On BBC’s “Rhetoric of Cancer”

          In the BBC The Documentary’s episode, “The Rhetoric of Cancer,” Andrew Graystone, a man diagnosed with cancer, explores the connotations of militaristic metaphors used to describe cancer and its treatments. Graystone didn’t feel comfortable with the use of military words like “battle,” “fight against,” and “victim” in describing cancer treatments because he isn’t the “type to fight cancer.” He sees cancer cells as a part of his body that just so happen to be dangerous, and as such he must “treat them with hospitality” and “try to love them.” He thus talks to various people in the pursuit of more accurate metaphors that can be used for cancer patients who don’t feel the need to “fight” a part of them, but who want to “live alongside” the disease.

          On one hand, I appreciated the insight about the negative connotation of militaristic metaphors. It came to my attention that not all cancer patients feel the need to be aggressive towards their disease; rather, there are those who are more at peace with their condition and would rather “live alongside” the disease. It seems that militaristic terms upset some patients because they feel pressured to battle something that they don’t feel like they can or should.

Also, I guess Graystone is trying to change our perspective towards cancer as our “enemy;” After watching this documentary, I, for one, have opened my mind to the image of cancer as a condition that is something we should accept while treating. I understand that instead of being a villain, cancer may be an improperly played note in the “symphony of cells,” so we don’t have to be angry at its existence. Simply put, if one has cancer, one doesn’t have to hate his body and feel wrath against his fate; rather, one should try to accept what has happened.

Nevertheless, I somehow support the use of military language for cancer treatments. First, “fighting against cancer” doesn’t always have to mean aggressive physical treatments- it can also be about emotionally fighting the disease, as in doing one’s best to overcome sadness due to one’s condition. Second, militaristic language can sincerely respect cancer patients for their courage in dealing with the disease; “survivor” or “victor” is an apt title for a person who has gone through a challenge, which doesn’t necessarily have to be “evil.” It can boost the morale of those facing cancer by calling them noble. Third, I agree that personifying cancer with words has been helpful in gaining funds for cancer research. Although it isn’t evil, many have died because of this illness; using military language emphasizes the gravity of the situation and the urgency for a cure. Fourth, as Michael Overduin (an interviewee in the episode) affirmed, militaristic words are easily understood terms for what drug molecules/ proteins really do- hitting target cancer cells.

Militaristic language has both positive and negative connotations, depending on the experiences and outlook of the person you’re talking to. “Rhetoric of Cancer” is a reminder that cancer patients face various emotional struggles and thus have different reactions to our references to their conditions; it is definitely a wakeup call for us to be sensitive when talking to them.

Darla Bautista 2013-14467