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.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS