UNAIDS’ latest report on the global HIV pandemic features a bold title: “How AIDS Changed Everything.” The 500-page report almost lives up to its promise; it covers almost everything from patent law, to gender dynamics, to orphan care. In a new paper published in Population, I add to this list of everythings. I demonstrate how, in the context of Malawi’s generalized epidemic, AIDS has altered religious messages about family life — divorce in particular — not within one particular religious group but across all five of the country’s major religious traditions.
This project started in response to a puzzle. As AIDS-related illness and mortality became more severe in Malawi, popular attitudes about divorce simultaneously shifted. Starting in 2001, the acceptability of a woman divorcing an unfaithful husband was high (over 75%) and rising, while support for a woman divorcing an infected husband was low (only 30%) and declining. I found a similar paradox among religious leaders of over a dozen traditions; most were actively supporting women who wanted to divorce unfaithful husbands in order to protect themselves from HIV, saying things like: “She should leave him; he could kill her.” But these same religious leaders were simultaneously railing against anyone in their congregation who might leave a spouse he or she suspected to be HIV positive.
Why would it be okay to leave an unfaithful spouse but imperative to stay with a partner who had already contracted HIV? The answer lies in an argument I’ve made elsewhere: that religious leaders are more pragmatic than they are dogmatic.
In 2005 in Malawi, religious leaders in even the most rural communities knew that about 15% of their adult members were living with HIV; many congregants were sick, and friends were dying at an astounding rate. Local religious congregations were coordinating efforts to provide these members with care (e.g., assistance with household chores, essentials like food and water) and cheer (e.g., songs, prayers, and other efforts to stave off loneliness and depression). Sheikhs, pastors, and priests were officiating six funerals in a typical month — sometimes as many as 12. HIV tests were difficult to access, and almost nobody had access to anti-retroviral medications. They were living amidst a plague and adapting to the particular realities of this new disease as they understood it.
During this period, teachings on divorce were being adjusted, if not transformed, in service of two goals: protecting those who were ill and limiting the spread of the disease. What emerged in the early 2000s was a new doctrine, which I call the “window of opportunity.” This perspective provided for a religiously legitimate divorce after known infidelity but before infection, because “Who are you going to leave him with? Who would take care of him?”
In weekly sermons and khutbahs, Christian and Muslim leaders were framing the task of caring for the sick as a mandate and characterizing the abandonment of a sick person as a great evil. Prohibiting members from leaving infected spouses was further intended to limit the spread of HIV in the community. Think of this as a local public health initiative to contain infections. “This is exactly how the disease spreads!” exclaimed one of the leaders I quote in the paper. His logic was that in the wake of a divorce, one or both spouses would re-partner, infecting others in the community. Given that condom use remains low in Malawi and remarriage rates after widowhood or divorce are high, this attempt to keep (presumed) positive-positive unions intact was not altogether misguided. Finally, in contrast to Western sensibilities, leaders were publicly frank about the ultimate implication of the window of opportunity — for husbands and wives to die together. “If your wife is becoming thin, you yourself shall be thin soon. What you should do is live together as husband and wife. God will judge.”
My approach to this puzzle is atypical of the dominant trend in population research in two ways. First, I ignore the official positions of governing religious bodies like the Vatican, because I see these as more distant from daily life than congregational norms, teachings, and interactions. Instead, I paint a picture of how local religious and lay perspectives on marriage, divorce, and caregiving are lived and expressed within Malawian villages and congregations. Second, rather than examining how religious teachings influence members’ sexual behavior, I reversed the causal arrow to examine how organized religion, at the congregational level, has responded to one of the most devastating global health threats of our time. To the extent that AIDS has changed everything, this everything has included religious life.
Trinitapoli, Jenny. 2009. “Religious Teachings and Influences on the ABCs of HIV Prevention in Malawi.” Social Science and Medicine 69(2):199–209.
Trinitapoli, Jenny. 2015. “AIDS and Religious Life in Malawi: Rethinking How Population Dynamics Shape Culture.” Population-e 70 (2): 245-272.
Trinitapoli, Jenny and Alexander A. Weinreb. 2012. Religion and AIDS in Africa. New York: Oxford University Press.
UNAIDS. 2015. “How AIDS Changed Everything.” http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2015/MDG6_15years-15lessonsfromtheAIDSresponse