The year was 2000. A group of black youths about sixteen years of age, most of them self-professed Christians, answered my question about how they saw the AIDS epidemic in their community, a mining town just south of Johannesburg, by invoking HIV infectivity rates of more than 95 percent. They were confident about the numbers, and they did not evidence even the slightest doubt about the viral etiology of AIDS.1 They prophesied death for all the infected. I was astonished, horrified, and skeptical. "But this means that everyone shall die," I remarked, incredulously. "Yes," they said. "Everyone will die."2

This is probably the most epidemiologically well-surveyed community in southern Africa, given the twin facts that migrant labor forms its center and that migrant labor is considered the primary vector of most HIV transmission in the sub-Saharan region. At the time of the interview, levels for HIV infection in this group's age cohort ranged from 2 percent for boys and 13 percent for girls fifteen years of age, to 35 percent for men and 68 percent of women twenty-five years of age. The overall community average was estimated at about 28 percent, although there are competing assessments that put the rates as high as 41 percent.3 The rate of HIV infection was, in short, astronomical, and it betokened a future of enormous suffering and grief. But even in the worst instances, the prevalence rates did not approach those invoked by the youths with whom I spoke.

Two questions immediately demand attention in this context, each more urgent than the other: What is the source of the inflation, by which an already bad epidemiological profile comes to be translated into the prophecy of an absolute catastrophe? And how does this inflationary translation affect the capacity of those who believe such statistics to orient themselves toward a future horizon? In short, what does it mean for those who only recently have been recognized as the bearers of political subjectivity? I return to this latter question toward the end of this essay. In the interim, I explore some of the issues that attend this inflationary discourse, and its relationship to other kinds of inflation. I shall suggest that one of the mechanisms by which this predicament is surmounted, or at least accommodated, is by subjecting inflation to calculation, and by thus converting a panic into the possibility of value and even, as I hope to show, a rush. This process of actuarialization is afflicted by contradictions and subjects the youth and others in the communities visited by HIV in South Africa (and elsewhere, no doubt) to a brutal double bind. In many ways it promises to stabilize everyday life and to offer individuals a means of appropriating agency, as well as to experience the vitalizing affect of hope. At the same time, it entails an often violent, if also value-producing, differentiation between those whose futures fall under the pall of HIV and those who, fortunately, will escape its effects. In what follows, I consider the emerging dialectic between panic and rush (rush and panic) as it takes hold in the changing landscape of epidemic South Africa. Before proceeding further, however, I want to return to the youths who expressed this seemingly inexpressible anticipation of mortality.

Surprisingly, I think, the faces of these young men and women, newly liberated for a future that is far less certain than the teleologies of either anticolonial nationalism or socialist transnationalism could have predicted, did not belie either fear or grief. But I would not invoke the word resignation to describe their demeanor, either. And though some of the townsfolk were, at the time, proffering fantastical visions of apocalyptic ends, with rapturous escapes for the believers, these youths did not. Perhaps, we can say, they had adapted themselves, in the sense given that word by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, to what they believed was their predicament.4 But let us not rush forward to that conclusion just yet.

The community these young people inhabit is a mining town famous for the deepest gold mines in the world, famous also for its spectacular accidents, including deep mine floods and explosions, as well as surface sinkholes, the latter having destroyed houses, industrial plants, and an occasional recreational facility over the years. In the summer of 2007, the town saw one of the largest but also least deadly accidents in the history of mining, when more than three thousand miners were trapped underground after a collapse. But there have been accidents in which dozens and even hundreds have died. Like most mining towns in South Africa, it is a scene of transience, a considerable portion of the workforce being migrant labor — from within and without South Africa, the latter coming mainly from Lesotho and Mozambique.5 Like most mining towns in South Africa, it has been liberated from the formal divisions that attended both the Group Areas Act and the hostel system. And, like most mining towns, it nonetheless remains deeply marked by these legal and institutional structures. Indeed, 25 percent of the population continues to reside in mine hostels or in mine-owned compounds.6 Migrant labor, though diminished in scope and significance, continues to dominate the local economy. And there are still hostels, largely organized on the basis of ethnolinguistic affiliation, even today.

The municipality was newly renamed Merafong (Sesotho for "place of mines") in 2000, and in 2005 was transferred from Gauteng Province to Northwest Province in a much-contested act of redistricting.7 It is dominated by the less populous white town of Carletonville (and a few similar but smaller hamlets, most notably Fochville), the broad boulevards of which are lined with handsome trees, neat bungalows, well-endowed churches, and modern facilities — including parks, shopping centers, and health clinics. Its largest township, Khutsong (an ironic name, meaning "place of relaxation"), is located across the proverbial railway track: an unevenly developed township marked by relative and often severe pov- erty.8 Some sections of Khutsong, those originally erected to house professionals and government workers, have reasonable roads, electricity, and plumbing. Recent construction by the state-financed Reconstruction and Development Program has added two- and three-room brick houses for those who previously resided in shacks on the larger properties or in squatter settlements on nearby farmland.9 But much of the township remains unpaved; sewerage, an especially volatile political issue for more than two decades, still runs in open ditches in some areas. And while many houses have electricity, it is by no means universal. The informal settlement that has accreted to the periphery of the township is a knot of tin and cardboard shacks laced together with wire and cobbled into masses rather than neighborhoods. These communities have limited electricity, no running water, and no sewerage facilities beyond pit latrines. Fewer than 20,000 people live in the historically white town; the population in the black township and the informal settlement now exceeds 200,000, and in the last census, it had the highest number of wards with the highest rates of poverty in the province (then Gauteng).

The local government, long a mainstay of the conservative National Party, was entirely dominated by the African National Congress (ANC) until recent boycotts, following a dispute over the redemarcation process, effectively rendered the community without formal representation in the electoral system.10 There has been considerable movement since 1994 in the racial profile of schoolchildren in the white part of town. Black ownership of real estate has inched upward, as has the black share in the mining companies that continue to dominate the local economy, the latter enforced through a Black Economic Empowerment initiative.11 Still, the signs of apartheid are legible everywhere — less as historical traces than as inherited dispositions that manifest themselves in bodily gesture, verbalized consciousness, the order of the landscape, and the specific racialization of class.

- - - - -

The youths with whom I met in a local high school on that blue-skied day did not speak in a manner that appeared in any way exceptional. Similarly catastrophic profiles were often proffered to me in conversations, and if, upon my questioning of these fantastic estimates, individuals replaced their more extreme assessments with more sober ones (undoubtedly because they inferred this to be my desire), it was clear that, on some level of habitual consciousness, such extremities were indeed assumed. They constituted the intuition of what would soon begin to emerge as the object of overt and overtly interested discourse — let us call it the intuition of an actuarial unconscious. But these extremes also constituted the basis for demanding that the terms of the language game be changed,12 in order that a different set of demands be brought to the fore — those oriented not toward the transformation of personal behavior and cultural practice,13 but toward the amelioration of economic conditions in which unemployment is as pressing as it is epidemic. The simultaneous assumption and disavowal of a future catastrophe was expressed when young men resisted questions about AIDS with justly acidic rebukes. One could condense them thus: without a job and, hence, without food or shelter, everyone is going to die anyway, so perhaps the foreign researchers should focus on jobs instead of AIDS.

There are other idioms for articulating this sentiment: "You are saving us for dying. We want to make a living." These haunting words from a haunted young man were spoken at a now-defunct experimental bakery in Khutsong, where the goal was to provide "daily bread" to those who lack means. Let us not turn away from the metaphoricity of such statements, or from their invitation to read beyond the obvious question of need. We are asked here to think of the difference between a living and a life. Verily Heideggerian in its implications, this simple play effects a potent and powerfully critical juxtaposition, undertaken from within the linguistic repertoire of a multiply inflected English. It is an appropriation and a deployment of a linguistic contradiction within an emergent (and still far from generalized) actuarial discourse, which calculates risk and assigns monetary value to a life by estimating the likely time of its expiry.