Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors by Susan Sontag

Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors Reviews

• 
  KamRun

  آپدیت: مدتی بعد از خواندن این کتاب،
  سوزان سانتاگ در جدال با مرگ نوشته‌ی فرزند سانتاگ را خواندم که به نوعی تمام مطالب این کتاب را به چالشی جدی می‌کشید. به‌سختی قابل باور است که نویسنده‌ای که منتقد سرسخت هرگونه کاربرد استعاری از بیماری بود، خودش روزی بگوید: "بیماری به مثابه‌ی استعاره... لوسمی تنها مرگ روشن و بی‌پیرایه‌ای از سرطان است که می‌توان درباره‌اش خیال‌پردازی کرد". از این رو مطلبی در ارتباط با این موضوع در پی‌نوشت دوم، پاورقیِ این ریویو کرده‌ام
  
  درباره‌ی کتاب
  
  کتاب در واقع دو رساله‌ی جدلی برای مبارزه با یکی از غیراخلاقی‌ترین و بی‌رحمانه‌ترین قضاوت‌های بشر در مورد فرد بیمار است، آنگاه که بیماری به مثابه استعاره در نظر گرفته می‌شود و متعاقبا بیمار به عنوان یکی از "آن‌ها"، غریبه‌ای از آنجا
  سونتاگ در این دو رساله که به فاصله زمانی ده سال نوشته شده است به کاربرد استعاری بیماری‌های گوناگون هجوم می برد و برای زدودن هرگونه استعاره‌ و معنایی از بیماری‌ها تلاش می کند. او در رساله نخست به استعاره‌های بیماری سرطان و مقایسه ان با استعاره بیماری سل می پردازد. این رساله در شرایطی نگاشته شده است که نویسنده خود به سرطان مبتلا گشته و علی‌رغم ناامیدی پزشکان تحت درمان قرار گرفته می‌گرفته است. او که خود بیمار است و بارها میان امید و ناامیدی دست و پا زده، تلاش می کند تا با استعاره‌زدایی از سرطان به رنج مضاعف بیماران پایان دهد

  گمان نمی کنم بازگویی یک ماجرای دیگر از دید اول شخص درباره اینکه یک نفر چطور به وجود سرطان در بندش پی برده، بر آن گریسته، مبارزه کرده، تسلا دیده، رنج کشیده و قوت یافته به درد کسی بخورد. به همین دلیل تصمیم گرفتم کتابی خارج از فرم روایی صرف بنویسم و به ابهام‌های پیرامون سرطان پایان دهم. کار نوشتن با سرعت زیادی صورت گرفت، زیرا نگران این مسئله بودم که هیچ مشخص نبود برای زندگی یا ادامه نوشتن چقدر دیگر زمان برایم باقی مانده است. هدفم مرهم نهادن بر رنج‌های غیر ضروری بود

  
  ده سال بعد از نوشتن رساله نخست، با شناسایی یک بیماری نوظهور، ترس از سرطان جای خود را به ترس از ایدز می دهد و کاربرد استعاری بیماری‌ها وارد فاز جدیدی میشود. ایدز و قضاوت های اخلاقی اش در هیبت استعاره هایی که باعث تکفیر و طرد بیمار از جامعه می‌شود ظهور می کند. در چنین شرایطی سونتاگ با حمله به این استعاره‌ها به دفاعی تمام عیار از افراد مبتلا می‌پردازد
  
  کاربرد استعاری بیماری به ده‌ها قرن پیش باز میگردد، آن زمان که بیماری را به مثابه کیفری از جانب خدایان می داستند. بعدها آن را عاملی جهت تزکیه نفس و امروزهم سزای ندانم‌کاری فرد و مجازات طبعیت و .. می‌دانند. حداقل آسیب این امر، نا امیدی بیمار (با القای این تفکر که بیماری=مرگ)، مقصر جلوه دادن بیمار، ویران ساخت هویت او به عنوان عضوی از جامعه و تنها گذاشتنش با باری سنگین از تقصیر است. این کاربرد به هرشکلی و در تمام حوزه‌ها امری غیراخلاقی و خشونت آمیز محسوب می‌شود، با این وجود سنت‌گراها و سیاست‌مداران همواره به آن علاقه خاصی نشان داده‌اند که البته طبیعی ست. سنت‌گراهای مذهبی با کاربرد بیماری به مثابه کیفر، آن را در خدمت منافع خود می‌آورند و سیاستمداران با کاربرد فلان سوژه به مثابه بیماری، ضرورت اقدام قاطع، فوری و بدون ملاحظه‌ای را توجیه می کنند
  
