Sexual Identity in India - Session 1, Part 2

Session 1, Part 1
Session 1, Part 2
Session 2, Part 1
Session 2, Part 2

Karnik: And where would we put the public health representation then, between those, I mean those categories are interesting, but I think there’s also that public health representation, and Lawrence alluded early to the formation of categories for public health needs. I mean I see that as the creation of an intervention object, you need to define who it is, you are going todo the intervention on because so few, now, interventions are really population-wide anymore. You know, we don’t think on those terms anymore.

Srivastava: Its interesting, for example, I was recently sent, India today every year does this sex survey, and it’s an event, so they recently sent me their sort of pre-measure, this magazine, and they recently sent me, I hope she’s not watching (laughter), and this year the topic is of family and sexuality, and they sort of say look at this and what else can we do. And it’s interesting, for example, there are a couple of questions that I want to readout to you which are potential questions which will be part of this, and you heard it here first in University of Chicago (laughter) as they said… So it says, and the broad topic is family and sexuality, and one for the questions says would you accept your child if it chooses an alternate sexuality? Do you think being transsexual is acceptable? Would you support you child if he/she wanted a sex change operation? And other question is, are you more likely to forgive your husband/wife and continue with marriage if you found out they had a (a) heterosexual extramarital affair (b) homosexual marital affair. So there are interesting ways in which, as William you were pointing out, that so called alternate sexualities stand now at the juncture of consumerism, one, the kinds of identities you want to imagine yourself as a modern person, and India today is not a radical cutting edge, at the radical cutting edge of feminist or sexual politics, but it’s interesting the ways in which this really mainstream magazine which is running this thing on family and sexuality is increasingly inserting questions within it that you would think at another time would disconcert people but obviously India today knows its market and doesn’t think that that’s what’s happening.

Arondekar: But Sanjay the interesting thing about this would be a India today is also published in Hindi, etc. so whether the questions (A) would be reproduce the same way…

Srivastava: Exactly, yeah, could they be translated, in fact I have been saying to them as they have been doing, to do this work in small terms. I mean in this context you always have to work with skepticism as well as say well this is what the main stream media does what the hell, and they will simply translate it not just into Hindi but other languages and in small terms, so called B and C category terms..

Cohen: But translated as what, I mean what will become the translation for homosexuality, for example…

Srivastava: Well quite often they use terms like gay… in terms that people understand and in the last survey, in fact, large numbers were people from trading families in small towns. So they’ve actually been quite interesting the way they’ve been doing it, and they seem to know their market and its widely popular you know.

Arondekar: Well the reason I asked this question is because they did, I mean I’ve seen this annual surveys, and they did one a few years ago around the metrosexual, and I had tons of youth, because I am no longer youth, telling me that they were metrosexuals, and they were completely homophobic of course right, so, but the question I had for you Sanjay which I hadn’t thought about it, because you picked such interesting question, is that the explosion of these surveys in a very standardized, like, in India today would be like Time and Newsweek, comparable media, is it stabilizing the marriage form, right, very much. So the question that we return to over and over again is it’s the capital consumption, you produce difference so you can have more markets, which goes to the question I have for you Niranjan, which is, you brought up the interesting thing about health, public health. Now what’s remarkable about the public health consumption around HIV prevention particular in gay media in the US, and also now main stream media, is you always happy gay men with HIV. They are ripping with muscles, they look better than most of us, so the project is to produce the idea a life that continues, and in fact in better shape as it were, despite or because of the pharmaceutical management of HIV. Sow we don’t have that counterpart particularly in the Global South, so is it a developmental narrative, where we know we’ve arrived when we can show pictures of healthy men with HIV. You see what I am asking? I‘m curious about what’s the representational end point because that’s been the end point here in US and Europe particularly right you do see I mean any magazine you see the cocktail mentioned and then…

Karnik : Okay I have two answers or two thoughts about it I think, one is more cynical then the other… so the cynical side of me says well those adds are purely a function pharmaceutical advertising, like that’s all that they are really, you know, you take these medicines and this is what it will produce. The more optimistic side of me says there is also within that, I think, an embedded consideration that in the West at least this disease has for some segment of the population, I won’t say all because there is still an underserved population in US who don’t have insurance, who don’t have access to these medicines or treatment, okay so I want to be very clear about that in there. But there is a segment of population in US for who this disease has become a chronic illness, it has gone from this acute killer, and that I think is a striking change in the discourse of AIDS in US is how that shift happened and the medications that led to that really are, I mean, I think remarkable . The stories around the time when I was in medical school were people at deaths door being given these medicines and all of sudden having a new life. So I think there is something to these treatments, but you can see the 2 sides of it very clearly. I am interested to see, because as Lawrence is pointing out, those medications need a stable health object, right, that we can also agree upon, that HIV is this virus and the medications treat that. And so in order to globalize the use of these medicines you have to have that discourse. Now I think one of the things that’s interesting that we’re discussing is how those risk categories surround that and in some ways create that.

Schneider: So excellent point, there are number of issues to that, also the idea that if this is what HIV is, then maybe HIV isn’t that bad and that, you know that can also be a counter…..

Karnik: And, if I can add one thing John, I don’t actually think that advertising, the pharmaceutical advertising aspect of this, is unique to HIV per se. Because I have seen in my discipline of psychiatry, right, you see these happy faces if you take these medications, I have actually had patients who, you know, come into the office and say I want that medicine with the smiley happy face…

Arondekar: No I think the only reason I brought it up is because as someone who’s led a sort of bi-national life for a long time, you know, during the era of act up when I was in graduate school in Philadelphia, you would bring, and I lost a lot of friends to the disease, to use the ministers words, you would bring out the people with lesions, you know, act up strategy was let us tell you how your body will be ravaged, and this is a strategy that is used by both the media in west and rest to the point of ravages of disease in other parts of the world right, so the body that’s ravaged, which is why media representations are important because then you have a body having sex, like the Dunno Y dreadful film that we are not talking about because lot of us haven’t seen it, but for example I’ve seen the film but the bust of the film is these two men are having sex and they have beautiful bodies and we get to see a different kind of gay body than a body that is ravaged or needing medication etc., so that’s why I was curious.

Karnik: But I think there was an interesting moment in India, and the background paper which John posted was part of that thing, because we were discussing India Today, and one of the things I looked for at that time when I was writing on this in graduate school was the different ways that India Today actually represented the cover images of the HIV epidemic. And talking about bodies, they showed sort of the full figure of this woman, a poor women with HIV, on the cover, seeing her face, who she was, very much visualization of her body. But then a subsequent, few years later there was another cover issue of India Today where they covered AIDS epidemic and we’re talking how it’s penetrated the middle class now. And in that cover photo all you see is the women’s eyes behind this black screen basically, so you’re not allowed to see her body because in some ways the voyeurism of looking at the poor and impoverished in India was allowed in some ways, or given space, and you know, once it hits the middle class it becomes this much more secretive thing, and I think that that public-private tension that we were discussing earlier, I think was very much apparent to me as I was looking over that history in some form.

Srivastava: I wanted to get back to a point, something that interest all of us, is the issue of consumerism. See I don’t think that consumerism is predictable, I think we just think about what kind of politics it is, I think it is a certain kind of politics, in the European case there was a certain kind of politics that allowed women for example, to go into the public sphere. And I’m wondering about in terms of sexuality, I don’t think consumerism, I mean, many of us are anxious about consumerism because we have been effectively brought up in anti-consumer, social science, humanities context, and I think we just need to think about what kind of politics it is and whether the politics of sexuality within consumerism is an empowering one or not. I wanted to ask, India today also had these supplements, there’s one recently came out its called “Women Today”, and it’s really about successful women. And theres this huge article about women coming out , about lesbians, and this is again a main stream kind of thing. So I’m a bit confused about what kind of politics consumerism does represent because I think there are many categories of people in India who were now consuming, and you could go to a shopping mall in India they’ll say this is wonderful the air-conditioned space, we weren’t allowed here. And of course it’s a problematic context, I know there are lots of problems, but how do we think or in gated communities in India many women say this is wonderful, you know, because in our public space we are completely degraded here we can move around. So rather than instead of dismiss these hundreds of thousands of women how do we think about consumerism as a kind of politics and what is the fraughtness of it. And so my question to Stuart was well historically if you think about the American situation how would you position the relationship between consumerism and sexuality, I mean, the pink dollar has been a significant aspect of what consumer politics and other kinds of politics. So I want to ask you about that, how would you see it in different context.

