The Rhetoric of Cancer: Reaction Paper

Probably what I found most interesting about the BBC podcast ‘Rhetoric of Cancer’ is the way Andrew Graystone used language as a framework in order to come to terms with his illness. Cancer is perhaps one of the most well-known, if not the most well-known, diseases in mainstream media; it has shown up countless times in films, novels, iconography, and in the lives of the most powerful politicians and the lowliest mendicants across space and history. However, even with this level of saturation, this podcast was the first time that I’d really heard anyone sit down and discuss the language of cancer.

This was especially interesting for me because, as an Anthropology major, I am trained to understand that language shapes a large part of our actions and interactions. Eric Wolf summed it up best in his theory of language shaping thought, which in turn shapes action; the terms we use influence how we understand the concepts referred to.  Thus, when Andrew Graystone expressed his concern with how so much of the rhetoric of cancer centered around military terms and associations, I ended up experiencing a kind of pseudo-lightbulb moment. It’s almost impossible to go through life being constantly aware and critical of our thoughts, words, and actions, but taking a moment to step back and look at what you are doing and how you are doing it can often lead to surprises, like what happened in this podcast.

One would think that the way we talk about cancer is a hundred percent medicine and science-centered, but Graystone was right in pointing out that we actually do use a lot of military terms in our discourse: you “battle” cancer, you are a cancer “survivor”, chemotherapy “attacks” cancer cells. This creates a kind of disassociation from cancer itself; it becomes a foreign body, rather than being part of your own. While this can help a person living with cancer in coming to terms with their illness and trying to get well, it can also, as Graystone said, lead to increased frustration and aggression when this “fight” against cancer fails. I also believe in the possibility that this might be culturally-bound; perhaps cancer in other cultures is not something to be fought against.

Basically, I found this podcast very interesting because it was an intersection of science and culture. It showed that science is not just something to be held at a distance and empirically observed, but is something that shapes and is shaped by culture and society.

2011-02507

Luisa Narciso