The articles by Hein Marais, Ernest T. Mallya and Winford H. Masanjala represent three points of view on the relationships between Aids and democracy which are very peculiar. Their peculiarity lies on their ability to turn the tide of taken-for-granted assumptions. The authors are very keen in showing the complexity that surrounds the intertwined dimensions of disease, poverty and (lack of) democracy – with the latter two dimensions being synthesized by the word inequality. In the realm of sociology of medicine, this area is mainly analyzed through two theories: the fundamental cause theory and the selection theory. The fundamental cause theory states that since persons of higher socioeconomic status have a broad range of flexible and multi-purpose resources that can be used to the advantage of their health, including knowledge, money, power, and social connections, they hold an advantage in warding off whatever particular threats to health exist at a given time (Link and Phelan 2000). According to the selection theory, poor health causes downward mobility. The incapacity to work, for instance, has effects on the income. Moreover, illness restricts social interaction and thereby leads to social support deficits which, at their turn, may result in even worse health conditions. But illness, restricting social interactions, causes also a deficit in social capital and therefore a wider distance from sources of information which are linked to higher chances to get jobs or to improve job conditions (Maturo 2007; Maturo 2004). Both theories have been proven, even if there are exceptions. Yet, poverty is a stronger predictor of bad health conditions than the opposite. Marais explores in a very keen and profound way the consequences of both theories, but the most important part of his contribution is dedicated to two counterintuitive findings: 1. The fact that the highest prevalence of Aids is in the richest African country – South Africa – and not in the poorest; 2. The fact that HIV prevalence tends to be higher among (relatively) wealthy people and lower among poor people in many African countries.
A. Maturo (2009). Aids and its catch-22 dynamics. AFRICHE E ORIENTI, Numero Speciale, 358-369.
Aids and its catch-22 dynamics
MATURO, ANTONIO FRANCESCO
2009
Abstract
The articles by Hein Marais, Ernest T. Mallya and Winford H. Masanjala represent three points of view on the relationships between Aids and democracy which are very peculiar. Their peculiarity lies on their ability to turn the tide of taken-for-granted assumptions. The authors are very keen in showing the complexity that surrounds the intertwined dimensions of disease, poverty and (lack of) democracy – with the latter two dimensions being synthesized by the word inequality. In the realm of sociology of medicine, this area is mainly analyzed through two theories: the fundamental cause theory and the selection theory. The fundamental cause theory states that since persons of higher socioeconomic status have a broad range of flexible and multi-purpose resources that can be used to the advantage of their health, including knowledge, money, power, and social connections, they hold an advantage in warding off whatever particular threats to health exist at a given time (Link and Phelan 2000). According to the selection theory, poor health causes downward mobility. The incapacity to work, for instance, has effects on the income. Moreover, illness restricts social interaction and thereby leads to social support deficits which, at their turn, may result in even worse health conditions. But illness, restricting social interactions, causes also a deficit in social capital and therefore a wider distance from sources of information which are linked to higher chances to get jobs or to improve job conditions (Maturo 2007; Maturo 2004). Both theories have been proven, even if there are exceptions. Yet, poverty is a stronger predictor of bad health conditions than the opposite. Marais explores in a very keen and profound way the consequences of both theories, but the most important part of his contribution is dedicated to two counterintuitive findings: 1. The fact that the highest prevalence of Aids is in the richest African country – South Africa – and not in the poorest; 2. The fact that HIV prevalence tends to be higher among (relatively) wealthy people and lower among poor people in many African countries.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
