People now identify with the virus, people who may or may not have it. Clearly the goal of these campaigns is to combat the stigma associated with HIV so that people might more readily get tested and seek treatment. These days, as one friend reported to me, people without HIV are even wearing “HIV+” t-shirts at international conferences. Is HIV fashionable? And what configuration of fashion/celebrity/global concern has yielded this image? What has made HIV safe for this sort of identification? What does it mean?
Page Comments
September 20, 2006. Accessed: February 24, 2007
http://savageminds.org/2006/09/20/identification-overload
In today’s fast paced multi-cultural world, image and presentation are a big deal to the masses or the elite who pride themselves on those facts. One thing is certain though, almost everything concerning perception and what is acceptable boils down to a public relations campaign. One current trend sweeping the landscape is the campaign that champions causes for those afflicted with AIDS or those living in abject poverty in Africa.
Currently, the “I am African” campaign is being displayed in print, online and other media outlets. However, the campaign is shifting perception on what it means to be connected to that level of poverty or the AIDS virus. The campaign insinuates, that perhaps people identify with people who may or may not have the virus. While there are connections between AIDS and Africa, the Africa campaign mirrors a previous campaign done by Kenneth Cole, appropriately billed, “We all have Aids.”
The author notes that the power these campaigns have over people is shocking; individuals wear HIV positive shirts when they don’t even have it. Of course this all comes back to the celebrity endorsement, the need to raise awareness and educate. However, the cost is bizarre, it turns into something fashionable and how can having HIV be fashionable. The sensitive nature of the topics should be handled delicately but they are manipulated to fit into the marketing strategy of the non-profit group that began them.
However, images convey many messages and the ones represented by both the campaigns are unclear; they suggest responsibility but don’t prompt real action. The endorsement of a cause by a celebrity is a touchy subject, ergo motives aren’t questioned. Yet, that is the most interesting part to it, in a culture more obsessed with image, if the celebrity doesn’t care, is it really a big deal, they may not care otherwise since they’re only doing it to be socially accepted. The cultural construction of what image is can be found in the images from the campaigns and from the celebrities in them as well.
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.