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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath