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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS