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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS