ varies according to the time in which it is used, the culture that evokes it, or the person who defines it. Thus, I will focus on Morin’s definition of the term to see if this pandemic would be defined as a crisis depending on his description of the term. In his writing ‘Pour une crisologie’ (Morin, 1976), he puts aside two definitions of the word crises at different moments in history that caught my attention: the definition of krisis in Ancient Greece, which means decision “the decisive moment in the evolution of an uncertain process, which allows the diagnosis to be made » (Koselleck, 2006), and today’s definition of a crisis that means indecision, “the moment when, at the same time as a disturbance, uncertainty arises”. By not thinking about the words we use, we end up falling into traps that obscure our vision, prevent us from understanding.
AIDS is one of the most deadly infectious diseases in recent years. One million people have died of AIDS in 2016 worldwide, and 76.1 million since the beginning of the epidemic. (FRM, 2019). AIDS was officially diagnosed in 1981 at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), where American researchers published the first significant findings of the disease. The virus was first diagnosed in 5 homosexual men, but it spread rapidly between continents, and scientists soon realised that heterosexuals were equally susceptible to the disease. In 1983 the name AIDS appeared: Acquired Immunodeficiency Virus.
Morin’s definition of a crisis acknowledges four components related to a crisis in society. Firstly, he discussed the idea of ‘disruption’, which is when fear starts to set in society. Secondly, he describes the following phase when uncertainty enters because the regulatory system is no longer predictable. Thirdly, the philosopher explains that when the systems are disrupted, resources become unblocked. Finally, the last criterion of a crisis is that it triggers research activities. Point by point, this essay will break down these components and apply them to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, in order to determine if it would be considered a crisis in accordance with Morin’s understanding of the term.
The first component, ‘disruption’, applies when the usual rules that ensured stability no longer work and do not offer any solution to the problems of the crisis, thus creating unheard situations. It is at this point that fear starts to set in. This can be applied to HIV pandemics. The stability of the 80s was disrupted when an unknown virus killed several people across the world, focusing mainly on the US. By the end of 1981, the CDC linked more than hundreds of deaths to this new virus. They did not understand the causes and linked it to homosexuality, which had severe social consequences: the marginalisation of gay communities. Therefore, in 1981, the first medical name given to the virus was GRIDS (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency). No solution to the crisis was given, and as fear began to seep into society, homosexuals were accused. It was not until 1983 that the name AIDS started being used.
Secondly, another criterion in a crisis is the increase in disorder and uncertainty. When regulation systems work, they create determinisms that easily predict the consequences of actions or events. However, when this regulatory system no longer functions well, it becomes difficult to predict and uncertainty is born. The crisis thus leads to a “progression of uncertainties” and a “regression of determinism”. This could have been seen as a progression of uncertainty since it took years to understand the causes and consequences of the virus. Today, 50 years after the arrival of the virus, in spite of medical advancements, science has still not find a cure. Back then, with even less understanding, it became a political and social issue that increased uncertainty, fear, and disorder. Fortunately, in 1987, the World Health Organisation (WHO) established an AIDS program, which aimed to raise awareness about the pandemic; formulated evidence-based policies; provided technical and financial support to countries (mainly Uganda and Thailand as the most affected populations); initiated relevant social, behavioural, and biomedical research; promoted participation by non-governmental organisations; and championed the rights of those living with HIV. (Merson, 2006). In 1996, the Joint United Nations Programme replaced the program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which 10 UN agencies now sponsor.
Finally, in the case of AIDS/HIV, in my understanding, the two last criteria work together. For the third component of a crisis, the author talks about a process of blocking-unblocking. Indeed, the usual regulatory systems are blocked or disrupted. Becoming unable to offer solutions, unexploited resources are unblocked, and new potentials are fully revealed. The last component of a crisis is the triggering of research activities: as rules and ideas are destroyed, members of society engage in a movement of creativity in action, looking for solutions to “get out of the crisis”.
The scientific program created to find a cure to this epidemic, started in 1987 when the WHO started to raise awareness to limit the spread. Then a scientific panel was created in the UN, and in the mid-2000s, the global response accelerated rapidly, with universal access to treatment becoming a significant priority. We can see in the graph, it had an impact:
There has been a significant increase in the virus between 1980 and 2005; 2005 marked a peak for the virus, and new diagnoses have since declined, suggesting that the programs initiated in the early 2000’s positively impacted the curve by lowering the rate of growth of the virus release.
Later on in 2016, the UNAIDS program announced their plan to prioritise the disease, aiming to end AIDS by 2030. By 2025, more than 90% of countries will have decriminalised sex work, possession of small amounts of drugs, and same-sex sexual behaviour. (The Guardian, 2020)
This is for the medical response; as for creativity, the subject has been addressed in all kinds of art, mainly to raise awareness, spread information, and destigmatise the disease linked to homosexuals.
For instance, poster campaigns were launched in the United States in the mid 1980s to encourage people to protect themselves. The campaigns started with images of gay men and quickly added heterosexual couples and people of other ethnicities to remind populations that ‘everyone is at risk’ (Geiling, 2013)
As an example, this image published in 1985.
Courtesy National Library of Medicine
This need to raise awareness and governments to take action is also well expressed in the French movie 120BPM from Robin Campillo released in 2017, retracing the life of an AIDS activist, where he emphasizes the state’s inaction against the disease and the critical role associations have played.
This art tool provides contextual information to understand more deeply what was occurring at the moment, the fear and emotions felt by the populations during this crisis. It reflects the reaction of men to this reversal of society to give a point of view and bear witness to an era.
We have seen that by cutting to the precise definition of the term ‘crisis’ by Edgar Morin, we can consider HIV/AIDS as a crisis. Today the word crisis is often overused, reducing the significance of the real meaning. As this word can provoke fear or anxiety in populations, in my opinion, it should be used appropriately, carefully, and constructively. If a precise and universal definition was used to employ the term, it would limit its use and make it more meaningful.
When comparing the policy response in the 1980s with today’s, it can give us much food for thought on global crisis management. Coronavirus was officially named a global pandemic two months after its detection in China, researchers from all over the world came together to create a vaccine in ten months, and media have talked only about it for a year now. Indeed, science is more developed today than in 1980, but it prompts a reflection on how politicians have been able to make this a non-priority for such a dangerous virus, while a less-lethal virus has taken on an unimaginable and unprecedented scale in the last year.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (FRM). 2020. Tout savoir sur le sida. [online] Available at: <https://www.frm.org/recherches-maladies-infectieuses/sida/focus-sida>
Morin, E. and Béjin, A., 1976. Communcations – La notion de crise. pp.1-5.
Geiling, N., 2013. The Confusing and At-Times Counterproductive 1980s Response to the AIDS Epidemic. [online] Smithsonian Magazine. Available at: <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-confusing-and-at-times-counterproductive-1980s-response-to-the-aids-epidemic-180948611/>
Koselleck, R., 2006. [online] JSTOR. Available at: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30141882.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A87c13e30e338c00b0bd94455ac7db1ba>
Merson, M., 2006. The HIV–AIDS Pandemic at 25 — The Global Response | NEJM. [online] New England Journal of Medicine. Available at: <https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp068074>
The Guardian. 2020. This World Aids Day the global response to HIV stands on a precipice | Winnie Byanyima and Matthew Kavanagh. [online] Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/dec/01/this-world-aids-day-the-global-response-to-hiv-stands-on-a-precipice>
Tht.org.uk. 2020. HIV statistics | Terrence Higgins Trust. [online] Available at: <https://www.tht.org.uk/hiv-and-sexual-health/about-hiv/hiv-statistics>