Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

'Courageous Battles': popular terminology of illness

16:33 / 30.11.01

The George Harrison threads made reference to his means of passing: a "long, courageous battle with cancer" or somesuch. Not an uncommon way of reporting particular kinds of morbidity/mortality - a cliche, really - but it's got me thinking about what it actually means and why some illness situations merit this kind of terminology while others don't.

Cancer, for example, is often reported in martial terms, the plucky warrior waging a long campaign against the evil invader. Addictions are sometimes characterised in terms of ongoing struggle against "demons" - if, that is, one happens to be a celebrity; if not, they're more commonly seen as self-inflicted and reported much less sympathetically (especially if they're drugs other than alcohol). Celebrities, too, are prone to "nervous exhaustion" - doubtless the result of having to work so much harder than the rest of us - rather than drug-induced depressions, panic disorders or psychoses.

With which illnesses does one "battle"? When does one "succumb"? Which illnesses are invading forces and which are our own fault (if we're not famous)?

The Sinister Haiku Bureau

16:50 / 30.11.01

And what would constitue a 'cowardly' battle with cancer? Getting depressed about it? Euthenasia?

19:09 / 30.11.01

I'd assume it would involve being wheeled into the hospital while wailing, "Not in the face! Not in the face!"

But seriously, in addition to the martial imagery of dealing with cancer, how about the popluar idea that cancer paitents either are saintly, or must become so? I see this most often on the subject of breast cancer, or women with cancer in general. They are always "strong" or "brave", never yelling down the hall that unless they get another shot of morphine, they are going to start taking a baseball bat to random kneecaps. And are never pissed off about their condition. No, no, none of that, all those "negative" emotions are what made you sick in the first place, honey...

20:53 / 30.11.01

There's a Donna Haraway piece where she's talking about the conceptualization of the immune system as an 'army' - linking it in with the early Star Wars projects, and various other paranoid-military attempts at boundary control* of the political/medical body. She suggests a bunch of other metaphors for illness/health... I'll see if I can find the reference.

*Something similar actually happens historically with sanitary towel/tampon advertising and the conceptual vocabularies it draws on: around the time of Star Wars (the US military project, not the film) it gets all martial.

23:46 / 30.11.01

A more technically-able person than myself is bound, sooner or later, to link to the Onion's classic story about a man succumbing to cancer after a "short, cowardly battle"...

Goodness Gracious Meme

23:43 / 01.12.01

Good topic, lotsa places to go...

Did you read any of the John Diamond columns? Can't remember much about them offhand but the column as far as I know was a pretty unprecedented move... be interesting to see how they're written, as well as the responses to what he was doing... And know I've got a contemporaneous article, (from some lit/cultural studs mag I think) responding to the column as 'emotional pornography' that looks at the effect of its language..... When i'm back at home i'll dig out the ref...

Maybe it's interesting in general to look at how the 'suffers' articulate their situation... on which I'd thoroughly recommend "Silver lake Life: the view from here". IF you haven't seen it, it's a film by Tom Joslin and Michael Massi, which shows their lives (having been together for about 20years) from the point where they receive their HIV+ diagnoses to their deaths.... it's hard viewing but an incredible film.

Second the recommendation of the Sontag stuff.. also there's a goodish amount of stuff about cultural responses to AIDS/HIV out there... will try and post refs when i'm home...

Obvious point is the idea of 'innocent victims' of various diseases, which supposes that there are those whose 'suffering' is their own fault... this happens with AIDS/HIV but also seems to be in existence around discourses on responses to (child/sexual/physical) abuse...

Will think and hopefully be back...

Goodness Gracious Meme

23:57 / 01.12.01

Occurs to me that we hear almost nothing about lung cancer... presumably because they deserve it as it's linked so closely in our minds with smoking?

Also there's the whole issue of how diseases/conditions look... am tired but briefly i mean it's a lot easier to get people empathising/ have 'brave suffers' if the condition doesn't make them appear frightening/threatening/utterly unbearable to look at?

22:16 / 04.12.01

Curious. I have a friend who has cancer, and she seems to be barely acknowledging it at all. Not in a negative way, but in the sense that she's almost reduced it to the status of a no-account irritation.

And it's working.

It's not a battle. She won't even go out on the field. No surgery ('undignified') and no drugs. Just a careful check every now and again to make sure it doesn't grow.

And it doesn't.

Thing about all that martial imagery? People tend to imagine the cancer as a huge monster and all these little men attacking it. Much better, surely, to think of it as a tiny irritantk, barely worth considering, and sweeping it away with a dismissive flick of the hand...a fly, not a Godzilla.

No courageous battle here. Just good housekeeping.

13:51 / 05.12.01

That sounds like an excellent policy.

Stab of guilt: I actually run out of military metaphors everytime I write a medical piece - weapons in the arsenal against arthritis (drugs), footsoldiers in the battle against cancer (surgeons).
(Hi, Dao!)