Framing the objects of desire: limits and opportunities in the

management of sexual risk in the context of HIV

Paper presented at the 4th Congress of the International Society for Cultural and Activity Research (ISCAR), Inventing the future: Transformative research, imagination and

collective action for social change,29 September – 3 October, 2014, Sydney, Australia

 

Mary van der Riet (University of KwaZulu-Natal, SA)

Dumisa Sofika (University of KwaZulu-Natal, SA)

Jacqueline Akhurst (York St John University, UK)

Harry Daniels (Oxford University, UK)

This work is based on research supported by a National Research Foundation Thuthuka Grant

Introduction

• Previous research had indicated that – Youth in rural context in South Africa trade safety off

against group membership– Identity production is related to particular forms of

masculinity and femininity

The focus of this study

• How is the ideal romantic partner defined? • How does this object of desire mediate sexual

activity and the management of risk?• What are the subject positions available to

youth in the context?• Are there alternatives?• What are the limits to safe sex practice?

Setting• Rural Eastern Cape,

South Africa• 14 villages• Minimal subsistence

agriculture• High unemployment• Dependence on social

grants• Resource constrained

Design and method

• Qualitative• Data collection through

– Focus groups (same sex, like age)

– Individual interviews– Development Work Research

(DWR) process

• Sample– Youth from across 14 villages– Selected through village

associations according to age, gender, convenience

SampleAGE Focus group Focus group Interviews Interviews

15-17 5 male 6 Female

18-24 7 male 5 female 2 male 3 female

18-24 5 male 5 female

25-33 5 male 7 female 4 male 2 female

Subtotal 22 male 23 female 6 male 5 female

Total 45 11

Novel techniques• Social constructs interview (interviews)

– to explore and define the objects of desire – What is the ideal romantic partner

• Shaping tool (interviews)– to explore the limits of safe sex practice and the possible

subject positions available to young people– Assessed the status of safe sex practice, current subject

positions, and possible subject positions• Adaptation of Nominal Group Technique (focus groups)

– to explore the management of risk– and the limits to risk prevention

Qualitative data collection

• Focus groups and interviews captured participants’ everyday understanding of current practices in sexual relationships and risk

• Dilemmas were taken into DWR styled workshops for reflection and examination

DWR Method

• In this context DWR was with an open system (not a closed group or workplace)

• Purposively selected 10 youth (male and female), from across the villages to construct groups

• Worked with extracts from the focus groups and interviews

• 5 x 3 hour sessions over 8 months

Findings: Objects of desire (for women)

• Appearance (style, clothes, handsome)• Someone to provide emotional and personal support (care for

me, listens to me, helps out with problems, provides financially)

• Someone who ‘builds me’Participant: yes he gives me advice and I can learn more from

him. He can also push me to further my education and all that (F25I)

• Someone who is ‘fun’ , has money and provides access to opportunities outside the village

• Undesirable: someone who forces me, makes me listen, doesn’t listen to me, has a lot of girlfriends

Findings: Objects of desire (for men)

• Appearance (sexy, beautiful)

• Approachable, respectful and listens to youParticipant: firstly I like a girl who listens you see (.) I’m saying I get that

thing that once you listen to me talking to you you see (.) I want you , I bet we will date for sure you see (M30I)

• Stays at home, is discrete– a girl that is quiet…and just sitting in their own place. (M21I)

• Undesirable woman:– Someone who love ‘things’, they are corrupted and destroying their

lives– Women who drink and smoke (are ‘loose’)

Objects of desire

• Are based on unequal gender relations in the context

• Men want to be in control of the relationship (they like women who are quiet, respectful, receptive)

• Women’s ideal partners are wise, mature, who can advise and develop, provide for basic needs (this gives men great power in the relationship)

• Ideal partners reinforce unequal subject positions for men and women

Findings: Engagement with risk

• Shaping tool and the Nominal Group Technique provided narratives of engagement with, and negotiation, of risk

• Risk was set up through lack of condom use– By being unprepared– Being drunk– Coerced sex– Having multiple partners– To demonstrate love and commitment

Complications in condom use 1

• Men disliked condoms (they affected sensation and performance)

• Women initiate condom use, but could not insist (unequal power in relationship; fear of partner)– sometimes scared and you even afraid to talk to

him. (F21I)• Some women also disliked condoms

(sensation, discomfort)

Complications in condom use 2• Relationship security is signalled &

strengthened by unprotected sex (Rhodes & Cusick, 2009)

• ‘Love’ and ‘trust’ were used as functional substitutes for the security of the relationship– he wanted it that way you see and I couldn’t

disagree with him because I love him. (F24I)– another thing when you in love with a girl, you

see, you want to show that you love her= … that why you don’t use a condom (25-30 male FG)

Findings: Alternate subject positions provided by participants

• Being more experienced in sex• Being more knowledgeable about partner, and able to

negotiate• Being more knowledgeable about HIV and risk• Being older and in a more stable relationship (long term

or marriage)• Staying away from risk conditions (alcohol, multiple

partners)• Women enduring infidelity of men (and ‘sacrificing’ own

needs)• Investing in intimacy of relationship (rather than HIV

protection)

Sacrifice of self to relationship• Youth demonstrate a trade off between emotional

gain and safety (from HIV infection)– so she ends up sacrificing because she loves the guy even

though he does not want the condom. So even that as well, a person can’t protect themselves you see … they don’t take like (.) the right choice, they don’t choose for themselves ↓their decision (24-30 female FG)

• Condomless sex is a form of giving up of self to the relationship

• Youth needed relationships because these facilitate survival in a context of few other options

Opportunities in risk management: what was done

• Attempted to monitor partners (through constant mobile phone contact)

• Fantasised that marriage would be a solution to the risk we will get married and go test for AIDS and no one will

cheat because when you married it’s not easy to cheat… (F25I)

• Used HIV testing as an alternative to condom use– when … you are going to stop using the condom but you

are going to go and test first …mm because a condom is really not nice so rather you go and test then. So that you cannot condomise then (18-24 female FG)

The fallibility of HIV testing as a protective strategy

• Testing needs to occur regularly • Claims by male and female participants to be

testing are not founded (local clinic data show this is not happening)

• Men test infrequently (if at all), and tend to rely on the test results of their partners to determine their own status

• If multiple partners are involved, testing is inaccurate (window period etc.)

Key findings• Objects of desire

reinforced particular forms of masculinity and femininity and unequal gender relations

• For women manoeuvrability in safe sex practices is severely constrained

• Heavy reliance on individual action of HIV testing

• Participants held idealistic and tenuous conceptions of safety (fidelity cannot be guaranteed through monitoring)

Critique of running DWR

• Premature to run full expansive learning cycle in true DWR style

• Too ambitious to expect the development of new forms of social behaviour from work with smaller groups

• Practical constraints on regular contact limiting quick turnaround of material for DWR process (distance of research site, translation and transcription of data took a long time)

Advantages of process

• However, working closely with 10 youth over time built rapport (also worked with parent group)

• Workshops became participatory data analysis sessions

• Definitely increased reflections on risk, relationships, gender

• Perhaps a precursor to full DWR

Conclusion

• In the face of knowledge about HIV and the risks related to sexual activity, participants indicated a privileging of intimacy in the relationship. This is an investment in self and future through (unequal) sexual relationships traded off against protection against the risk of HIV infection.

• For women in particular, the calibration of gender in the context undermine their agency to act in any alternate self-protective ways. Their desperate attempts to manage sexual risk through various forms of monitoring (of fidelity, of HIV status) which they can perform themselves attests to the impossibility of a negotiated and collaborative management of risk.

Jacqui Akhurst, Dumisa Sofika, Dali Zani, Olwethu Jwili, Mary van der Riet, Mlungisile Mahlobisa

Thanks to Harry Daniels for presenting on behalf of the team