Is it me or is it you?

            For the first time this week, I’ll admit that I had some difficulty with the reading for this week, which focused on the idea that Botswana has not seen a drop in HIV incidence, in spite its aggressive ARV program, because education campaigns were too “Western” in their nature. My discussion of the reading will be very brief in this entry, simply because I feel that I haven’t completely grasped the concepts at hand as of yet. Hopefully, after the in-class discussion today, I will have a better understanding of the material. I plan to post another blog entry post-discussion. That should be a bit more insightful.

For now, I’m just going to summarize the a few issues presented in this week’s readings. Many scholars believe that these education campaigns, which were often in English, and were based on education campaigns in the U.S. and Europe, did not have the intended widespread effects, because these initiatives did not properly account for Botswana’s culture and value systems.

            Prior to the advent of modern medicine, for centuries the Tswana people have gone to “witch doctors” and other “healers” to cure their illnesses. These healers are still widely consulted today, and many are well-respected in their communities. One of the foundations of this alternative medicine is that all ills in one’s life can be traced back to a clear source in that person’s life—often the illness or suffering of the patient is considered to be a function of that individual mistreating someone else. For example, a healer may attribute an individual’s bad headaches to his or her jealousy of a colleague. Many scholars contend that the education campaigns put forth in Botswana, simply state that the cause for HIV is unknown, and this is problematic because it is culturally not sound. Another major contention by the scholars in the readings for this week is that topics about sex, such as condoms, are taboo in public forum in Botswana, and that HIV campaigns that bring such issues to the forefront are difficult for people to accept.

            While I understand how campaigns put forth in Setswana would be more effective than those in English, I am not sure what these scholars believe these campaigns should say. Of course every culture and every group has its own system for interpreting the suffering that befalls it, but I don’t understand how else a campaign for HIV awareness and education can be made.

            Perhaps, my personal bias as a pre-med student, and as someone who strongly values scientific inquiry is clouding my judgement here, but I feel that these scholarly articles are marginalizing the Tswana culture. In essence, it seems like these scholars don’t think the Tswana people can handle the cold, hard facts about HIV. As a future doctor, I believe it will be my responsibility to arm my patient’s with as much knowledge about their health as possible—even if I have to bring up topics that are uncomfortable or admit to the limitations of science. I simply don’t understand how laying down the facts is so problematic.

            Am I the one who’s marginalizing the Tswana culture by putting it to the side? Or is there more merit in the scholarly argument that the Western way of doing things isn’t always right than I am able to see?