Michaels: Interestingly, the first thing, I should say that consumerism is not a category that I use and think about a lot, so that’s already, since my since my work has mainly been in sort of studying populations’ sexual behavior and identity and health. I tend to be more in this, sort of, of let’s say, social science pragmatic applied public health sort of arena. So I think there’s a sort theoretical framework and political framework, a critique of consumerism which I’m very sympathetic in lots of ways, but I don’t know exactly how to, that isn’t the terms I tend to think of it in. I think you’re making a very interesting point about, sort of, our stance in being critical about the developments but that the people who themselves are involved, and as an underlying motivation for many of these things, that some desire to be able to consume and to have a presence and be in public is incredibly important. Certainly this has been a huge, I mean my experience of the West here, and I think it parallels with interesting sort of slight delays and advances, I’m not saying that one place is always ahead and the other is always behind, but as one example of that, I mean, its very interesting that you marked 35 years ago as the discussion of sexuality. And for me because of the work I do, in the West there was, also in the US and in Western Europe, a huge problem with public discussions of sexuality, and for me the marker is the Kinsey studies. So a place where sex research, the sexual revolution in some ways and there is huge debate on what the sexual revolution was, whether there was on, when it was etc., but I think its unquestionable that one of the huge changes there was to bring discussions specifically in those terms into the public media, and that produced all sorts of, and of course science was often the reference, I mean the fact that this is coming up in the context of sex surveys, where we would have lot of trouble taking them seriously as social science research, but it becomes a means for people to participate in a discussion about it. And gay I think, you know, I think of it as trying to create sort of political subject but it becomes, it turns into, you know, a consumption public, a marketing niche.

Cohen: I am wondering if we could, what would it give us to push the conversation around consumerism into a conversation around cosmopolitanism. And I think of cosmopolitanism in two ways as it emerges here. On the one hand, within public health language you could argue there’s two forces, to the extent that people are often mapping regions, cities and that’s central to public health practice. What’s often produce by activist is a very careful map of different constituencies, different categories that are used, so, both the many important studies done by NAZ foundation in its various forms, a very famous chart which Ashok Kavi has used which again shows the many many sexual constituencies, all of these tend to argue that the world is full of many different groups, and these constituencies should be recognized as such, and arguable there’s a kind of cosmopolitan ideal, and this ranges from more or less hierarchical versions of cosmopolitanism in this language. There is also with the MSM, often a contrasting pull towards a certain kind of universalism for a variety of, often tied to a perpetual sociological vision as found in David Greenberg’s book “The construction homosexuality”, that the West has an egalitarian modernity in which gay is unlike the transgenerational or transgeneral rest of the and much is ignored as you put it earlier in that story, but it’s, so there often seems to be a kind of developmental vision which is purportedly anti-hierarchical but becomes anti-cosmopolitanism. So there’s that one question, the cosmopolitan relationship to public health practice, but the other is the relationship to the question of consumption, so a French scholar of fashion Juliette Lupeski once argued that the good thing about consumption is that if we’re all, if we reduce everything to a series of fashion, self-fashion choices, we won’t have anything to fight about. But in fact, one thing, and this is central to something that William has thought about for a long time, is that the demand of many groups and experiencing media, comes out of the experience complexly organized around hurt, that this film hurts me, this film hurts my community, and that I turn to the state and I ask for a gift and that gift is censorship. And so in many ways, against the certain economy of cosmopolitanism that Lupaveski wants to argued for through consumption, there is the experience of hurt which comes up again and again and so one of the questions, for example with Dunno Y which also I haven’t yet seen, and haven’t tried to very hard, is, for example, since this, like a many many Hindi films before it stages the sexual in a Catholic family, have there been concerns or specific claims for censorship by Christian communities in India?

Arondekar: They have…I think the question of moral injury which I think William you said quite eloquently is, it’s the contradictory logic that animates the project of consumerism, right, so you cannot not want, it’s an object of longing and aversion. S I think that’s where, when you’re asking can these things be empowering, yes they can, but the empowerment comes with an understanding of the violence that carries over. Then I think the moral injury thing you see in some of Manmu’s work, for example the Danish cartoons, is that how does moral injury get understood by the state and by the communities that it represents, right. So the regionalism, just to return over and over again, to the ways in which the questions of sexuality are understood within India, I wouldn’t say South Asia because I am not familiar as much with locations outside India, is something which we need to be attentive to more and more. So the Goan, it’s not Catholic, its Goan, there are many kinds of, these are not Syrian Catholic these are not Keralites, these are Goans, right. So the relationship of Goa, the Portuguese colonial state, which had very different legislations around sexuality, around prostitution for example, I have not been thought about or understood at all, and I am not saying this simply to add to our knowledge of the world, so to speak, but what does it tell us about the ways in which we are reproducing those forms. So for example the 377 case, and the repeal, the cases that they did not write about are equally interesting, and this not a gesture to say oh I wish they or they were lax, but these were strategic choices. So for example, and I’ve written, about this about, many of the cases they didn’t talk about from the 1890s were cases involving Chamar communities, right who were accused of being brought up on charges of sodomy but they usually were cases that were around inter-Chamar violence or were staging religious communalism in its good fashioned version. So what would it mean to think about sexuality as being produced because of other conflicts not in spite of other conflicts. So its not simply by saying that sexuality is connected to all these issues, but rather it comes into play, it’s what Israel is doing right now, the pink washing we treat our homo’s very well, but screw the Palestinians. So that what we have to be careful around when we think about what kinds of progressive politics of representation we want to cross around, right is not that sexuality is connected, or what is it covering over as well. Right if we continue to just focus on, and I think that’s what you [Niranjan] were saying when you’re talking about homeless youth , etc., that when we privileged that variable what other things are lost in some ways. And I think this is something we have to, we live in a world where sexuality is being used by the state as a very very kind of reliable form of governmentality, and that’s a very dangerous place to be.

Mazzarella: So there’s the politics of injury, on one hand, which can under certain conditions serve to reaffirm varies kinds of moral orders, varies kinds of imagined communities, that’s one thing going on here. And then there’s the pragmatics of public attention, as well, and I think part of what we’re skirting around when we’re talking about mass publicity and representations and so forth, is both the political economy and, as it were, the sort of emotional economy of representation, right. So if we’re talking about India Today, for instance, the India Today covers, here is a series of attempts to forge iconic images which are underwritten by advertisers, so there is a political economy there of what can be done or not be done. But they are not directly images that are oriented towards achieving a certain kind of immediate incitement to do something or not do something, right. I mean they are more sort of images oriented towards organizing a certain kind of meaning, if you like.

Srivastava: Yeah I would say we don’t know, we don’t know, simply put, what that image does, it does certain things for me and you. For example, I mean Philip’s friend who said that, you know, this is wonderful that we have been represented in this manner, and of course, you know, we would offer certain kinds of criticisms. I mean at one level, of course I’d be critical of that, and another level, I’d say, I mean rather than me just simply saying let’s dismiss this, at one level I may do that, but at another level I want to ask Philip when they were saying to you that it’s wonderful that we are being represented in this main stream cinema as lead characters, obviously they had some sense that only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited, if I could put it that way. So I don’t know how to deal with it, how do you actually take consumerism seriously? Because I think the consequences of consumerism are utterly unpredictable. And I think part of my own discomfort is we have all been brought within certain kinds of understandings of what is politics, feminism etc. etc. What are other kind of politics and how should we examine it?

Arondekar: But Sanjay I am curious about why your are staging it as a binary. I mean, I think for me as a queer feminist, I would say what’s really exciting about this, this thing that, yeah, these representations are, you know, not the best but we’ll take them because at least they were there. But I think that’s, I mean, it’s not a place of contestation it’s a place of possibility I think for all of us.

Srivastava: Yeah, see, it’s not a binary, it’s just that I think it’s much more unpredictable what it does, I don’t know. And that’s why I think Philip’s friend, maybe you could say it, I mean these people were really excited that finally, we are there.

Kumar: It had to do with the hurt sentiment, Sanjay, because in the earlier movies whenever, and especially in Telugu movies, the regional movies that we have seen, the gay character was always beaten upon, you know, he was humiliated, he was joked upon, he was kicked, you know. And then suddenly they see that there is this characterization of gay in the Hindi movie, and they are being celebrated and film is a hit. So therefore that change I think, there were very happy and probably when we discuss deeper into this, this and that, this is a start and probably in the next 10-15 years we will actually see the main lead Hindi film heroes or the Telugu film heroes, right now they just can’t you know like Chiranjeev or Venkatesh, they just can’t do a role which is closer to that, they won’t touch it.

Srivastava: Twenty years from now we could have Rahulas our father figure [laughter].

Mazzarella: But, so Philip in your own work as consultant and so forth, to what extent are you drawn upon to advice on questions of representation, for instance.

Kumar: Well honestly, I am not into that, I am into the implementation of HIV work so…

Mazzarella: Right, but so what I am asking is because coming out on Niranjan’s point about public health representation, I mean now-a-days, it seems that any kind of intervention increasingly requires some kind theory of publicity, if you like, some kind of theory of how one would intervene into the public sphere of mass circulating images, so, to me…

Srivastava: Can I give an example, you know like in India right now, Promundo, you know Promundo? is pumping large amounts of money producing these images of men, good men wearing base ball caps saying I’m good husband etc. etc. And the other thing is, I want to mention that they’re using this GEM scale – Gender Equitable Men – so they have this elaborate quantitative measure of at what point do you become a man who is actually a good man. And these are all based around very specific visual representations, but also of science, and I am sure the NGOs that you are working with maybe use this and this GEM is the most bizarre, but there are huge amounts of money and very few NGOs in Bangladesh and other smaller countries can refuse this money, right. So, as Lawrence’s work shows, there are certain ways through which, so GEM comes with a visual representation of what is a good man and they’ve been borrowed from the Brazilian case, for example, the American case. And I am wondering if you are aware of that kind of work…

Arondekar: What would be a good gay?

Srivastava: Yeah, what would be it? Wearing a baseball cap… [laughter].

Kumar : A baseball cap is a big turn no-no, because the kind of region where I work in the coastal AP, you know, hardly people knew the word gay, you know like, I will tell you an example – we had this friend of ours who had come from Dubai to Vizag, Vizag was his hometown. And a couple of community members knew that he was, you know, like MSM, and as part of our intervention we always asked the MSM to assemble at a common place which is called the drop in center. So the invitation went to him, and he refused. So other people came back to me and said, you know, he is acting very funny he is a gay, just leave him. So you know, there is a big divide between the MSM or the poor self-identified men who are part of this intervention taking services, to a person who is like you know, and then a couple of months later he comes to me and he asks me if we can have another _______ only for gay, because he knows a couple of other men in Vizag who would not love to hang around with these people.

Schneider: It’s like we’re going to have two separate waiting rooms again for everybody. One of the things I want to finish on in the last few minutes of this session, is getting back to the biomedicalization of identity and so you know with HIV prevention and interventions and huge amounts of money that are going into developing biomedical pharmaceutical interventions, there is this focus on and this importance to their success, on what the behavior is and getting the identity right of the target population. So you know interventions are being developed for receptive-only men, interventions are being developed for insertive-only men, what happens when they do both. So the surveys that are being asked are critically important to getting this right. Now you know one other thing that I’ve been thinking about, is we’ve been doing surveys for years, for say 8 years, where there have been these terms of double-decker already established, and the percentages of the population, same population that categorizes themselves as kothi, panthi, double-decker is changing over time. And is that really a change in someone’s behavior you know the West importing this versatile double-decker sort of behavior, or is this just the behavior that has existed and is just being generated from the survey and kind of pushing into categories. And this is kind of at the crux, I mean there are a lot of dollars at stake in the biomedical world and, I don’t know….

Arondekar: John, can I just ask out of the ignorance really, is if you could give me an example of a differentiated biomedical intervention for a kothi and a panthi. Like, what would that translate out to? I can understand the representation of it, but in terms of biomedical, what would that mean?

Schneider: So physically like what is the product… So there is like anal microbicide, so anal microbicide would be a gel that a kothi could apply and would protect the kothi from penetrative act from someone who is positive. On the other, on the panthi side, it might be circumcision one day. Not something that might happen in India but that’s one other thing. Then for someone who is a double-decker or who does both, it would be just taking a pill, you know this thing called PrEP, pre exposure prophylaxis.

Arondekar: Oh interesting, but you wouldn’t advise them to use anal microbicide for… that’s why I was curious when you see these divisions, because if you’re saying on the one had that behavior is becoming fluid, then how does it affecting your distribution of biomedical preventive..

Schneider: Yeah so it’s not, I think HIV prevention is not going to be the previous “everybody wear a condom and that’s it” you know, this more specialized messaging, you know how the poster would look you know…

Karnik: But John can I point out something with that, I think it’s important to consider, you know, what we were talking about earlier in terms of, you know, there being an economical aspect of this. I mean I think it’s interesting that the array of options is increasing, and yet all of these options are, from my view, are very cost-prohibitive, you know especially for the target audience of this in India, where you know, yes there is a growing middle class, yes there’s more availability for them, but there is a huge number of people who don’t have those economic means. And I think actually one discussion that we haven’t really had in I think the public health discourse, and I owe this in some sense to my mentor Paula Treichler, who’s been writing on the history of condom for a long time, is how simple that technology is, right, how in some ways it’s a cheap effective intervention. And all these new ones, there is no discussion about, really I think about the relationship between these technologies. Its almost like we are creating a space for the new without sort of paying attention to the old, and how in some ways how elegant the old actually still is.

