Tag Archives: Peter Piot

“Cc…: CCC,” part 14

I’ve been thinking about the original question Deb posed about how we might read and respond to the “concluding imperative” of Piot’s preface to the UNAIDS report:  Now act!”  Ensuing discussions have raised other questions that are nested in Piot’s injunction (I’m thinking in particular of Gregg’s intervention, which, as Deb notes, takes up the issues of “What,” “Who,” and “When”).  I keep returning, though, to a question (or rather a set of questions) that, to my mind, is at least as urgent as the questions of agency and temporality on which Piot’s imperative invites reflection.  That question is simply this:  “Where?”  Where is the space or field or geography of the action(s) “we” are enjoined to take?

The document in which Piot’s injunction appears is called the Report on the global HIV/AIDS pandemic.  The nominative anachronism of this title is worth remarking, since it takes us back to an earlier time in the history of the naming practices that have enveloped the life of the virus (which, as Cindy Patton has recently reminded us, includes the pre-history before “The Name” of the virus itself).  We all remember the moment in the 1990s when we began to speak of the “HIV/AIDS epidemic” as the “pandemic,” in order to register the emerging consciousness that this was a cluster of epidemics that covered, or would soon come to cover, the entire world.  In the U.S. context, this new nomination has over time had the important and salutary effect of opening the national consciousness about HIV/AIDS.  My sense is that U.S. based global AIDS activists have been able to use the language of an international HIV pandemic to expand the domestic discursive space accorded to HIV.  The recognition that “we are not the world” has enlarged the national conversation about AIDS on issues from U.S. government spending abroad to the drug pricing policies of the transnational pharmaceutical corporations.

This shift in the U.S. public imagination has increasingly made it impossible not to think about HIV/AIDS in international terms.  Surely that is a good thing.  However, it would probably be a mistake to read too much into the broadened public perception of the AIDS crisis in the U.S.  For example, a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a majority of Americans are able to correctly identify Africa as the region of the world with the largest population of people living with HIV/AIDS.  However, only a minority of those surveyed believed that the U.S. government should be more involved than it has been in responding to AIDS in Africa.  To paraphrase Richard Rorty, the “globalization” of the U.S. public’s perception of AIDS has meant little more than an increased interest in “hearing sad and sentimental stories.”  During the first two decades, the “face” of AIDS in the American mind was the headshot of the “ravaged” Rock Hudson or the “courageous” Ryan White; by the third, that “face” belongs to the “frail” South African Nkosi Johnson.  In many ways, the image of the “international AIDS pandemic” in the collective U.S. consciousness serves  much the same purpose as that of “international human rights”:  it is a tool (to borrow again from Rorty) for “manipulating sentiments, [for] sentimental education.”

[Kendall Thomas’ e-mail continues in the following post]

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Culture, Current events, Death, History and historiography, Media, Reading and writing

“Cc…: CCC,” part 5

Gregg,

For me, at least, your unsparing “What,” “Who,” and “When” effectively expose the bad faith of a certain alibi inscribed in the general lament condensed in Piot’s phrasing (I do not here ascribe the bad faith to Piot himself).  I’m struck by the imperatives you offer in response, as a kind of necessary supplement – a supplement of hope, as you note – to the official “Now act!”:  “Let us be superstitious.  Let us hope the utterance this time works.”  Would you (any of you) care to gloss the hope that Gregg has invoked – vis-a-vis its possible sources or outcomes, for example, or in terms (whether conceptual or pragmatic) of negotiating the multiple temporalities specific to hope with those specific to impatience, say, or to despair?

With thanks,

Deborah

@@@@@

Did u get this pic?

[Jack’s reference is to a J-peg image of Zackie Achmat, co-founder of South Africa’s Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), at tea with Nelson Mandela, which he circulated among the participants in the e-mail exchange.]

From where we’re sitting, it’s about as “hopeful” as things can get….  Mandela has written a letter to our president.  We don’t yet know its contents – but I suspect it appeals for treatment to be made available to save lives.  The political class is prickling after Mandela said that Zackie was a “loyal and disciplined member of the ANC” – words which I first heard him use about himself just after his release when explaining his standpoint on negotiations with the white government.  Something is up!

Jack

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Culture, Current events, Death, History and historiography, Media, Reading and writing

“Cc…: CCC,” part 3

Hi all:

There’s certainly nothing to argue about with Piot’s imperative:  “Now act!”  Deb, if your book among other things is tracing the myriad ways in which “time” as both metaphor and material fact has indelibly marked the work of Derek, Felix, Stephen, et.al., then few phrases could be more on the nose, echoing down the years.  (Among other reverberations, ACT UP’s national network acronym was of course ACT NOW!:  AIDS Coalition to Network, Organize and Win.)  Think how many times we’ve heard those words, said them, shouted them, bellowed them, repeated them to the point of platitude.  Indeed, AIDS over two decades and six continents has been marked like a music score by this same recurring lament:  Now act.  Act.  Now.

Though the “now” part has almost never been “acted” upon – big and small power brokers seem equally incapable of doing anything “now” – there has nevertheless been some acting:  often begrudging, often too little, often too late, but nevertheless.  Over time, through time, people have acted, continued to act.  Except of course, like Felix’s clocks, when their batteries, when their time runs out.

John G.

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Culture, Current events, Death, History and historiography, Media, Reading and writing

“Cc…: CCC,” part 2

Dear Gregg, John, Jack and Kendall,

I hope this message finds each of you well, wherever and whenever it reaches you.  I hope, too, that it will serve to initiate an e-mail exchange about the virus and the pandemic that will appear at the conclusion of my recently completed The Brevity of Life:  What AIDS Makes Legible.  The manuscript, parts of which some of you may already have had a chance to read, and others surely not as yet, includes as the volume’s proposed frontispiece a photograph of Felix Gonzalez-Torres’ “Untitled” (Perfect Lovers), dated 1987-1990, an installation that features two apparently identical clocks hung side by side, barely touching one another, and synchronized such that both read “2:43:58” (or “14:43:58”).

 

My hope was that Gonzalez-Torres’ work, photographed in situ, would resonate with a citation I was considering as an epigraph for the book:  Peter Piot, Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), writing in his “Foreword” to the Encyclopedia of AIDS that “the worldwide AIDS epidemic has become a permanent challenge to human integrity and solidarity.  Given the scale of suffering, given the proven effectiveness of several approaches, and given the prospect of furthering other human goals through the fight against AIDS, an expanded response makes ethical and practical sense.  Instead of letting AIDS turn back the clock, let us use our response to the epidemic to turn humanity’s clock ahead.”

Now John, who was kind enough to take the time recently to read the manuscript and to respond with characteristic generosity and insight, wondered in an e-mail to me whether Piot’s language in this instance set a tone in keeping with the chapters that follow.  I take the liberty of citing from John’s message:  “Peter Piot [citation]:  for me it set the wrong tone, starting your book like that – I’m sure I’m carrying around too much baggage vis a vis UNAIDS and that very mainstream don’t really rock the boat agenda…. Couldn’t you start with Seneca – maybe juxtaposed with Ben and his phone card?” **

John’s thoughtful and wide-ranging response reached me on July 15, as I was reading the Report on the global epidemic  just released by UNAIDS.  Writing in the report’s preface, Piot notes that “In 2001, the world marked 20 years of AIDS.  It was an occasion to lament the fact that the epidemic has turned out to be far worse than predicted, saying ‘if only we knew then what we know now.’  But we do know now.  We know that the epidemic is still in its early stages, that effective responses are possible but only when they are politically backed and full-scale, and that unless more is done today and tomorrow, the epidemic will continue to grow….  The time has come to put all the pieces together.  Plans have been made.  Needs are clear.  Solutions are available.  Now act!”

With your permission, I would like to take Piot’s language in the preface to the UNAIDS report as a provisional point of departure for our exchange.  In what context or contexts do you place this brief exercise in historiography on Piot’s part?  More specifically, perhaps, how do you read and respond to its concluding imperative?

With my thanks in advance, and warm regards,

Deborah

** John here alludes to one of the epigraphs to the prologue, which cites Ben, a long-time seropositive man who tells the New York Times that he feels like someone with a phone card who knows that at some point he will hear the inevitable “you have two minutes left.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Current events, Death, History and historiography, Media, Reading and writing