Fuzzy Boundaries in HIV Stigma

Fuzzy Boundaries in HIV Stigma Fuzzy Boundaries in the Conceptualization of HIV Stigma: Moving Towards a More Unified Construct Currently, there are 36.7 million people living with HIV (PLWH) worldwide (WHO, 2017). HIV-related stigma continues to be a major concern for PLWH in the United States and overseas (Baugher et al., 2017; Bogart et al., 2008; Herek, Capitanio, & Widaman, 2002; X. Li, Wang, Williams, & He, 2009; Odindo & Mwanthi, 2008) with more than 50% of men and women reporting discriminatory attitudes toward PLWH among countries with data available (UNAIDS, 2015). This is particularly disconcerting given that HIV-related stigma has shown to be associated with negative outcomes in the physical and mental health of PLWH, higher levels of HIV stigma being correlated with higher depression symptoms (L. Li, Lee, Thammawijaya, Jiraphongsa, & Rotheram-Borus, 2009; Onyebuchi-Iwudibia & Brown, 2014; Rao et al., 2012), lower adherence to antiretroviral therapy (Katz et al., 2013), and less access and usage of social and healthcare services (Chambers et al., 2015; Rueda et al., 2016). In general, HIV-related stigma has focused on the individual experience of stigma by PLWH and has been conceptualized into three different types (Earnshaw & Chaudoir, 2009; Nyblade, 2006): the fear of negative attitudes, judgment, and discrimination from HIV status and serostatus disclosure (perceived stigma), the acceptance of negative stereotypes associated with HIV as part of the self or identity (internalized stigma), and the actual experience of discrimination by PLWH (enacted stigma). More recently, some conceptualizations have highlighted the importance of considering HIV-related stigma beyond the individual context as stigma is a social process, a pattern of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that influence change and growth in society (Deacon, 2006; Link & Phelan, 2001; Mahajan et al., 2008; Parker & Aggleton, 2003). This recent shift has led researchers to propose several revisions to the HIV stigma construct. In particular, they argue that HIV-related stigma should be distinguished from discrimination (Deacon, 2006) and that it should be measured at structural and institutional levels (Link & Phelan, 2001; Mahajan et al., 2008; Parker & Aggleton, 2003). Since the conceptualization of HIV-related stigma has practical implications on how it is studied, measured, and treated, the purpose of this paper is to review the validity of the proposed revisions. It will be argued that despite there being a strong theoretical basis for both changes to the conceptualization of HIV-related stigma, psychometric research suggests that enacted stigma should not be removed from the construct, but that HIV-related stigma should be measured across socio-ecological levels. Theoretical Implications of HIV Stigma as a Social Process A majority of the stigma literature derives from the work of sociologist, Erving Goffman. His original theory viewed stigma as a social process (Goffman, 1963), which has important implications on the conceptualization of HIV-related stigma, as research in this area has primarily focused on the construct at an individual level.     Ã‚   Stigma as a Social Process The conceptualization of HIV-related stigma often departs from the definition proposed by Goffman. Goffman defined stigma as â€Å"an attribute that is deeply discrediting† according to society, which diminishes the stigmatized individual from â€Å"a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one† (Goffman, 1963). Although Goffman acknowledged the role of society in stigmatization, researchers limit their definition of HIV stigma and cite sections from Goffman that emphasize stigma as an internal or individual level construct (Link & Phelan, 2001; Parker & Aggleton, 2003). Notably, they highlight how the â€Å"deviant† or â€Å"undesirable difference† of stigma leads to the assumption of a â€Å"spoilt identity† (Goffman, 1963). This operationalization is significant because it implies that the negative value of stigma comes from the individual instead of society. Inherent within Goffman’s definition was the understanding that stigma is a socially constructed concept. He qualified that even though stigma would refer to â€Å"an attribute† it actually was a â€Å"language of relationships† that was required (Goffman, 1963). In other words, Goffman argued that society determines what is â€Å"discrediting† and thereby develops a structure that delineates how the bearers of stigma are devalued across their social relationships. Subsequently, similar to development in Bronfenbrenner’s ecosystem theory (1997), stigma could be seen more as a dynamic social process that is constantly changing over time (Parker & Aggleton, 2003). HIV Stigma and Discrimination When HIV stigma is considered as a social process, the fuzzy boundary between HIV stigma and discrimination becomes clearer. Discrimination highlights the perpetrators of stigmatization, whereas stigma refers to the targets of these negative behaviors (Link & Phelan, 2001; Mahajan et al., 2008; Sayce, 1998). This distinction is important as it has broader social implications in determining who is responsible for stigmatization (Sayce, 1998). By differentiating HIV-related stigma from discrimination, it focuses the blame on the social processes involved with stigmatization rather than on the individual. Deacon (2006) also argues how including discrimination within the construct of HIV-related stigma constitutes conceptual inflation. Within the stigma literature, discrimination is operationalized as an end result of stigma (Jacoby, 1994; Nyblade, 2006) such that the term â€Å"stigma† becomes synonymous with â€Å"both the stigmatizing beliefs themselves and the effects of†¦stigmatization processes† (Deacon, 2006). This definition limits the understanding about the unique effects of stigma because it becomes unclear whether discrimination mediates the association between stigma and various health outcomes. In all, there is a practical and theoretical basis for differentiating HIV stigma from discrimination. HIV Stigma at the Structural Level Since Goffman, researchers have expounded upon the sociological aspects of his theory to include the structural conditions that influence stigma. Link and Phelan (2001) describe how stigmatization can only occur when â€Å"labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination† happens within the context of an imbalance in power. In other words, all individuals, including those that are stigmatized, can engage in processes related to the stigmatization. Link and Phelan (2001) discuss an example where an individual with mental illness could stereotype one of their clinicians as a â€Å"pill-pusher.† While the person might treat the   clinician differently on the basis of this stereotype, without any economic, social, cultural, and political power, the individual cannot enact detrimental consequences against the clinician, and therefore the clinician and his or her identifying group would not be stigmatized (Link & Phelan, 2001). For PLWH, Parker and Aggleton (2003) further specify that stigmatization is not only contingent upon these social inequities, but that stigma also serves to strengthen and perpetuate differences in structural power and control. In particular, they argue that stigma increases existing power differentials through devaluing groups and heightening the feelings of superiority in others. In recognizing that stigma functions at structural and institutional levels, Park and Aggleton (2003) believe that stigma is a central component in   Based on these theories, it has been proposed that HIV stigma be measured at the structural and institutional level (Mahajan et al., 2008). Measurement of HIV Stigma Knowledge and understanding about HIV stigma is predicated on researchers’ ability to reliably and accurately measure the construct. In turn, even though there is theory to support the differentiation of HIV stigma from discrimination and the measurement of HIV stigma at the structural level, a review of relevant psychometric research is necessary to validate these revisions to the HIV-related stigma construct. HIV Stigma Scale The HIV Stigma Scale developed by Berger, Ferrans, and Lashley (2001) is the most commonly used stigma measure for PLWH (Sayles et al., 2008). It has a total of 40 items scored on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) with higher scores indicating higher levels of stigma. The internal consistency of the measure has been reliable with different populations, including African Americans (Rao, Pryor, Gaddist, & Mayer, 2008; Wright, Naar-King, Lam, Templin, & Frey, 2007) and PLWH in rural New England (Bunn, Solomon, Miller, & Forehand, 2007). More recently, the HIV Stigma Scale was adapted for use in South India and demonstrated high reliability and validity (Jeyaseelan et al., 2013).    Psychometric Evidence for Measuring HIV Stigma as a Social Process Construct validity for the HIV Stigma Scale is supported by associations with related measures (Berger, Ferrans, & Lashley, 2001). In terms of measuring HIV stigma as a social process, the total HIV stigma scores and the subscale scores on the HIV Stigma Scale show moderate negative correlations with social support availability, social support validation, and subjective social integrations, as well as moderate positive correlations with social conflict. Similar relationships were found between HIV stigma and social support in a meta-analysis by Rueda et al., (2016), higher HIV stigma being associated with lower social support across studies. Overall, there seems to be preliminary evidence that HIV stigma should be conceptualized as a social process. Psychometric Evidence against Chancing the Current Construct of HIV Stigma Through exploratory factor analysis, Berger et al., (2001) determined that there were four interrelated factors from the HIV Stigma Scale: personalized stigma, disclosure concerns, concern with public attitudes toward people with HIV, and negative self-image. These factors could be recoded using current conceptualization of HIV stigma such that personalized stigma is enacted stigma, disclosure concerns and concerns with public attitudes toward people with HIV is perceived stigma, and negative self-image is internalized stigma (Earnshaw & Chaudoir, 2009). Further analysis by Berger et al., (2001) led to the extraction of one higher-order factor. While this provided further evidence of construct validity for the HIV Stigma Scale, if considered within the context of the recoded factors, it would indicate that enacted stigma should not be removed from the conceptualization of HIV-related stigma. Psychometric Measurement of HIV-Related Stigma at Structural Levels Research on the measurement of HIV-related stigma at structural and institutional levels is sparse and limited (Chan & Reidpath, 2005; Mahajan et al., 2008). Of the studies available, only descriptive information is provided on the experience of structural stigma for PLWH (Biradavolu, Blankenship, Jena, & Dhungana, 2012; Yang, Zhang, Chan, & Reidpath, 2005). Within the larger stigma literature itself, very few researchers have considered measuring stigma across different socio-ecological levels (Gee, 2008; Hatzenbuehler et al., 2014). However, there has been growing evidence to suggest that structural levels of stigma are associated with individuals levels of stigma (Evans-Lacko, Brohan, Mojtabai, & Thornicroft, 2012; Pachankis et al., 2015). In their study, Evans-Lacko et al., (2012) attempted to examine the relationships between structural and individual levels of mental illness stigma in 14 European countries. To do so, they combined two international datasets (the Eurobarometer survey and the Global Alliance of Advocacy Networks study) and compared public attitudes related to mental illness with individual measures of internalized stigma, empowerment, and perceived discrimination among individuals diagnosed with a mental disorder. Evans-Lacko and his colleagues (2012) found that people with mental illness in countries with more positive attitudes (lower structural stigma) reported lower rates of internalized stigma and perceived discrimination than in countries with higher levels of structural stigma. Even though both datasets were cross-sectional, limiting casual inferences from the study, the results indicate that there are associations between the measurement of structural and individual levels of stigma (Evans-Lacko et al., 2012; Major, Dovidio, & Link, 2017). In all, there needs to be more research to validate the measurement of HIV-related stigma at structural and institutional levels. Limitations Due to the lack of experimental research on enacted and structural HIV stigma (Mahajan et al., 2008; Nyblade, 2006), relevant studies in this area may suffer from a file drawer problem. In other words, the prevalence of significant results could be inflated given that there are no incentives for publishing non-significant findings. Moreover, a majority of HIV stigma studies utilize a correlational design, and so the directionality of these associations cannot be determined. Thus, even though the understanding of HIV stigma has improved, the effect size and causality of relationships within the construct require further analysis and clarification. Another limitation is that there is heterogeneity in the conceptualization and measurement of HIV-related stigma, which makes it difficult to compare and contrast results (Grossman & Stangl, 2013). Across HIV stigma assessments, researchers measure enacted, perceived, and internalized stigma, suggesting that these are important factors in the conceptualization of HIV-related stigma (Earnshaw & Chaudoir, 2009). However, many measures conflate different constructs with HIV-related stigma and include it in a single scale or subscale (Herek et al., 2002; Kalichman et al., 2009; Visser, Kershaw, Makin, & Forsyth, 2008). This indicates that there still might be ambiguity in terms of how HIV-related stigma is operationalized.   One final limitation is that the high internal consistency of the HIV Stigma Scale (Berger et al., 2001) could be reflective of an attenuation paradox (Clark & Watson, 1995). For example, the factors of disclosure concern and concern with public attitudes toward people with HIV might be redundant. Both factors represent and can be recoded as aspects of perceived stigma (Earnshaw & Chaudoir, 2009). While the HIV Stigma Scale might be reliable and internally consistent, the high correlations between the items on the scale might compromise construct validity of Implications A common conceptualization of HIV stigma is fundamental for future research, assessment, and treatment (Deacon, 2006; Grossman & Stangl, 2013; Mahajan et al., 2008). Without a unified construct of stigma, progress in the field of HIV-related stigma will continue to be impeded by a lack of standardization and incremental validity. The absence of meta-analyses within the literature provides evidence of the difficulty in parsing through the heterogeneity of the HIV stigma construct (Grossman & Stangl, 2013). Future research, then, should prioritize reaching a working consensus on the conceptualization of HIV stigma and developing an agenda that ensures consistent application of that conceptualization across studies. From this common conceptualization of HIV-related stigma, current measures such as the HIV Stigma Scale should be refined (Berger et al., 2001). While convergent validity has been tested through correlations with related measures and constructs (Berger et al., 2001; Earnshaw & Chaudoir, 2009), more research should focus on the strengthening the discriminant validity of these measures. Specifically regarding the HIV Stigma Scale, given that several of the items load onto multiple scales of the measure (Berger et al., 2001; Rao et al., 2008), future revisions should work on improving item discrimination (Sayles et al., 2008). By refining the measures of HIV stigma in conjunction with the conceptualization of HIV stigma, the operationalization of the different HIV stigma types can be improved. In addition, it is necessary to develop complementary measures to assess HIV-related stigma at structural and institutional levels (Chan & Reidpath, 2005; Deacon, 2006; Mahajan et al., 2008). Research efforts within the field of mental illness and stigma could be leveraged to formulate these assessments (see structural stigma section). While it is important to understand the impact of HIV stigma across a variety of social contexts, it is impractical to begin efforts into this area simply by conducting a large number of studies in different environments. Initial efforts should focus on targeting a smaller range of institutions that have presented unique challenges towards PLWH in the past such as healthcare and then build additional measurements out from there if necessary (Chan & Reidpath, 2005). From a more practical perspective, interventions for HIV-related stigma need to address the discriminatory behaviors experienced by PLWH. Despite significant heterogeneity in the HIV stigma literature (Grossman & Stangl, 2013), enacted stigma is a factor that is seen across various measurements and operationalizations of the construct (Earnshaw & Chaudoir, 2009). In terms of treatment outcomes, reducing discrimination against PLWH could have important implications as enacted stigma is negatively correlated with indicators of physical health, including CD4 count and chronic illness comorbidity (Earnshaw, Smith, Chaudoir, Amico, & Copenhaver, 2013). Thus, future intervention research should work on addressing enacted stigma as a specific domain of HIV stigma, measuring enacted stigma consistently across studies, and testing its predictive validity for treatment, care, and prevention outcomes for PLWH (Grossman & Stangl, 2013).   Conclusion Based on the current nomological net, HIV-related stigma should not be differentiated from discrimination. However, there is a need to measure HIV-related stigma in structural and institutional contexts. HIV stigma is a social process that works at the individual level, but the stigmatized person may not be the most important determinant in the development of stigma. Several researchers have theorized that stigmatization is contingent on structural inequities (Link & Phelan, 2001; Mahajan et al., 2008; Parker & Aggleton, 2003) such that interventions that only target stigma and discrimination may ameliorate the negative physical and mental health outcomes associated with stigma, but not address the entire problem and construct (Chan & Reidpath, 2005). Ultimately, more research is required in order to measure HIV-related stigma across socio-ecological levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Grossman & Stangl, 2013). Given the heterogeneity and lack of standardization within the HIV stigma literature, it is imperative that researchers in this field understand that science and test validity holds social power and influence. Measurement and psychometrics can drive change in social policy and ideology within society (Messick, 1995). While it is easy to rely on the eminence and eloquence associated with the label of science (Isaacs & Fitzgerald, 1999), researchers have an ethical commitment to follow rigorous standards of empiricism because their work can impact the lives of people. This commitment should be true for all people, but especially for groups like PLWH that continue to suffer from stigmatization. References Baugher, A. R., Beer, L., Fagan, J. L., Mattson, C. L., Freedman, M., Skarbinski, J., & Shouse, R. L. (2017). Prevalence of Internalized HIV-Related Stigma Among HIV-Infected Adults in Care, United States, 2011–2013. AIDS and behavior, 21(9), 2600-2608. doi:10.1007/s10461-017-1712-y Berger, B. E., Ferrans, C. E., & Lashley, F. R. (2001). Measuring stigma in people with HIV: psychometric assessment of the HIV stigma scale. Res Nurs Health, 24(6), 518-529. Biradavolu, M. R., Blankenship, K. M., Jena, A., & Dhungana, N. (2012). Structural stigma, sex work and HIV: contradictions and lessons learnt from a community-led structural intervention in southern India. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66(Suppl 2), ii95. Bogart, L. M., Cowgill, B. O., Kennedy, D., Ryan, G., Murphy, D. A., Elijah, J., & Schuster, M. A. (2008). HIV-related stigma among people with HIV and their families: a qualitative analysis. AIDS Behav, 12(2), 244-254. doi:10.1007/s10461-007-9231-x Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American psychologist, 32(7), 513. Bunn, J. Y., Solomon, S. E., Miller, C., & Forehand, R. (2007). Measurement of Stigma in People with HIV: A Reexamination of the HIV Stigma Scale. AIDS Education and Prevention, 19(3), 198-208. doi:10.1521/aeap.2007.19.3.198 Chambers, L. A., Rueda, S., Baker, D. N., Wilson, M. G., Deutsch, R., Raeifar, E., . . . Team, T. S. R. (2015). Stigma, HIV and health: a qualitative synthesis. BMC Public Health, 15, 848. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2197-0 Chan, K. Y., & Reidpath, D. D. (2005). Future research on structural and institutional forms of HIV discrimination. AIDS Care, 17(sup2), 215-218. doi:10.1080/09540120500120005 Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological assessment, 7(3), 309. Deacon, H. (2006). Towards a sustainable theory of health-related stigma: lessons from the HIV/AIDS literature. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16(6), 418-425. doi:10.1002/casp.900 Earnshaw, V. A., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2009). From Conceptualizing to Measuring HIV Stigma: A Review of HIV Stigma Mechanism Measures. AIDS and behavior, 13(6), 1160-1177. doi:10.1007/s10461-009-9593-3 Earnshaw, V. A., Smith, L. R., Chaudoir, S. R., Amico, K. R., & Copenhaver, M. M. (2013). HIV Stigma Mechanisms and Well-Being among PLWH: A Test of the HIV Stigma Framework. AIDS and behavior, 17(5), 1785-1795. doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0437-9 Evans-Lacko, S., Brohan, E., Mojtabai, R., & Thornicroft, G. (2012). Association between public views of mental illness and self-stigma among individuals with mental illness in 14 European countries. Psychol Med, 42(8), 1741-1752. doi:10.1017/s0033291711002558 Gee, G. C. (2008). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between institutional and individual racial discrimination and health status. Am J Public Health, 98(9 Suppl), S48-56. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma; notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Grossman, C. I., & Stangl, A. L. (2013). Global action to reduce HIV stigma and discrimination. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 16(3Suppl 2), 18881. doi:10.7448/IAS.16.3.18881 Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Bellatorre, A., Lee, Y., Finch, B. K., Muennig, P., & Fiscella, K. (2014). Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in sexual minority populations. Soc Sci Med, 103, 33-41. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.005 Herek, G. M., Capitanio, J. P., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). HIV-Related Stigma and Knowledge in the United States: Prevalence and Trends, 1991–1999. American Journal of Public Health, 92(3), 371-377. doi:10.2105/ajph.92.3.371 Isaacs, D., & Fitzgerald, D. (1999). Seven alternatives to evidence based medicine. BMJ, 319(7225), 1618. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7225.1618 Jacoby, A. (1994). Felt versus enacted stigma: a concept revisited. Evidence from a study of people with epilepsy in remission. Soc Sci Med, 38(2), 269-274. Jeyaseelan, L., Kumar, S., Mohanraj, R., Rebekah, G., Rao, D., & Manhart, L. E. (2013). Assessing HIV/AIDS stigma in south India: validation and abridgement of the Berger HIV Stigma scale. AIDS Behav, 17(1), 434-443. doi:10.1007/s10461-011-0128-3 Kalichman, S. C., Simbayi, L. C., Cloete, A., Mthembu, P. P., Mkhonta, R. N., & Ginindza, T. (2009). Measuring AIDS stigmas in people living with HIV/AIDS: the Internalized AIDS-Related Stigma Scale. AIDS Care, 21(1), 87-93. doi:10.1080/09540120802032627 Katz, I. T., Ryu, A. E., Onuegbu, A. G., Psaros, C., Weiser, S. D., Bangsberg, D. R., & Tsai, A. C. (2013). Impact of HIV-related stigma on treatment adherence: systematic review and meta-synthesis. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 16(3Suppl 2), 18640. doi:10.7448/IAS.16.3.18640 Li, L., Lee, S.-J., Thammawijaya, P., Jiraphongsa, C., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (2009). Stigma, social support, and depression among people living with HIV in Thailand. AIDS Care, 21(8), 1007-1013. doi:10.1080/09540120802614358 Li, X., Wang, H., Williams, A., & He, G. (2009). Stigma reported by people living with HIV in south central China. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care, 20(1), 22-30. doi:10.1016/j.jana.2008.09.007 Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing Stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 363-385. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363 Mahajan, A. P., Sayles, J. N., Patel, V. A., Remien, R. H., Ortiz, D., Szekeres, G., & Coates, T. J. (2008). Stigma in the HIV/AIDS epidemic: A review of the literature and recommendations for the way forward. AIDS (London, England), 22(Suppl 2), S67-S79. doi:10.1097/01.aids.0000327438.13291.62 Major, B., Dovidio, J. F., & Link, B. G. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Stigma, Discrimination, and Health: Oxford University Press. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performance as scientific inquiry into score meaning (Vol. 50). Nyblade, L. C. (2006). Measuring HIV stigma: existing knowledge and gaps. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 11(3), 335-345. Odindo, M. A., & Mwanthi, M. A. (2008). Role of governmental and non-governmental organizations in mitigation of stigma and discrimination among HIV/AIDS persons in Kibera, Kenya. East Afr J Public Health, 5(1), 1-5. Onyebuchi-Iwudibia, O., & Brown, A. (2014). HIV and depression in eastern Nigeria: The role of HIV-related stigma. AIDS Care, 26(5), 653-657. doi:10.1080/09540121.2013.844761 Pachankis, J. E., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Hickson, F., Weatherburn, P., Berg, R. C., Marcus, U., & Schmidt, A. J. (2015). Hidden from health: structural stigma, sexual orientation concealment, and HIV across 38 countries in the European MSM Internet Survey. Aids, 29(10), 1239-1246. doi:10.1097/qad.0000000000000724 Parker, R., & Aggleton, P. (2003). HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: a conceptual framework and implications for action. Soc Sci Med, 57(1), 13-24. Rao, D., Chen, W. T., Pearson, C. R., Simoni, J. M., Fredriksen-Goldsen, K., & Nelson, K. (2012). Social support mediates the relationship between HIV stigma and depression/quality of life among people living with HIV in Beijing. China. Int J STD AIDS., 23. doi:10.1258/ijsa.2009.009428 Rao, D., Pryor, J. B., Gaddist, B. W., & Mayer, R. (2008). Stigma, secrecy, and discrimination: ethnic/racial differences in the concerns of people living with HIV/AIDS. AIDS Behav, 12(2), 265-271. doi:10.1007/s10461-007-9268-x Rueda, S., Mitra, S., Chen, S., Gogolishvili, D., Globerman, J., Chambers, L., . . . Rourke, S. B. (2016). Examining the associations between HIV-related stigma and health outcomes in people living with HIV/AIDS: a series of meta-analyses. BMJ Open, 6(7), e011453. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011453 Sayles, J. N., Hays, R. D., Sarkisian, C. A., Mahajan, A. P., Spritzer, K. L., & Cunningham, W. E. (2008). Development and Psychometric Assessment of a Multidimensional Measure of Internalized HIV Stigma in a sample of HIV-positive Adults. AIDS and behavior, 12(5), 748-758. doi:10.1007/s10461-008-9375-3 UNAIDS. (2015). On the Fast-Track to end AIDS by 2030: Focus on location and population. Retrieved from http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/WAD2015_report_en_part01.pdf Visser, M. J., Kershaw, T., Makin, J. D., & Forsyth, B. W. C. (2008). Development of parallel scales to measure HIV-related stigma. AIDS and behavior, 12(5), 759-771. doi:10.1007/s10461-008-9363-7 WHO. (2017, July ). HIV AIDS: Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs360/en/ Wright, K., Naar-King, S., Lam, P., Templin, T., & Frey, M. (2007). Stigma Scale Revised: Reliability and Validity of a Brief Measure of Stigma For HIV + Youth. J Adolesc Health, 40(1), 96-98. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.08.001 Yang, Y., Zhang, K., Chan, K. Y., & Reidpath, D. D. (2005). Institutional and structural forms of HIV-related discrimination in health care: a study set in Beijing. AIDS Care, 17, S129-140.

A D-train Passenger Views Outside :: Land Beauty Essays

A D-train Passenger Views Outside The passenger realizes as the light of the sunset passes through the gaps in the skyscrapers that what he sees is good. The glittering reddish sky slowly disappears as the clouds fly; the train descends as the view passes by into the darkness of the underground. It is a scene most of us will encounter if we ever take the New York subway over the Manhattan Bridge at sunset. Many times I have seen this panorama, but it still does not fail to capture me, to draw me away from my book, and to the window. Then while the bridge-columns flash by the windows, in the gaps, like an old movie, the view unrolls in all its beauty. How did our ancient ancestors feel when they saw this spectacular sight? (I mean the â€Å"ancient† of a few decades ago.) I really can’t tell you, because I never was an ancient, and if I saw one, that is not one of the topics that we discussed. But I can tell you how a very intelligent modern man thinks of it. (That would be me. I am also very humble.) I feel that it is a wondrous sight, if you think about it. But only if you think about it. A being less cultured, in a specific way, would not regard the sight as beautiful, inspiring, wondrous, exalting or stupefying. He probably would not even know if those word s exist. He would probably say that it is, well, big. To him it is not necessarily beautiful. We can only understand that it must be beautiful since so much work was put into it, so many people contributed to it and built it, so many breakthroughs had to be achieved prior to the conception, that this site is the culmination of the millennia of human history and science that came before it. Now isn’t that inspiring? (It sure sounds inspiring if you ask me. It even has some pretty long words, so it better be inspiring.) I look at the unfolding view and, subliminally, I think of all the things mentioned above, and only then do I consider the view beautiful. The aforementioned â€Å"uncultured† being looks at it, and finds it â€Å"big†. In his essay â€Å"A First American Views His Land†, N. Scott Momaday tried to express the beauty of that land that he lived in, and the feelings he personally, and Native Americans in general, had toward that land.

Confucian Philosophy in the Han Dynasty Essay

This paper will evaluate a brief evaluation of the rise of the Han Dynasty and how Confucian corresponds with it. With included references to authors, Tanner, Liang, Dubs, and Wang, will supply knowledge regarding to Sima Qian’s historical points, incorporation of Confucian principles within the Han Dynasty and the emperor, and within the social lives and families. I will highlight some of the major points of beneficial factors to Confucian thought as well as a brief opinion on how it isn’t always good to base a society of false claims regarding to divinity and how the society originated. However, I hope to make clear a better understanding on why and how the Chinese people in general came to be in current day China. â€Å"Before the founding of the Han dynasty, thinkers of every stripe cited the Five Classics to legitimate their ideas, but the transmission of the Zhou’s cultural heritage was not clearly documented until Sima Qian (second century B. C. E. ) traced the study of the Five Classics back to Confucius. † Sima Qian finished an essay called â€Å"The Collective Biographies of Confucians,† which â€Å"summarizes classical learning from the beginning of the Western Han to the end of the reign of Emperor Wu. † He is considered the first great exemplar of the Chinese historical tradition; however, before he was able to finish his works and had angered the emperor, he took the option of being castrated over controversial writings about a general that had been defeated and surrendered to the Xiongnu, to finish his writings. Sima Qian was a man dedicated to his work for which he chose castration over having to commit suicide. â€Å"The style of Sima Qian’s work was didactic, its purpose to communicate the moral lessons of the past. ’ â€Å"In both its organization and its approach to history, the ‘Records of the Grand Historian’ served as a model for all subsequent officially sanctioned Chinese historical writing. † Ban Gu eventually took up Sima Qian’s work in 90 B. C. , although he was imprisoned at first for his unauthorized history of the Han emperor, but was freed later due to the emperor’s liking of his work. Regardless whether the historical contexts of both Ban Gu and Sima Qian, it shows that the histories were often dishonest due to the preferences of the elite, but as. Ban Gu was pardoned, there might be more truth to what the Han’s historical past entails. â€Å"It was during the former Han period that Confucianism developed from being the teaching of a few pedants in a semi-retirement, at the end of the Chou period, to become the official philosophy of the government, which had to be adopted by anyone who hoped to enter public life. † Although it was a gradual process, early Han emperors embraced Confucianism by incorporating its teachings in education and establishing a Confucian Imperial University, which ultimately distributed literati among offices in the government. As this concept became bigger and more popular among the elite, the development of the examination became prominent as there was a high importance of literary ability and Confucian training, to be able to obtain a position within a government entity. It was believed that with all of the claimed advantages of Confucianism, â€Å"unifying the country intellectually by making one system of thought current among all educated men led to the elevation of Confucianism. † In 141 B. C. , Tung Chung-shu, advocated a principle to Emperor Wu that all non-Confucian philosophies should be destroyed with intellectual unification of the country—Emperor Wu did act upon this by proscribing Legalism and elevating Confucians to be his highest officials. With the rise of Confucianism in the Han Dynasty, it not only effected the elites’ primary preferences for what should be within the government body, but it also effected the view of the emperor himself. The conception of the central government of the Han Dynasty from a Confucian perspective was that the ruler must be a man, be of noble origin, ordained by Heaven, having great wisdom and virtue, and must be a ruler that is â€Å"all-under-Heaven. † To strengthen the claim to the throne, â€Å"all the rulers of China before Liu Pang were believed to have been of divine origin. † â€Å"However, the living Han ruler, like the rulers of other dynasties, was not regarded as a god, nor was any worship instituted for him. † It was common practice, as in all histories, to have a greater social distance between those who command and those who obey, often times through rituals and ceremonies. The Confucian scholars introduced ceremonies in 201 B. C. which was considered necessary for a new ruler to elevate to an â€Å"unapproachable position. † This of course resulted in the emperor or ruler to be catapulted into the highest authority. Much like in other empires, that due to this common practice of using divinity as the main aspect of the throne, that anyone who goes against, protests, or is considered disrespectful, most often paid the price through draconian laws and usually sentenced to death. The morality of Confucian belief as it was incorporated into the social lives of the common people, also included what the roles should be within the family. Ban Zhao (48? -116? CE), historian Ban Gu’s sister, was famous for her writings on the expected roles of women in Han society. Ban Zhao believed that it was the husband’s duty to control while the wife serves him, but at the same time the wife would be allowed to be educated and literate. Ban Zhao further mentions that the husband and wife must play their roles, but men have the ultimate responsibility to control and to have authority. She further continues, â€Å"If women are to understand and perform their expected roles, then they must learn to read so that they can learn from the same ritual texts as men do. † This all of course is stemming and adding to the Confucian ideology. Perhaps, even though she was a remarkable matriarchal woman, she believed that this ideology is a cornerstone for maintaining a strong and healthy nuclear family environment. In conclusion, it is very apparent that Confucian ideology was the main stronghold for both the Eastern and Western Han Dynasty. Confucianism, with Sima Qian, Ban Gu, Ban Zhao, and a collaboration of other historians, had a major influence on how the elitists, the government, and the common people, were to go about their daily lives and follow what was considered a respectable social order at that time. The ideology of Confucianism built a halo around the emperor to catapult him to a position of higher order, causing the people to look up to him rather than revolt against him for being in a position undeserving. As with many empires, which all rise and fall at some point, the elitists and the emperor always has a philosophical tale which tries to explain where its origins came from, sometimes referring the emperor as a god himself. In essence, there is usually no ground proof what the true history was, mostly due to the perversion of some historians’ ideology relating to their religious affiliations. Perhaps too, with fear of draconian laws and punishment, especially with low self-esteem and high-ego type of authority, that history in itself will only boil down to â€Å"his story. † Regardless, despite whether or not the histories of Confucianism and the Han Dynasty are valid, there is strong evidence that the Confucian principles still exist today as we see in the current-day Chinese culture regarding to the social lives and families of many. Bibliography: Liang, Cai. 2011. â€Å"Excavating the Genealogy of Classical Studies in the Western Han Dynasty (206 B. C. E. -8 C. E. ). † Journal of the American Oriental Society 131, no. 3: 371-394. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (Accessed February 25, 2013). Dubs, Homer H. 1938. â€Å"The Victory of Han Confucianism. † Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 58, No. 3: 435-449. American Oriental Society. http://www. jstor. org/stable/594608. (Accessed February 25, 2013). Wang Yu-ch’uan. 1949. â€Å"An Outline of the Central Government of the Former Han Dynasty. † Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 12, No. ?: 134-187. Harvard-Yenching Institute. http://www. jstor. org/stable/2718206. (Accessed February 25, 2013). Tanner, Harold M. 2010. â€Å"China: A History. † Hackett Publishing Company, 118. ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Liang, Cai. â€Å"Excavating the Genealogy of Classical Studies in the Western Han Dynasty (206 B. C. E. -8 C. E. ). † Journal of the American Oriental Society 131, no. 3 (2011): 371. [ 2 ]. Liang, Cai. Excavating the Genealogy of Classical Studies in the Western Han Dynasty, 372. [ 3 ]. Tanner, Harold M. China: A History. Hackett Publishing Company (2010), 118. [ 4 ]. Tanner, Harold M. China: A History, 118. [ 5 ]. Tanner, Harold M. China: A History, 118. [ 6 ]. Tanner, Harold M. China: A History, 118. [ 7 ]. Dubs, Homer H. The Victory of Han Confucianism. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Sep. , 1938), 435. [ 8 ]. Dubs, Homer H. The Victory of the Han Confucianism, 446. [ 9 ]. Dubs, Homer H. The Victory of the Han Confucianism, 447. [ 10 ]. Dubs, Homer H. The Victory of the Han Confucianism, 448. [ 11 ]. Dubs, Homer H. The Victory of the Han Confucianism, 448. [ 12 ]. Wang Yu-ch’uan. An Outline of the Central Government of the Former Han Dynasty. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 12, No. ? (June 1949), 139.. [ 13 ]. Wang Yu-ch’uan. An Outline of the Central Government of the Former Han Dynasty, 139. [ 14 ]. Wang Yu-ch’uan. An Outline of the Central Government of the Former Han Dynasty, 140. [ 15 ]. Wang Yu-ch’uan. An Outline of the Central Government of the Former Han Dynasty, 140. [ 16 ]. Wang Yu-ch’uan. An Outline of the Central Government of the Former Han Dynasty, 140. [ 17 ]. Tanner, Harold M. China: A History, 121. [ 18 ]. Tanner, Harold M. China: A History, 121. [ 19 ]. Tanner, Harold M. China: A History, 121. [ 20 ]. Tanner, Harold M. China: A History, 121.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower Free Essay Example, 1250 words

This was a move to incapacitate the reinforcement of the Germans. Being an intelligent leader General Eisenhower decided to have a hoax so that the German soldiers were confused of when the attack was to take place (Brendon, 1986). On 5th June 1994, he decided to launch the attack whose major aim was to invade the Normandy coast on 6th June 1994. Some soldiers had earlier prepared on 4th June the same year. Prior to the invasion General Eisenhower could receive meteorological data concerning the area after every three hours. Being the successful military leader he was the general decided to write a separate speech that he would use in any case the operation failed. He continuously appreciated the soldiers and gave them psych as well as words of hope so that they could not give up (Brendon, 1986). As Brendon (1996) points out, he also had plans and could foresee that delaying the operation till 7th would impact the morale of the allied soldiers as well as give the German Nazis time t o know about the attack and prepare handy. This decision was made with consultations and discussions from other commanders as well as Admirals such as General Montgomery, Major General Walter Smith, and Admiral Ramsay. We will write a custom essay sample on General Dwight D. Eisenhower or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now He was aware of the wide coverage in terms of geography of the area of attack as well as the vastness of his decision. Consequently he wrote a speech just in case of failure of the Allies in the D-day operation in Normandy. The speech which was prudently written acknowledged the tireless effort of everybody who had some hand in the operation. He appreciated the informants too. He did not fail to recognize the navy as well as the air force finalizing the speech with a statement that would shoulder the blame upon him for all the failure. However, the speech did not get position in the plan since he was so sure of victory being that through the studied weather patterns he concluded that the Channel was prone to storms in late June. Field Marshal Edwin Rommel who would have also been a threat was not present in honor of his wife’s birthday on 6th June. The latter was posted to develop the Atlantic Wall. According to Korda & 3M Company (2009), the leadership skills of General Eisenhower were amazing. First off he was brave as shown by the manner in which he planned the operation. Secondly, he was devoted to duty and always yearned and looked up to victory. Thirdly, he continuously motivated his soldiers no matter what happened. Finally, he was ready to take the blame should there have been failure and above all he acknowledged God in his operations.