Michaels: Just one other thing here because the question, because you get too quickly to the biomedical, and one of the things that’s of concern in the public health arena is also, which gets back to the question of representation, is how do you have this discussion, how are audience is conceived. So that’s where these questions, I think, of behavior and identity come up. In the west, in the beginning, in terms of HIV studies, either you went to the homosexual population which you thought you knew what it was, where it was, and you just pull them in and you don’t ask what they are but you ask them all about their behaviors, and when you’re doing big national sex surveys trying to include everybody in the population, we were the first survey in the US to include a question about identity. Because it seemed obvious to me as a gay man that, yeah you want to know about people’s risk behavior and that’s what going to count in terms of infection, but if you want to communicate with them, in France at the same exact moment as that survey was being done, that was not a socially acceptable question and no scientist or person in the study, it wasn’t a polite conversation, and in the survey you don’t want to offend your respondent so there’s no identity question. But when you read the research done by the epidemiologists using that survey, they’re are basically wracking their brains about how to translate homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual behavior into categories because the next step is you have to communicate what your results are, and if you’re talking about using condoms or whatever it be, so this becomes a huge issue, and it is very fascinating to me trying to work on the India data to try to understand when these questions are asked in surveys in India, kothi, panthi , double-decker so on, it’s not clear what the question is, and its not clear to me whether people are understanding the question since there are so many meanings attached to each of these term. In a certain context that you would want to claim that category and in another context you wouldn’t. And we don’t always know when we go to try to understand what we found, what was really going on.

Cohen: One other concerns around the category of behavior, and I mean there is many things, and Anjali was eluding to them earlier, that as a social scientist of certain kind, one might be concerned with what do we call behavior, what do we not call behavior, but there is very simple reason why behavior is sometimes of concern. So one argument made for PrEP that is for pharmaceutical prophylaxis as opposed to condoms, is that, come on Niranjan, condoms have failed. And they’ve failed because its awful hard to change people’s behavior, because that’s what sex is, sex is a driving force, and because behavior has failed we need to turn to non-behavioral intervention – taking a pill. Now as decades of work on, for example, tuberculosis or many other disease, taking a pill is an exquisite form of, as anything is, of behavior. So the idea that there are certain things that are behavioral that involve condoms, and there are certain things that are not behavioral that involve pills, is becoming a central way in which PrEP is being driven. Whether you have a cynical view, which is to create profits and to increase the world in which people won’t have access, you know, given anything we know about the current health care structure of the world, or less cynically, that we do this because we care and we’re trying to sort of produce as many interventions as we can for as many people. But it’s very clear that taking a pill is as behavioral, so one of the problems about behavior is that it’s used in a very specific rhetorical way, and more and more under current conditions of pharmaceuticalization . The only thing I would say in answer to your earlier question John, is behavior, taking behavior for the moment as a more or less simple thing we understand, is behavior changing or is it just that the words are changing, I would say it’s probably both, not knowing yet, because it’s an empirical question. And I would say its probably both in the sense that there’ve been many scholars for a long long time in the history of AIDS and social sciences, and thinking of people from Ralph Bolton in anthropology to Don Kulik on this campus, and others who’ve long argued that not only are what people say and what people do really different, but that difference is really important to both their behavior and their identity. And it’s easy for an anthropologist who doesn’t like surveys as much to say, well sure, I mean, it’s really important to find other ways to get at what people are both saying and doing and how they relate to each other because there is a limit to surveys. And one of the question becomes, to the extent that that AIDS intervention is based primarily on survey-based research, that these deformations, that is the limitations of surveys, have been so built into what our knowledge is, that the question is how to we even begin to think about where the limits to epidemiological research matter, because it’s not simple say that there’s a limit to the method. That limit to the method have become central to how communities fight over resources.

Arondekar: Well there’s also a gender dimension to the consumption of the pill. When you say the pill its always, usually thought about as contraceptive, I mean I think that’s the interesting place to think about this as well.

Schneider: Great, so on that note, thank you everyone for this discussion. Now what we’re going to do right now is we’re going to take about a 25-30 minute intermission, and during this time ourselves we are going to generate questions amongst the panel, but we are also looking intently at the questions and comments that are being posted on the Facebook site as well as being tweeted in, and we also have an email address which I think is So please post your questions we are going to look at them take the best ones and discuss them in next session. Thank you.

Previous: Session 1, Part 1Next: Session 2, Part 1