Ian Sample’s article, which highlights David Hauser and Norbert Schwarz’s research on how healthy volunteers think of cancer after reading accounts of people with cancer featured as war metaphors, journey metaphors or no metaphors at all, is an interesting and thought-provoking read (“War on cancer’ metaphors may harm patients, research shows,” Aug. 16, page 9).
Hauser and Schwarz found that respondents reading war metaphors rate cancer treatment as more difficult than respondents reading journey metaphors or no metaphors at all.
The article highlights that the negative impacts of war metaphors include making people lose a sense of self-control on preventive behavior to reduce the risk of cancer. It also places a psychological burden on people, as cancer patients feel they need to put on a brave face at all times to remain a heroic image. For patients of terminal cancers, they might feel guilty for not trying hard enough.
However, there are some benefits of war metaphors that Hauser and Schwarz’s research did not identify.
Elena Semino’s article “The online use of violence and journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals: a mixed method” found that war metaphor is useful at a collective level to motivate a group of people to do something, which also illuminates why war metaphor is commonly used for fundraising purposes.
The image of fighting for the same goal with a group of comrades also helps war metaphors work better at a collective level.
Semino’s research also found the journey metaphors spark different responses in cancer patients’ minds. Some feel positive for having a sense of purpose in planning the journey.
Cancer stops being a suffering when it has a purpose in people’s lives. However, some still feel negative for having a reluctant journey to hell.
However, certainly, as Semino indicated, everyone is different. Everyone resonates with or reacts to different metaphors in different ways. Patients need to find a metaphor that motivates, inspires or encourages themselves. It also has implications for health professionals when they communicate with different people.
It is interesting to note that David Berger associates the use of war metaphors with Western culture. According to Berger, Westerners tend to think dying before your time as unjust and people need to fight injustice.
In Taiwan, a popular narrative of cancer is that having cancer simply means you have to change something in your life, such as diet, exercise, making time for more rest and getting rid of pressure.
This narrative can be found in the book The Secret to Healing Cancer by psychiatrist Hsu Tien-Sheng (許添盛), which won a “good book for health” award from the Ministry of Health and Welfare.
According to Hsu, cancer and all illnesses are manifestations of inner problems that disrupt the immune system. To heal, people need to reinstate the balance between themselves and the environment. Instead of viewing cancer as a war to be fought or a journey with ups and downs, Hsu views cancer as an opportunity for people to change their lives.
This narrative somehow highlights the aspects of acceptance, placidity and recovery that are underscored in the war metaphors.
It also reflects Eastern cultures’ emphasis on staying at peace and in harmony with whatever happened in your life.
In addition to different metaphors, presenting cancer descriptions in humorous ways might help to ease cancer patients’ pressure.
For example, to have a long life, simply have cancer and learn to live with it! This wry presentation tones down the heaviness and uncertainty brought about by cancer or any other disease by emphasizing living and growing with it.
As a side note, the following quote that appeared in Sample’s article has a deficit: “People use these [war] metaphors thinking they have a beneficial impact, or at least no negative impact, but nobody has actually studied it.”
Apparently, this interesting topic has attracted researchers’ attention before and there are other research findings available as aforementioned to complement Hauser and Schwarz’s.
Wang Ching-ning is a medical information analyst and independent researcher.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS