Naming Diseases
Susan Sontag's Illness as metaphor and AIDS and its metaphors explores the psyche of the diseases Tuberculosis and Cancer in a way that psychoanalyzes the intentions of the disease. The idea of granting the disease power by naming it is incredibly interesting to me. Sontag paints both Cancer and TB in way where they seem semi sentient in their actions and traits. Tuberculosis is an inherently sexual and passionate disease while cancer is a disease of repressed emotions. it seems like each disease has its own personality and needs to be treated in its own special way.
How does the personification of these diseases contribute to the power that they have over people? If diagnoses of a disease were to not be shared with the patient, would that patient's ignorance contribute to their longevity? Can the metaphors and stereotypes ever be separated from the disease that they inhabit? If so, does that give them less power?
How does the personification of these diseases contribute to the power that they have over people? If diagnoses of a disease were to not be shared with the patient, would that patient's ignorance contribute to their longevity? Can the metaphors and stereotypes ever be separated from the disease that they inhabit? If so, does that give them less power?
The personification and stigmas that surround these diseases are what cause them to have so much power. There are so many different forms and variations of cancer, not each and every one is terminal, but somehow the name cancer has grouped them all together. As Sontag states, "When, not so many decades ago, learning that one had TB was tantamount to hearing a sentence of death- as today, in the popular imagination, cancer equals death- it was common to conceal the identity of their disease from tuberculars and, after they died, from their children" (pg. 7). This describes the stigma, the power that these diseases hold over people.
ReplyDeleteI think that hiding a disease from someone is immoral and ethically wrong. While it may hide the fear that accompanies these diseases, it is hiding something that is happening in someones body. I would be extremely angry if I was not told that I had something attempting to attack my body. In relation to that, while there are people who let fear take over with these diseases, there are an equal amount of people attempting to fight these diseases. If you don't know that you should be fighting, you can't. I think that it is too late for the stigma to disappear. And I do believe that the stigmas, metaphors, and stereotypes gives the disease power. But I believe that until there is a cure for cancer and people are sure that their bodies will not be under attack by it, cancer will have power.
As said by Jeilani above, by attaching "personality traits" to these diseases, stigmas are promoted and we give them power. This then allows for even just the name of a disease such as cancer to trigger a preconceived notion or idea about those who may have the disease. To personify these diseases is to remove the distant, textbook, fact-based description of each that makes some detached from the disease itself. I do think that hiding a diagnoses of a disease has the potential of having an impact on the patient. Negative or positive, I'm not sure- I can see both. I do think it's wrong and unfair to hide a serious diagnoses, but I can see where it might in turn help the patient. Irrational or extreme fears that may worsen the disease may be avoided. Still, I definitely see more negative effects coming out of this. This is one source of what giving the disease power means. By hiding its existence from the patient, one is already implying the inherent power the disease holds. This will continue to promote the stigmas and negative associations that are made with each individual disease. While the mentality of each patient is different, I do think hiding the disease from the patient can contribute the longevity of that disease. Stigmas have been set in place and at this point, I'm not sure if they can be broken down to a point where they have no effect on the patient or outsiders. With serious diseases such as cancer, until there is an accessible clear cut cure, the stigmas and power that surround it will remain alive. Still, I think we can try to do our best to separate metaphors and stereotypes from the disease they inhabit, thus diminishing their power.
ReplyDeleteNaming diseases do have a considerable impact and do contain power over people. Once someone knows they have cancer or any other highly fatal disease, it sparks a sense of fear because of the mortality rate of both of those diseases, especially for poor people. However, we have names for these diseases so that we can share them with the patient so that they know what’s happening in their body and so that doctors know to treat them. Not sharing the disease with the patient is highly unethical and their ignorance would contribute to how long they would live for, no treatment for cancer will end up in death. Removing stereotypes does essentially give diseases less power regarding how people view them socially??? So that’s the gag with that.
ReplyDeleteTo some extent, stigmatizing and judging are both natural human instincts. To cope with something difficult, such as a disease, or even to make a simple decision, humans tend to act in a cult-like manner. We want to make sense of something and so we attach seemingly hearty, meaningful, impacting characteristics to something. These characteristics shape our perspectives and can quickly become societal norms leaving the body of descriptions to only be seen in one light. In order to break apart the mysterious complexities of disease, we have categorized it into a variety of different names and adjectives, each of which call upon a range of responses. Like Sontag says, "any disease that is treated as a mystery and acutely enough feared will be felt to be morally, if not literally, contagious.... cancer patients find themselves shunned by relatives and friends and are the object of practices of decontamination by members of their household.." It is not necessarily the name that fuels the stigmas or the "decontamination practices," it is the way we choose to team-up and react to disease. Personally, I think it is imperative that we identify, define and name diseases to keep the public informed and aware. What we need to do as a society is work against the social patterns of history. TB and its intrusive, penetrative prowess, gained its reputation from the way people reacted to disease historically: confusion, disgust, rejection. We need to reshape the perspectives and shape them to be more supportive and progressive--as are the reactions when one breaks a bone. A new approach like this would build community and support rather than perpetuate the power the disease has over the people.
ReplyDeleteAs Jeilani and Mckenna talked about, naming a disease has contributed to the negative associations and stereotypes surrounding these diseases.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that information can in some form equal power. Knowing what is going on in your body and being educated on what that means can be a source of empowerment for some. To hide something with such importance is immoral and in my opinion seems like it can lead to some very dangerous repercussions.
I also believe that it can be difficult to remove a disease from the associations and connotations it carries. Cancer, for example, carries more than just the name, it carries stigma and shame. This does not mean that patients are better off not knowing what their body is attempting to fight, it means that it can make the fight a lot more emotionally draining.
I do not think the naming and spreading of information of these diseases is the problem, rather the publics quick response to group these diseases into categories and stigmatize them
I personally feel that the personification of these two diseases play a large part in bringing people down once they have been diagnosed. I've noticed this sense of doubt and sorrow especially with cancer. Because of how scary cancer is and how many lives it has taken, whenever we hear somebody has cancer the first conclusion many people may jump to is asking "what stage" and "how long does ___ have left". The personification of this disease has led many to give up hope once they are diagnosed and has made many extremely scared of it as well. If patients were not told what was wrong with them, I believe that this would cause a lot of stress and unwanted anxiety for the patient however I do think that in many cases the morale of the patient would be much better. I also do not think that stereotypes and metaphors can ever be separated from they're diseases because of how humans feed on these types of things. As well they are also ingrained into the way we think and go about things as a society.
ReplyDeleteI think that the personifications of cancer and TB provides a sense of power to these diseases in which the simple word can cause an intense emotion or reaction from a person. There is a significant difference between saying that a person has a “cold” or that a person has “cancer”. This significant difference is acknowledged simply when the word is said. It is impressive how much power a word has but it is also dangerous to the treatment of such diseases.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that it is morally or ethically right to withhold information regarding one’s health from themselves. It is imperative for someone whose life is in danger to know what is happening to their body and what the symptoms with be. I believe that knowledge is power. The knowledge of one’s personal health is powerful to how they will move forward with this information- whether it be treatment or nothing.
I do not think that the metaphors or stereotype surrounding certain diseases can ever be separated since they are already to ingrained in our minds. I think that if they were to be separated, the power would be taken away from the diseases but I am not sure that this is possible.
The dictionary definition of personification is the “attribution of a personal nature or human characteristic to something nonhuman,” so by personifying TB and cancer, society has quite literally brought the two diseases alive. Our metaphors and malicious associations with the diseases have made them out to be “shameful,” “demonic enemies” (57) with distinctive personalities and attributes that we should fear, and it has created a culture of denial and disgust. And by continuing to treat discussions about illness and disease with reluctance and mystery, we only perpetuate the metaphor.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second question, I am not sure whether the intentional refusal to share the diagnosis of a disease with a patient can be classifies as the patient’s “ignorance,” because one cannot ignore what one does not know one has, so a more accurate term would be “lack of knowledge.” To a certain extent, I thinking knowing exactly what one is up against can be empowering—once a person knows what disease they are fighting, they can adapt a certain mindset that could actually help them overcome their disease, whereas keeping them in the dark might encourage tendencies that worsen their condition and only allow them to live out their days without any degree of preparation. While some might say that ignorance is bliss, I do believe that it is better than one is aware of what is happening within the body, so that one can have time to react and come up with a plan.
I honestly do not know whether or not the metaphors and stereotypes can ever be separated from the diseases they describe. I hope that they can, so that the societal fear of cancer will lessen and so the discomfort around discussing this disease will, too. I wonder why we do not hold certain images of other diseases in our minds like we do of cancer (i.e. foodborne illnesses do not seem to project any metaphors), and how much of it has to do with the outward appearance of a disease.
I think the personification of these diseases contribute to the impact they have on people. They way Sontag describes these diseases are the traits many people immediately associate with them. These specific types of diseases negatively affect people emotionally, physical, psychologically and mentally because of how fatal they are. Not only do I think that giving these diseases personality traits perpetuate the negative stereotypes and reassure the fears in people, but it also puts them in a “human light” because these diseases carry a human strength. I know if I were diagnosed with one of these diseases, I would think of it as something attacking me, as a human or animal would, because what does it mean to have an intangible force attacking my body? I don’t think stigmatizing these diseases are a positive thing but I also think it is very natural to do so and because of that I don’t think it is beneficial at all to keep these diagnoses from patients, because keeping people in the dark is worse than giving them bad news in my opinion. Coping with diseases like this comes in many forms and is a very mental process. I don’t think withholding that information can prevent the stereotypes and associations because it’s something already ingrained in our minds. The best option is looking for ways to bring about positivity in a negative situation and build up from that whether than elongate a bad experience and remain stagnant.
ReplyDeleteSontag points to a passage in The Magic Mountain: “Symptoms of disease are nothing but a disguised manifestation of the power of love; and all disease is only love transformed” (Sontag, 21). This link between disease and passion first took me by surprise, even considering the spiritual aesthetics of tuberculosis. Disease=love?? This metaphor enhances the power of disease to the point where it seems uncontrollable. Love, like some cancer, is unpredictable; we don’t often choose it. Love seems absolute, especially as we refer to our family members and humanity in general (“Love thy neighbor”). Following the metaphor, disease, too, would be absolute. Those who believe and perpetuate this metaphor let go of any control they have over disease, let go perhaps like they would in bed with a lover.
ReplyDeleteDisease might also be linked to the power of love because tuberculosis is so contagious. Those infected—with tuberculosis and the presumed sexual drive—cannot fight love; they must interact with others, thus infecting others with their presence. This builds upon the rhetoric of love as “contagious”: love and disease, mixed together, result in death (and people powerless). Death is the price of this metaphor.
Lastly, these are “symptoms” of disease, not signs. We can’t verify these symptoms or their link to passion. Illnesses with more symptoms than signs (like depression) tend to be stigmatized because we can’t prove them. The symptoms are seen as weak and made up. In this case, however, the symptoms hold all the power. The metaphor of passion and feelings of inevitable death rule out over the evidence for cancer and tuberculosis (or how to cure them). Not only are the metaphors and personification rendering the sick doomed for life, but they also stir up the meanings of symptoms in other diseases. All this energy and power that goes into metaphors for symptoms actually devalues symptoms. [I’m still fleshing this thought out, though. So let’s explore it in class].
Interestingly enough the quote that I got on Friday pertains to this exact sentiment. Susan Sontag clearly wants to establish the point that illness cannot be compared to anything and any comparison looks to undermine the serious nature of illness and its effects. The quote I was given reads, "My subject is not physical illness itself but the uses of illness as a figure or metaphor. My point is that illness is not a metaphor, and that the most truthful way of regarding illness... is ... most resistant to, metaphoric thinking." (3) While reading this quote I kept thinking about the previous conversations we were having and how we wrote nearly thirty things that illness represents metaphorically. Through reading Sontag I realize how ignorant these comparisons in the grand scheme of things are. Illness is supposed to represent a struggle that is not able to be dealt with immediately. So the idea that gangs and trash and drugs are anywhere near all that "illness" encompasses is almost insulting. I want to apologize for my part in such association.
ReplyDeleteI think that naming a disease and the whole concept around stereotypes and emotions from a disease is quite interesting. I believe that when naming a disease, it gives people more power over the disease actually. When they name the disease they are able to have knowledge about something new. I also believe that stereotypes around disease could be very harmful and possibly even more harmful towards someone than the actual disease itself. Throwing stereotypes around makes the disease and process of recovery for each patient seem all the same. In reality, no one process or experience with disease is ever the same and even to assume so by means of stereotype is destructive to those that are currently battling against said disease.
ReplyDelete