To begin class today, I’d like you to pick one of the quotes below to respond to. First, explain what you think the quotation means—Why is it significant? Then, explain how you think it relates to the main claim of this essay—How does it support or elaborate on Sontag’s central argument?
▪ “Above all, [the metaphor of TB] was a way of affirming the value of being more conscious, more complex psychologically. Health becomes banal, even vulgar” (26).
▪ “In the nineteenth century, the notion that the disease fits the patient’s character, as the punishment fits the sinner, was replaced by the notion that it expresses character. It is a product of will” (43).
▪ “Nothing is more punitive than to give a disease a meaning—that meaning being invariably a moralistic one. Any important disease whose causality is murky, and for which treatment is ineffectual, tends to be awash in significance” (58).
▪ “To describe a phenomenon as a cancer is an incitement to violence. The use of cancer in political discourse encourages fatalism and justifies ‘severe’ measures—as well as strongly reinforcing the widespread notion that the disease is necessarily fatal. While disease metaphors are never innocent, it could be argued that the cancer metaphor is a worst case: implicitly genocidal” (83).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Nothing is more punitive than to give a disease a meaning -- that meaning being invariably a moralistic one. Any important disease whose causality is murky, and for which treatment is ineffectual, tends to be awash in significance" (58).
ReplyDeleteHere, Sontag suggests that in assigning meaning to a disease such as cancer, the patient suffers punitive consequences. Because cancer is such a "murky" widespread disease, and because it has no definite cure, it is viewed by society not only as a disease but as a ravaging monster, randomly and inexplicably attaching itself to whoever may "deserve" it.
For decades, cancer has been one of the world's most threatening medical dilemmas. It is so widespread, brought about by so many different factors, so incurable, and so deadly, that it is often viewed as one of the greatest evils in existence. Sontag explains, "Feelings about evil are projected onto a disease. And the disease (so enriched with meanings) is projected onto the world" (58).
So, a person with cancer is not viewed simply as someone with a disease, like a sufferer of shingles or appendicitis. A cancer patient is seen as someone who has been taken over by something dark and unconquerable. Especially after rigorous medical treatment, the cancer, rather than the humanity in these people becomes more visible than anything else.
In the nineteenth century disease was often characterized as relating directly to a person's character. People with TB were often thought of as having too much passion and desire. In this way TB became romanticized and it became seen as a refining disease. The disease made people thinner and their skin paler, which was a desired look at the time. Cancer on the other hand was viewed as a disease caused by repressed emotions. It ate people away from the inside and was not romanticized like TB had been. People with cancer were feared and shunned by society. In the early 20th century the onset of disease became viewed as being the "product of will." People who developed cancer were thought to inherently want to develop cancer. The cure was to possess the personal fortitude to refuse the disease.
ReplyDeleteThe quote regarding disease as "a product of will" was a relatively drastic change from the notion that the “disease fit the patient's character." This made disease seem like an almost completely different entity that challenged a person's well being and health. This transformed the disease into something that could easily be overcome as long as a person was willing to fight it. Without a fight, there was no chance of survival. This made the disease seem to not have much of a medical orientation but rather something that tested a person's willpower.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem the quote "where there's a will, there's a way" would fit in these circumstances because disease had become something that needed to be overcome through sheer determination rather than medical means. It seems to still be relevant to a certain extent today because people still "fight" cancer and they pass away after a long "battle" in which they eventually surrendered. They lost the willpower to fight and to stay alive.
Regarding Sontag’s main argument, although this seems to be somewhat of a better perception than the past, it still needs improvement. We need to try to be turning away from disease being because of a person’s character or determination but rather a medical entity that is what it is. People can “fight” cancer but ultimately, it is something that people succumb to in the end. People need to work to better understand what a significant disease is, like cancer, in order to stop putting taboos on these large diseases to create compassion and sympathy for those who are affected by the disease. Understanding will lead to a more empathetic view of each disease.
The quote on page 43 expresses Sontag's ideas about illness becoming a metaphor in society. This metaphor has changed throughout time, and is different for each type of illness. Sickness was originally thought of as a punishment from the Gods on the person for doing something wrong. Good health was a sign of a good, honest life. However, in considering diseases like TB, the opposite has found its way into our thoughts.
ReplyDeleteSontag continually describes TB as the disease of passion, a disease fit for a main character in a play, etc. So, this notion that the disease expresses character supports Sontag's argument that TB is a disease "of sensitive, passive people who are not quite life-loving enough to survive (25)." The passiveness of the person describes their character, and this in turn is the reason they have been struck by the disease. It is because of the person’s lack of will of life does the disease take over their body and mind.
The significance of Sontag’s views here is that a disease is a reflection of the person who contracted the disease. Blame is placed for the disease and it becomes both a reflection and inherent element of the character of the person that contracted it. This makes implies that the disease was somehow caused by the person, that because of some sort of weakness or strength they contracted cancer or TB and the reason you catch one over the other has to do with some sort of inherent quality about the person. The following logic is that they deserve that which they contract and that the ailment which manifests them is not only a product of their character but becomes a trait of that character, differentiating romantic intellectuals from the “other” people who are unfortunate enough to contract the far less glamorous cancer.
ReplyDeleteThis relates to the main aim of Sontag’s essay by providing yet another way to explicate her claims. She insists that TB is seen as a disease almost “earned” by those of proper will and character and that it is either a sexy, romanticized disease, or a pure, angelic one. Cancer, on the hand, does not carry these connotations, or “metaphors,” as Sontag calls them and is bestowed unfortunately upon those who were simply not up to the task of contracting TB. Cancer patients were never revered for their drug-like states of clarity and delirium, because all they do is get progressively sicker before they die. Sontag ultimately argues that these connotations, these metaphors, that create harmful social stigma, are harmful not only to the public good, but to the collective public ethic. Sontag, then, writes a critique of a culture she believes has “large insufficiencies” and disrespectful attitudes toward death and the disease that, she believes, will lead to even greater cultural ills down the road.
~my comment was in response to the second quote~
ReplyDeleteSontag’s quote, “Above all, [the metaphor of TB] was a way of affirming the value of being more conscious, more complex psychologically. Health becomes banal, even vulgar.” describes how TB was looked at by the common person and how it changed peoples’ perception of disease during the time (26). One of Sontag’s main claims is how TB differs from that of cancer and how the disease was seen as a great way to die. When someone came down with TB, it was often thought to have been caused by some kind of extreme passion. In this regard, TB was looked at as a “romantic” disease and a “lyrical” kind of death (20). Cancer is seen as the opposite, a disease where “you just give up, you resign, and then you shrink” (23). This quote also comments on how both disease where often believed to be contracted by some kind of psychological problem or difference, which further effected one psychologically. Both diseases were seen as being contracted through the effects of one’s self.
ReplyDelete“To describe a phenomenon as a cancer is an incitement to violence. The use of cancer in political discourse encourages fatalism and justifies ‘severe’ measures—as well as strongly reinforcing the widespread notion that the disease is necessarily fatal. While disease metaphors are never innocent, it could be argued that the cancer metaphor is a worst case: implicitly genocidal” (83).
ReplyDeleteCancer as a metaphor symbolizes something awful; however, I agree with the idea that it will not always be this way. As TB became more widespread, it took on desirable, almost glamorous meaning. People with TB were considered more interesting. Today, cancer is thought of as violent, fatal, and ravaging. It is also a fairly recent disease, so as some of the mysteriousness of it is alleviated; the metaphors behind caner may change.
In relation to Sontag’s central argument against the use of illnesses as metaphors, the strong metaphors behind cancer only promote its fatality and violence. We may use these metaphors to try to explain away the mysteriousness of cancer, but doing this only worsens the preconceived notions people have of caner.
In the final quote about cancer and political discourse, the use of warfare-like words often creates some sort of crusade against cancer. It makes sense then that the use of the cancer metaphor has been used to justify severe measures against certain political ideals in society. The idea of how cancer is an “alien” and “foreign entity” that has invaded the body is comparable to how political views and ideals seem to spread and according to opponents poison society. Susan Sontag states that cancer is a particularly good metaphor for those who need to turn campaigns into crusades. By seeing cancer as evil, the metaphor associates all things evil with cancer. Yet, there is no justification in calling cancer evil, only mysterious. It is the mystery that incites people, the idea that because there is no explanation, cancer itself must harbor some evil. That brings Sontag to her second point in the quote, where because the disease is fatal, the only countermeasure is a counterattack. Hence, the warfare rhetoric directly influences how people see the fight against cancer, and thus, indirectly, the political discourse in society.
ReplyDelete“To describe a phenomenon as a cancer is an incitement to violence. The use of cancer in political discourse encourages fatalism and justifies ‘severe’ measures – as well as strongly reinforcing the widespread notion that the disease is necessarily fatal. While disease metaphors are never innocent, it could be argued that the cancer metaphor is a worst case: implicitly genocidal” (83).
ReplyDeleteHere, as throughout the essay, Sontag is commenting upon the social construction of disease and how it interacts with other social constructs – in this case, cancer and its perceptions in society and how this can be imposed as a metaphor upon the concept of genocide. Up to this point, she has carefully constructed the ways in which cancer is socially understood as a violent disease and is often described using militaristic terms; the mysterious disease is an unwelcome intruder to the body, deserving of strong defensive, if not often offensive responses which in turn invade the body, killing off bad and good cells alike. This use of destructive imagery is now widely used and understood. Not only is this imagery a response to social understandings of disease, but the imagery itself comes to shape social understandings. The repeated use of violent and militaristic imagery has come to create even more widespread fear of the disease. This can be used as a tool, then, to incite fear of other things, as Sontag points to in this quote. Here, she is speaking specifically about the Nazi use of cancer as a metaphor for the Jews during the Holocaust – because cancer already held such strong social connotations of fear, violence, and a need for elimination, it caused fear of and violence toward the Jews when used in this way. In this way, cancer is much more than simply a type of disease which affects individuals; it is a metaphor, filled with paradox and irony, and, more importantly, a social construct, shaped by perceptions of the disease and holding power to shape ideas and feelings far removed from the disease itself.
This quotation (the first one) refers to all the assumptions that are connected to TB. It refers to the idea that those who got TB fit a certain mold. They were passionate and artsy. TB victims were glorified and this section of text illustrates that. When Sontag says this she is touching on the idea that disease was more interesting than health. Disease became the culture. It was not only accepted, but people strove to achieve it. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it became chic to look thin and pale. As a person who appeared ill, you were more interesting, vulnerable, and attractive than ever before. This exert is essential to Sontag’s argument in that it both depicts the clichés of this disease and it shows a contrast between them and the clichés of cancer. While she does not mention cancer in this particular part of the essay, she does make it clear prior to this point that the metaphors and connections to TB and culture are vastly different than those of cancer and culture. When she speaks of health becoming “vulgar” it is only in reference to TB. This quote backs up her idea that while both diseases have a cultural taboo but also have enormously different impacts.
ReplyDeleteThe second quote is referring to a change in the way disease was viewed. Before the 19th century, disease was perceived to be like a punishment, a consequence for poor behavior or character. This perception shifted to become the belief that disease is an expression of character. Sontag discusses this in reference to TB and cancer. She says that the stereotypical TB patient was passionate, and the disease was romanticized, while cancer would be fitting for a patient who suppresses emotion.
ReplyDeleteI think that these perceptions are very harmful, which is also the point that Sontag is making. Both the beliefs that disease fits character and that disease is an expression of character put blame on the patient, making them feel guilty and inadequate. This should not be the case as a patient is never solely to blame for their condition, and in many types of diseases has no control whatsoever of contracting the disease. The last thing a patient needs when faced with a difficult diagnosis is to be made to feel guilty or responsible for it.
Sontag quotes Katherine Mansfield on page 47, in a passage where Mansfield is discussing her illness on a particular day and blaming her deteriorating condition on her uncontrolled mind. She says “I must heal my Self before I will be well,” implying that her thoughts or some mental defect is responsible for her illness. While illness is often a test of character and can lead to personal strength, this is through strength of character in the face of a challenge, not a lack of strength leading to illness.
“Nothing is more punitive than to give a disease a meaning—that meaning being invariably a moralistic one. Any important disease whose causality is murky, and for which treatment is ineffectual, tends to be awash in significance” (58).
ReplyDeleteIn this quote, Sontag states that the worst punishment that can be given to patients suffering from a certain disease like cancer or TB is to give that disease a meaning. She is saying that a disease that has no definite cause or treatment is morphed into more than an understood disease like the flu. It becomes an unknown that is attacking people at random.
Sontag says that this characterization of a disease changes how patients are seen if they have the disease. A cancer patient is no longer just another human. They are a human with some mysterious force attacking part of their body. When a disease is given a meaning, that meaning becomes more important than anything else pertaining to the disease whether it is true of all cases or not.
“Above all, [the metaphor of TB] was a way of affirming the value of being more conscious, more complex psychologically. Health becomes banal, even vulgar” (26).
ReplyDeleteWith this short quote on page 24 of her work on illness and its metaphors, Susan Sontag stated explicitly what she had already described in great detail: society’s skewed perception of the greatest illness of the 19th century. As she explained, TB was a disease that ravaged the ill’s body, destroyed the lungs, emitted a distinctively bad stench, and ultimately liquefied the living in phlegm and mucus until those living were the dead. It was a disease seemingly bred in bad environments; environments characteristic of the poor. However, as this quote on page 26 notes, TB was not perceived as such. Instead of being viewed as an illness of the poor or the lower classes, TB, because of its misleading symptoms and the ignorance surrounding it at the time, was romanticized into the illness of the wealthy and passionate, or more aptly, the refined. With the example of TB and this quote, Sontag strengthened her overall argument that when examined, the metaphors of illness never stem from a “cliché” rooted in truth or knowledge. For instance, because the deceiving symptoms of TB gave the illusion of sexual and emotional vitality, many attributed the cause of the disease to a passionate nature. It was a disease caused by an excess of emotions that simply could not be held in constraint, and thus, manifested themselves through TB. While cancer was perceived as a disease of the sexually and emotionally repressed, TB was seen as a sign of those very much in touch with and alive in their sexuality and feelings; those refined enough to feel depths of desire and emotion others could not. And because TB “galloped toward death” instead of progressing to that ultimate end in horribly prolonged steps (such as cancer), those infected with TB died more “refined deaths”. Those with TB died with resignation, a very delicate emotion, and hence, showed their refinement in ways even beyond their pale skin, in-turned bodies, and gently hacking coughs. Thus, the example Sontag employed of TB is a perfect illustration of the contradictions and false perceptions metaphors of diseases lead to; for, while TB was most certainly a disease of the weak and very often poor, and a disease of those about to die (thus those not really “living”), it was seen as an illness of refinement and passionate life.
“Nothing is more punitive than to give a disease a meaning – that meaning being invariably a moralistic one. Any important disease whose causality is murky, and for which treatment is ineffectual, tends to be awash in significance.”
ReplyDeleteSontag uses this quote to explain the reasons behind the myths and metaphors around diseases, particularly TB and cancer. Each was considered in its time (TB in the 18th and 19th centuries and cancer today) to be completely mysterious. Sontag is describing how people that saw these diseases and their “ineffectual treatments” and tried to explain away their bafflement by writing the causes off on the morals of the person that contracted it. They were unable to explain the disease scientifically, so it must have an unscientific reason.
This fits into her larger argument that metaphors of diseases are unhealthy, because they convince people it is their own fault they are ill and oftentimes prevents them from seeking a cure. If someone with cancer believes they have it because they were not passionate enough in life or some such reason, it logically follows that there is no scientific treatment. Sontag tries to end this trend by illuminating the illogical reasons behind it.