  این دو رساله سال ها قبل (بیماری به مثابه استعاره در سال 1978 و ایدز و استعاره‌هایش در سال 1988) نوشته شده است. نکاتی که سونتاگ در این دو رساله به آن‌ها اشاره می کند مرتبط با فضای اجتماعی آمریکا (و نه حتی اروپا) و مشکلات پیش روی بیماران در آن دوران است. سال‌هاست که جوامع غربی این چنین پیش‌داوری‌ها و خشونت کلامی را کنار گذاشته اند. اما در ایران هنوز چنین مشکلاتی به قوت خود باقی‌ست و بیماران بجز عوارض بیماری و سختی درمان و هزینه‌های سرسام‌آور، باید خشونت کلامی و رفتار تبعیض‌آمیز و داوری‌های جامعه را هم تحمل کنند. هنوز هم به کار بردن واژه‌های هویت‌دهنده "ایدزی" و "سرطانی" رایج است(حتی توسط مترجم همین کتاب!). هنوز حتی در بخش آموزش و فرهنگ‌سازی هم مشکل و محدودیت وجود دارد و معدود برنامه‌های آموزشی رسمی هم با تعارف و عدم صداقت برگزار می‌شود. روزگاری جامعه سنت‌گرای آمریکا آموزش صحیح رابطه محافظت شده‌ی ﺟﻨ.سی را برابر با ترویج فساد می‌دانست، امروز همین طرز تفکر در ایران نیز پابرجاست، چنان‌که به کار بردن بعضی لغات در برنامه‌های رسمی و رسانه‌های جمعی کراهت دارد
  
  در نهایت، تلاش برای تفکیک بیماری از این معناها و استعاره ها اقدامی رهایی بخش و تسلی دهنده است.اما آن‌طور که سونتاگ هم می گوید، صرفا با اجتناب و دوری گزینی از استعاره ها نمی شود آن‌ را از میان برداشت. برای نیل به چنین هدفی نیاز به عزمی عمومی برای نقد تمام عیار استعاره‌ها و اسطوره‌های بیماری‌هاست
  
  ...پی‌نوشت 1: نمی دانم داستان رایان وایت و مبارزه تمام عیارش ب�� رفتار تبعیض‌آمیز جامعه‌ی آن دوران امریکا را شنیده‌اید یا نه. ماجرای به‌شدت متاثر کننده‌ای ست. در ابتدا و زمانی که بیماری ایدز را متعلق به قشر خاصی از جامعه می‌دانستند، رایان وایت سیزده ساله از طریق فرآورده خونی آلوده به ایدز مبتلا شد. بعد از علنی شدن بیماری‌اش او را از مدرسه اخراج کردند و برخوردهای خشونت آمیزی از طرف همکلاسی‌ها و والدینشان با او شد (حتی به سمت او شلیک کردند). بعد از این ماجراها مایکل جکسون و التون جان از او حمایت کردند و تمام مخارج درمانی او را پرداختد. رایان وایت در سن هجده سالگی و چند ماه قبل از فارغ‌التحصیلی‌اش درگذشت. مایکل جکسون ترانه خیلی زود رفت (
  لینک دانلود) و ترانه التون جانآخرین آواز(
  لینک دانلود) را به یاد رایان وایت سرودند
  
  پی‌نوشت 2: سانتاگ عموم مطالب این کتاب را در حالی نوشته که از دومین مواجهه با سرطان پیروز و سربلند بیرون آمده و این کتاب را از منظر یک بیمار فاتح نوشته است. اما در کتاب "سوزان سانتاگ در جدال با مرگ" با زنی روبرو می‌شویم که مغلوب بیماری شده، سانتاگ عریان و بی‌دفاع در مقابل مرگ قریب‌الوقوع، تنها مانده با ضعف و ناتوانی‌اش. در واقع بعد از خواندن مطالب آن کتاب بود که متوجه شدم بیماری به مثابه استعاره، نه خاطرات، بلکه ضدخاطرات سانتاگ از مواجهه با بیماری سرطان است. واقعی نه، اما حقیقی شاید
  
  
• 
  Luís

  We pass from the so beautiful tuberculosis consumption to the horrible, shameful cancer, with a small passage by other diseases like the plague and the "madness" in the background. Even more disgraceful according to the imagined qualities of the affected organ. The glory of the lungs, the shame of the colon.
  "... modern metaphors for the disease are all crummy. Individuals afflicted with the disease are of little help when they hear the name of evil.
  Sontag insists that the metaphors evolve, disappear, and change as soon as we know better the springs and causes of the disease. And as cancer continues to be better known, we can well imagine that it will also undergo these metaphorical evolutions. It's already the case.
  This question of metaphors joins the current idea of ​​"labels", wanting or not wanting to have diagnosed. Others like 'schizophrenia', 'bipolar disorder, 'drug addict', 'and alcoholism'. These words can add to the ills and not necessarily explain things, simplify them, and make us stupid.
  This book is fascinating, but it is dated and probably difficult to find does not make it a must-have read. On the contrary, it conveys timeless ideas and has been in man's air for a long time.
• 
  Jessica

  A part of me thinks you shouldn't be allowed to write a book that's just your random, personal opinion about something, even though a bigger part of me wishes that that were my job.
  
  I can see how this book was probably really important when it came out, and I'll bet it's done a lot of great things for people's thinking about illness. But although I did really love a few bits of it, on the whole I didn't like this much, even though I was expecting to. I was never totally sure whether this was because I was densely missing Sontag's point, or because I actually did disagree with her. Towards the end, she does acknowledge that people need metaphors, and makes the point that she's identifying ways that particular metaphors for cancer and AIDS have harmed people who suffer from what she insists should be thought of as "just diseases."
  
  See, this is what I don't get. "Just disease?" What does this mean??? My mind doesn't bend that way! If you take away my metaphors, my brain will metastasize into a useless pile of jumbled cells, and I will die. Reading this, I felt like a junkie whose heroin supply was being confiscated by mean old doctor Susan Sontag, who wasn't offering me methadone or buprenorphine or even any pills to take the edge off. She was just chaining me to the radiator and making me cold-turkey it, and I just can't think like that! How'm I supposed to make sense of anything, let alone terminal illness, without use of metaphor? How is anyone? Also, how can I, as a non-scientist, understand the basic process of a disease without a mickey-mousey, simplified explanation of its process at the cellular level, and is there a metaphor for how the HIV virus or cancer cells spread that doesn't offend Ms. Sontag's sensibilities? Because I felt like she was doing that very common thing about complaining about everything people do, without trying to envision an alternative. This is kind of my global pet peeve that applies to the overwhelming majority of academic writing and these kinds of critical essays. It's really easy to tear a concept or practice down and complain about how bad everything is (oh, trust me, I know), but far more challenging to create a positive alternative (hey, don't look at me, I'm not getting paid for this!).
  
  So yeah, maybe I misunderstood what Sontag was saying, that could be. Her first essay contrasts the poetic, appealing metaphors of tuberculosis with the cruelly stigmatizing metaphors of cancer, and ultimately I was left a bit confused about what her point was with this. It did make me less afraid of contracting TB (one of my clients was diagnosed with it the week before I read this!), since it sounds so glamorous and all, but I don't think that was what she was getting at. She wasn't saying that cancer and AIDS need more attractive metaphors, she was saying that they shouldn't have any, and I can't accept that.
  
  Again, maybe this was my misreading, but I felt like Sontag was pathologizing use of metaphor, which isn't in itself a symptom of illness, and in fact is, as far as I'm concerned, necessary to human life (or at least this human's). I haven't personally experienced TB, cancer, or AIDS myself, but I have been diseased, and in my personal opinion a spoon full of metaphor helps the medicine go down, or at least has helped me to conceptualize and make meaning out of what otherwise just sucks and is basically senseless. Metaphor is the framework that makes all the chaos superficially intelligible. I know many metaphors are dreadful and ugly, but to me that still might be better than the void. Maybe the choice doesn't have to be so stark, and maybe we can replace the sicker metaphors with healthy ones, but even if I could think of a terminal illness as "just" a disease, I don't think I'd want to.
  
  Again, maybe I'm missing the point. That happens sometimes! (Okay, a lot.) I also got a little concerned at some points that Sontag might overlook relatively concrete, scientific facts in service of her argument For instance, smoking can cause lung cancer, that's not just something they say to make cancer patients feel bad. And while obviously mind-body theories are extremely dangerous for the reasons she describes, I also don't think that acknowledging possible relationships between mental and physical health is inevitably false or stigmatizing, and I felt like she needed to deny that possibility at all costs. Sometimes when she said she just wanted to get at just the science, I wasn't sure I could trust her. I felt like (a) what's "just" the science? and also (b) what if you don't like the science, Susan?
  
  Still, there was some terrific stuff in here, there was. Sontag ultimately did die of cancer, and I do think it's to her credit that she did so during an era in which the disease was far less stigmatized than it was when she wrote this essay, in response to her first diagnosis. Even though I take issue with some of what I think she was saying, I imagine it did do great stuff for people who shouldn't have to deal with the burden of harmful metaphors, on top of the pain of a serious illness. There's definitely value in diagnosing the problem -- "that's a metaphor, not a reality" -- which she did well here. I think my own problem started when she started prescribing -- "don't use metaphors" -- but whatever, I'm sure she did no harm.
• 
  Aubrey

  4.5/5

  Of course, one cannot think without metaphors. But that does not mean there aren't some metaphors we might well abstain from or try to retire. As, of course, all thinking is interpretation. But that does not mean it isn't sometimes correct to be "against" interpretation.

  Somewhere and at some past in the history of the world, someone woke up to the news of the AIDS epidemic and was thrilled. It is no longer 1989, two years before my birth and therefor permanently irretrievable in the direct sense by my personal self, but there's still no sex education in the US. There are still mutterings of "the dark continent" during chapters pertaining to venereal disease. My generation went to elementary school to the tune of DARE and the War on Drugs, something for which I have finally puzzled out the reason for funding, if not reason itself. Health insurance has been bettered a bit, but the fears of "Gattaca" style stratification are still laughable while money is so acceptable a mulching of the sick and the unwell.

  Abuse of the military metaphor may be inevitable in a capitalist society, a society that increasingly restricts the scope and credibility of appeals to ethical principle, when it is thought foolish not to subject one's actions to the calculus of self-interest and profitability.

  None of the pre-meds I interacted with during the course of my bout of university schooling are going to make very good doctors. Some have probably dropped from the grind since I last saw them (no room for fatigue when there's tuition to please), and those who are left are likely more than capable of expanding upon their MCAT back to front and then some, but where exactly will they pick up that deep and unyielding compassion for the human beings they treat? Where in the curriculum is the part about stigma, socioeconomic influences, the emphasis on the bottom line rather than the standard of living? Religion and empathy are the wave away reassurances for that, both of which as susceptible to influence as any ideological structure or biological formality.

  Part of the self-definition of Europe and the neo-European countries is that it, the First World, is where major calamities are history-making, transformative, while in poor, African or Asian countries they are part of a cycle, and therefore something like an aspect of nature.

  I'm not as enamored with philosophy as I was in my youth. Perhaps it is a side effect of my previous era's supreme focus on specialization, but I am annoyed by a "stretched too thin" sense in Sontag's writing, similar to my disparagement of late 20th century philosophers who failed miserably at conjectures at, in their time, already mapped out neurological chemistry. There is also the matter that Sontag's exhortation of the reader to follow the best plan of treatment is absurdly optimistic, as complete and utter deprivation of metaphors from all senses of "ill" will not remove the barriers of economics, accessibility, and the poor training of doctors when it comes to combating bias. The problem with this, of course, is how often the displeasure crops up in classes on history, psychology, anthropology, you name it it glosses and passes and sidesteps; this, unlike those, does not come with midterms, so I set my scientific perturbations aside and took what I could get. As previously stated, experience with facts does not prepare oneself with engagement with how ideologies embrace the biological in the name of "survival of the fittest."

  The people who have the real disease are also hardly helped by hearing their disease's name constantly being dropped as the epitome of evil.

  I have no experience with cancer, AIDS, or any other disease that sounds in public as a death knell. What I do have experience with are the socially sanctioned definitions of insanity, a field Sontag touched upon with great if infrequent emphasis. The reason I am comfortable with talking about my major depressive disorder online is this and this alone: none of you will ever be in a position to report me for purposes of putting me away. As popular as it is to decry technology, many forms of it allow me to avoid the conclusion of various calls to action birthed in those who surround me. What metaphors you hold me by, I will never know, and am all the better for it.

  No one wants a plague, of course. But, yes, it would be a chance to begin again. And beginning again—that is very modern, very American, too.

  Back in my day, jokes about efficiently fatal retroviruses applied on the scale of Armageddon were common currency in the halls of Bioengineering. Who doesn't love a good post-apocalypse?
• 
  Raul

  "Nothing is more punitive than to give a disease a meaning—that meaning being invariably a moralistic one."
  
  These past two years, given the COVID pandemic and the other illnesses that have emerged during this period, have been anxiety-inducing for those who often have fears of falling ill. Being one of these people, a book recommended to me to "unveil" illness, as a friend described it, seemed a necessary read.
  
  Using mostly TB, cancer, syphilis, and, later in the second part of the book, AIDS, Sontag examines the metaphors and meanings given to illness. Certain facts I had never known, such as the romanticization of some aspects of tuberculosis, were fascinating to read. For instance, the obsession with thinness still present that can be traced to the late eighteenth century romanticizing weight loss due to TB. Or that it is (or was at the time this book was published) common professional practice in certain countries like France not to tell patients that they have cancer.
  
  Sontag explained in the introduction to the second part of the book, that it was her cancer diagnosis that had prompted her to write the first section which had been published years earlier. Spurred by what she calls an evangelical zeal to spread her message, she wrote this book. Which is incredible, given the clarity of thought and breadth of references encountered; I couldn't have guessed the pressures and anxiety that brought this work.
  
  From the fears of suffering and death that creates the metaphors around illness to the ways the metaphors lead to stigma and hurt those who should be seeking professional treatment, this book brilliantly does what its writer set out to. Sontag is thorough in all the ways illness both exposes existing oppressive structures and prejudices and solidifies, and, even, expands them.
  
  This book indeed unveils illness, and helps the reader to reach the understanding that illness is simply just that: the state of being physically unwell. That whatever pathogens that bring with them illness aren't punishment and that there are no symbols or signs attached to them, neither are these pathogens even consciously aware (simple as this is, it is strange that we often think or feel otherwise) of the harm they do to us. That humans aren't the only living beings that get sick and die. Our fear of suffering and death caused being responsible for the distance those who are healthy put between themselves and the ill, and all the messages, some rooted in and carried from religious thinking and some possibly even going further back in time, and the harm as a result. Of course Sontag is a very intelligent thinker and doesn't romanticize illness, nor does the reader, using myself here, come away from this book necessarily fearless of illness, but instead emerges from it more prudent.
  
• 
  Glenn Sumi

  I wish Susan Sontag were alive to write about the COVID-19 pandemic. I’m sure she would have found profound and brilliant things to say about how the disease has taken on war metaphors, been symbolically politicized and caused irreparable harm to certain segments of society.
  
  That’s essentially what she did with cancer/tuberculosis and AIDS, the subjects, respectively, of her books Illness and Metaphor (1978) and AIDS and Its Metaphors (1989), which are collected here in one volume.
  
  How often have we heard the phrase “So-and-so lost their battle with cancer” or “[insert terrible thing] is a cancer on society”? She says such metaphors aren’t helpful, and in fact affect people suffering from the disease, who then might put off seeking help or treatment, thinking it an inevitable death sentence.
  
  (One interesting fact. I’m currently reading Sontag’s first essay collection Against Interpretation, and she begins one essay, on a Sartre book, thusly: “Saint Genet is a cancer of a book, grotesquely verbose…” Since she would later have cancer herself, which led to the writing of Illness as Metaphor, I’m sure she would want to retract her use of that particular metaphor.)
  
  In the first illness book, Sontag employs a wide range of cultural references to show how differently society viewed tuberculosis and cancer. The former was associated with delicate, sensitive and sad individuals – often romanticized as creative, poetic types. People living with the latter were often thought of as repressed and insular, lacking sufficient passion.
  
  There are passages of brilliance, mixed in awkwardly with clumsy and academic-sounding prose. I wish she had focussed more on her own experience with cancer to make the points resonate a bit more.
  
  In the AIDS book, she makes some obvious statements about the moral pronouncements made on the early people affected by the syndrome, mostly gay men and intravenous drug users. (She rightly compares it to earlier reactions to syphilis.) Some of the more fascinating observations come from how other countries dealt in a less moralistic and judgemental way with AIDS. The book is fine, but more intriguing is her much-anthologized, unforgettable short story “The Way We Live Now,” which chronicles the way the unnamed virus affected dozens of friends and colleagues in New York City.
  
  This book has led me to read more Sontag. She can be incredibly verbose and high-minded, dropping dozens of European names as if we should know each one and have read their complete oeuvre in the original French or German. But her intentions are good. In today’s clickbait landscape, I can’t think of a cultural critic with the same profile, breath of knowledge and influence.
• 
  trovateOrtensia

  In questi giorni in cui chi ha (avuto) il cancro è "un figo pazzesco" (come dice la Toffa, che prima dell'outing con ovazione finale in tv confesso di non sapere neanche chi fosse), in questi giorni dunque di così euforico sdoganamento di una malattia altrimenti nominabile solo con perifrasi inquietanti, io propongo la lettura di questo breve e luminoso libro: una lucidissima riflessione sul cancro, la sua simbologia e le metafore di cui la società contemporanea si avvale per parlarne. Una malattia, dice Sontag, che è diventata essa stessa metafora del nostro tempo e che, proprio a causa di questa trasposizione su un piano metaforico, ha acquisito lo statuto metafisico di Male per eccellenza, trasformando chi ne è affetto in un "guerriero" chiamato a "vincere" o "perdere" una "battaglia" (con evidenti implicazioni di colpa, tra l'altro, per chi esce "sconfitto"). Una malattia, dice sempre Sontag, cui bisogna razionalmente (con riflessione e pensiero rigoroso, non con emotività incontrollata) togliere questa impropria valenza metaforica, questo alone di lotta, questo lessico mutuato dal gergo militare, che la trasforma in spaventevole stigma. Per farlo, bisogna lavorare e riflettere appunto anche sulle parole e sul linguaggio (che, come insegna Klemperer - questo lo aggiungo io- non è mai "innocente").
  Senza tirare in ballo fighi pazzeschi e guerrieri indomiti, per favore.
• 
  Sarah Hosseini

  سانتاگ این دو جستار را به فاصله ده سال در 1978 و 1988 به نگارش درآورد. اما علی رغم سال هایی که از نگارش این دو اثر گذشته و پیشرفت هایی که در علم پزشکی و نیز باور عمومی در خصوص بیماری ها حاصل شده، کماکان دلالت های خویش را دارند. سانتاگ به زعم من اثر ارزشمندی نوشته است که شاید مهم ترین کارکردش بیان این مساله باشد که نباید به بیماری همچون عقوبت و کیفر و با عینکی الهیاتی یا روانشناختی نگاه کرد. وی البته شاید بیش از حد اتکای خود را بر علم (science) و رویکرد علمی صرف به عنوان حل¬المسائل استوار کرده و همین مساله قدری از اعتبار استدلال هایش کاسته است (خصوصن در جستار دوم).
  سوزان سانتاگ به زعم من نویسنده بسیار ارزشمندیست که آثارش بیش از همه برایم درس نظرورزی و چگونه اندیشیدن (و به طبع، چگونه نوشتن آن اندیشه ها) بوده است. نویسنده خود بیان می کند که «گمان نمی کردم بازگویی یک ماجرای دیگر از دیدِ اول شخص درباره این که چطور یک نفر به وجود سرطان در بدنش پی برده، بر آن گریسته، مبارزه کرده، تسلا دیده، رنج کشیده و قوت قلب یافته به دردی بخورد... به نظرم فایده روایت کردن، کمتر از ایده و اندیشه بود.» او با باریک اندیشی سعی می کند به دام تفکر رومانتیک -که خود مستعد تولید استعاره های بی شماری برای بیماریست- نیفتد. این نکته اهمیت دوچندانی پیدا می کند وقتی ببینیم سانتاگ خود در آن زمان به سرطان دچار بوده است. وی هدف خود را همراستا با پروژه علیه تفسیرش می داند و می نویسد «هدفم نه معنا بخشیدن، بلکه تهی کردن چیزی از معنا بود».
  سانتاگ در جستار دوم خود به نقش استعاره ها در تقویت سیاست های دست راستی ای همچون همجنس گراستیزی و مهاجرستیزی می پردازد. در زمان شیوع ایدز در آمریکا، بسیاری، خاستگاه آن را کشورهای آفریقایی یا درمیان مردان همجنسگرا می دانستند و همین مساله به تدوین سیاست ها و دستورالعمل های اجرایی ای برای ایزوله کردن هر چه بیشتر اقلیت های قومی، جنسی ، نژادی و ... می انجامید. حربه ای که هم اکنون نیز در خصوص بسیاری به کار بسته می شود (کافیست به خاطر آوریم یکی از ایماژهای مرسومی که درخصوص افغانستانی ها در ایران وجود دارد، کثیف بودن و عدم رعایت بهداشت است. گویی آنها ناقل بیماری¬اند).
  
  پ.ن: حین خواندن کتاب، مکرر یاد یکی از مقالات توکلی طرقی افتادم که از شیوع گفتمانی درمانی- بالینی در زمان مشروطه و پس از آن، در سپهر سیاسی سخن می گفت. توکلی به شرح این گفتمان و نقشی که در تجددیابی ایرانیان ایفا کرده می پردازد. اما در ضمن این استدلال، به نقل قول های اشاره می کند که برای من شاهد مثال هایی برای اندیشه سانتاگ است. به طور مثال یکی از فقها که تخصصش در بیماری‌های مقاربتی بود، «علت حقيقى و منشاء اصلى اين فساد را تقليد بي‌جا از عادات و رسوم ملل فاسدالاخلاق مغرب زمين» می شمرد. در بسیاری از اسناد دیگر نیز، در هنگام مواجهه با بحران های اجتماعی و معضلات اخلاقی از الفاظ مرتبط با بیماری ها استفاده شده است. نیز در جایی دیگر می بینیم که آل احمد، غربزدگی را چون وبازدگی دانسته. یعنی درواقع ما شاهدیم در دوره ای از تاریخ معاصر (که با شیوع امراضی همچون وبا و سفلیس همزمان بوده)، هجوم ارزش های غربی و تاثیرپذیری از غرب با برخی امراض همگون و مرادف پنداشته شده است. بیماری همچون شر است و سایر شُرور نیز با آن هم رده و همراه اند. دیدگاهی که هم اکنون نیز به بسیاری طرق ادامه یافته و آنچنان که گافمن شرح داده، داغ ننگی را بر پیشانی بیمار می افکند.
  
  
  *
  دیروز به متنی برخوردم که برنامه مشترک ملل متحد در زمینه ایدز آن را تهیه کرده بود و ترجمه فارسی آن نیز با عنوان "رهنمودهای واژه شناسی در زمینه اچ آی وی و ایدز" منتشر شده است. متن، وازگان جایگزینی را به جای واژگان فعلی در خصوص اچ آی وی پیشنهاد کرده است. انتشار چنین متنی گام مهمی در راستای بهبود شرایط زیست کسانیست که با اچ آی وی زندگی می کنند و از قضا در راستای همان استعاره زدایی مد نظر سانتاگ قرار دارد. فی المثل پیشنهاد شده است که به جای مبارزه علیه ایدز، بگوییم پاسخ به ایدز. لینک دسترسی به متن فارسی:
  
  http://mboh.umsha.ac.ir/uploads/14_11...
• 
  Joshie

  “Modern disease metaphors specify an ideal of society’s wellbeing, analogised to physical health, that is frequently anti-political as it is a call for a new political order.”
  
  Illness as Metaphor & AIDS and Its Metaphors is an eloquently incisive dissection of how diseases used as metaphors limit, twist, and bring forth several other meanings that can jeopardise and vaporise their medical definition. This, in turn, can have a strange, harmful effect to people who have these diseases and the people within their “communities.” More than that the usage of metaphors not only in a literary sense but also to the advantage of any political agenda (to alienate/isolate a minority, incite ridiculous fear to the public, et cetera), the romanticisation/stigmatisation of these diseases along their accompanied demise are fascinatingly magnificent additions to their history of metaphors throughout the years.
  
  Sontag, although perhaps a bit repetitive here and there, is seamless: from tuberculosis as a fashion trend, a standard beauty in all its pale and sallow, gaunt glory, cancer as an overused metaphor (ex., as “unqualifiedly and unredeemably wicked”) which mentally affects patients with cancer and its further association to a type of extremism that causes displacement and discrimination (ex. “Islam is spreading like cancer”) to the AIDS epidemic in ‘80s US where it's labelled as the “gay plague” and how this perpetuated, exacerbated the already ingrained hatred and prejudice on top of the government’s intentional inaction. This painfully claimed a lot of lives. Sadly, bigoted beliefs still exist today in those who choose to be ignorant and stupid. And similar to what’s currently happening, there is a pattern of justified discrimination, this time of a racial kind, with the initial identification of COVID19 in Hubei, China. Asians—Chinese and people mistaken as Chinese (because of people’s narrow idea of what Asians look like and the lack of geographical knowledge)—are subjected to verbal abuse even physical violence across the globe. And this doesn’t stop there, people of colour also receive worse, little to no medical attention because of the implicit social hierarchy established particularly in western countries. This slim book does not end here, it inspects countless of metaphors I'm afraid to blabber about.
  
  By the end, Sontag's polemic is unforgettably powerful and strikingly remains frighteningly relevant during this pandemic we are all in. It is despairing that she predicts these metaphors will be obsolete in the future, maybe it's indeed better, but it seems to me they only pile up like clothes in an otherwise already full closet, metaphors we use at our disposal without critically thinking of their lasting impact.
• 
  patsy_thebooklover

  4.5
  O chorobach nie lubi się rozmawiać, ba!, nawet myślenia o nich lepiej unikać. Już samo słowo "rak" wprowadza do rozmowy zakłopotanie, zawstydzenie i pewne oszołomienie rozmówców. Mówi się, że nikt nie zrozumie, czym jest rak i walka z nim (już metaforyzuję - Sontag dużo pisze o militarnym kontekście metafor związanych z rakiem). I to jest najczystsza prawda. Raka się boimy, o raku nie chcemy rozmawiać, nie wiemy, jak go komentować. Nie boimy się natomiast o chorych na raka mówić za ich plecami. I o tej stygmatyzacji chorych na nowotwory Sontag pisze wiele. O reputacji raka, która sprawia, że osoba chora wstydzi się choroby, krępuje się o niej wspominać, często doszukując się powodów, dla których to właśnie ona zapadła na tę chorobę (Sontag pisze o tym w porównaniu z innymi chorobami (np z zawałem serca, udarem), przy okazji których nie pytamy się Boga czy innego bóstwa "dlaczego ja?"). Często rak pojmowany jest jako kara (za styl życia, za popełnione błędy, itd), co zakrawa o absurd, a wynika zarówno z nieznajomości wszystkich mechanizmów i patogenów odpowiedzialnych za rozwój choroby, jak i z krzywdzącego obrazu samej choroby. Temu rozwojowi Sontag również poświęca sporo uwagi, koncentrując się na powolności raka, jego "pełzaniu" po ciele, podstępności - który to rozwój często pojawia się w poetyckich porównaniach z rakiem w centrum. Sontag pisze o tym, jak "trudno jest żyć w świecie chorych, nie ulegając uprzedzeniom" - i tak, jak Sontag napisała te eseje bazując na swoich doświadczaniach (12 lat po diagnozie), tak ja przeczytałam je w oparciu o swoje (8 lat po diagnozie i wyleczeniu). I nawet samo "przyznanie się" (które - jak pisze Sontag - z automatu zakłada "winę" chorego) do chorowania powoduje we mnie swego rodzaju skrępowanie. Zapewniam Was jednak, że zarówno Sontag jak i ja mamy odpowiedni do mówienia o chorobie dystans i cytując autorkę [osoby chore] "są niewolnikami wyobrażeń o tej chorobie, które na mnie nie miały większego wpływu". Oprócz raka Sontag poświęca najwięcej uwagi gruźlicy oraz AIDS, czyli chorobom, które w przeszłości i ówcześnie (eseje powstały pod koniec lat 70. i 80. XX wieku) stanowiły największe zagrożenie oraz wiązały się z szerokopojętym lękiem. O gruźlicy sporo pisze w kontekście kojarzonej z nią romantyczności i melancholijności, co samo w sobie stanowi ciekawy obraz choroby, która mimo że prowadzi do śmierci (ówcześnie) to daje chorym możliwość łaskawszego (w porównaniu z rakiem) sposobu postrzegania choroby i doszukiwania się sensu moralnego śmierci. Tych metafor, które Sontag przywołuje i omawia, jest mnóstwo - pojmowanie choroby jako kary (AIDS w kontekście kary za rozpustę, rak jako kara za zły styl życia), kojarzenie choroby z tym co cudzoziemskie (obawa przed imigrantami, postrzeganie obcokrajowców jako nosicieli chorób), choroba jako element gry polityczno-strategicznej, rak jako konsekwencja złości (i co ciekawe - ta metafora pojawiła się w "Honorze" Shafak, który czytałam w tym samym czasie, czyli złość pojmowana jako możliwa przyczyna rozwoju raka). Eseje Sontag to intelektualna przyjemność. To spora dawka koncepcyjnych rozmyślań o teoretycznym i praktycznym podłożu, które 40 i 30 lat później wciąż zdają się aktualne. Wypełniona mnóstwem odniesień do literatury, teorii, medycyny, obyczajowości, różnych perspektyw bez idącego wraz z nimi ciężaru, który często towarzyszy tego typu dysertacjom. Dotarł do mnie już kolejny zbiór esejów Sontag "O fotografii".
• 
  verbava

  не знаю, чи мала б ця книжка нагоду стати явищем в українському культурному житті – все-таки речі, про які пише зонтаг, уже чи не дуже актуальні, чи доволі банальні, чи просто занадто суб'єктивні, щоб спровокувати серйозну дискусію довкала. однак навіть якщо якийсь шанс і був, то видавець зітнув йому голову, а потім для певності пробив груди погано обструганим осиковим кілком. і провернув кілька разів. ну, щоб уже точно.
  куррва, де вони примудряються знаходити перекладачів, які так ненавидять мову, і редакторів, які не відрізняють текст від антресолі?
  у тому, яка я з цієї книжки люта, зонтаг не винна ні на гран. вона ж не могла передбачити, що колись її текст видадуть у жахливому перекладі, в якому бракує розділових знаків, незакриті лапки й дужки – нормальна справа, а конструкції на кшталт "це є дивним" якраз не дивні. вона не винна, що їй трапиться перекладач (а, да. перекладача звуть тарас бойко і він не соромиться писати в своєму резюме, що переклав цю книжку. люди мене безмежно дивують), під пальцями якого хвороба буде "спричинятися", "досліджуватися" і "сприйматися", який у двох реченнях не зможе тричі правильно написати прізвище ґомбровича, який у нейтральній цитаті із заяви міністра охорони здоров'я вживатиме слово "злягатися" в сенсі займатися сексом – і редактор (редактора звуть леся пішко. а чо, країна має знати своїх героїв), який буде достатньо некомпетентний, щоб увесь цей звіздєц вийшов друком. мені навіть трохи шкода сюзен зонтаг – вона ж то нічого поганого не зробила. з іншого боку, це в боженьки може бути таке особливе почуття гумору: на покуту за якісь особливі таємні гріхи видавати письменників у нестерпних, цілковито нечитабельних українських перекладах.
  
• 
  Cally Mac

  Another stonker from Suze.
• 
  Brodie

  Personally I found the first essay, Illness as Metaphor, to be more thought provoking than the second one. In part, while a dodgy argumentative strategy, I found the comparisons and contrasts between tuberculosis and cancer to be very interesting, particularly as I had not read that much about TB in the 19th century.
  
  Sontag's main argument is that our capacity for metaphorical thinking, while mostly a wonderful thing, is generally counter-productive when it comes to thinking about disease. She refers not only to the ways in which "cancer" comes to be used as short-hand for any social malaise, castigated group, or other undesirable trait (which is a more obvious point), but also about the "individualizing" effects of cancer as metaphor.
  
  Her point here is that in certain eras a certain disease becomes densely packed with significance in a way that other diseases do not. Specifically, these meanings revolve around theories of personality and the individual. Referring back to the contrast with TB, during the 19th century, individuals afflicted with TB were thought to be elevated to a higher level of spiritual awareness as a their physical bodies wasted away--consumed by the disease, as it were.
  
  With cancer, the metaphorics of the disease are less flattering. Sontag points to the way that cancer victims (herself included at the time of writing the essay) often ask, "Why me?" This question casts the disease a carrier of a message or meaning about the individual, an answer to the metaphysical question "Why me?" when in fact the disease is nothing more than a disease with a complex etiology. Far from acknowledging this, however, people often turn to factors like personality or psychology to explain "why" that individual has been afflicted with cancer.
  
  Sontag's solution to this is to treat cancer like a scientific fact, not a metaphoric Mercury from the land of meaning. I sometimes wondered if she placed too much faith in our ability to set aside un-reason or reason, particularly where scientific forms of thinking are concerned. She seems to express a confidence in science's ability to clarify its own interpretations and metaphoric ways of thinking.
• 
  Gabriel Avocado

  In a world where the Wuhan pneumonia has taken the media by storm, where fascism has crept back into relevancy, and where climate change threatens to unleash global catastrophe, I find this book increasingly relevant to our times. Sontag wrote about cancer, then added AIDS to the catagory of "illnesses used as metaphors for bad things." it may seem irrelevant today given medical advances and that HIV is no longer a death sentence. But only yesterday, my country's fascist president declared those with HIV "a burden" on the country. And after reading this, I realize that he's only saying what every good liberal (and even leftists) believe about many illnesses and disabilities.
  
  I brought up the Wuhan pneumonia because it feels almost like there's a scary third world disease playbook people resort to whenever there's a new scary illness out there. It's a plague, according to Sontag, because it punishes the right people, America's dreaded enemies.
  
  I don't believe this book will ever not be relevant. Even more reason to read it today.
• 
  Oksana Uskova

  «Ні, медицині не потрібно бути "тотальною" на кшталт війни. Також пов'язана зі СНІДом криза не є "тотальною". Нас ніхто не завойовує. А наше тіло - не поле битви. А хворі - не якісь неминучі втрати і не ворог. Ми - медицина, суспільство - не уповноважені контратакувати усіма можливими засобами... А про військову метафору я сказала б, перефразувавши Лукреція: віддайте її війнотворцям».
  
  
  Susan Sontag написала досить ґрунтовну, хоча й невелику за обсягом, працю про Хворобу: як ми міфологізуємо туберкульоз, рак, СНІД, сифіліс, проказу та чуму; як лексика, яку ми вживаємо стосовно цих хвороб, або використання Хвороби у якості метафори - перетворює хвору людину на ворога або істоту іншого порядку. "Військовий" лексикон проти Хвороби починає використовуватися і проти Хворого.
  
  Зонтаґ починає з далеку: туберкульоз та рак, які історично йдуть бік-о-бік. Літературна романтизація хворого на туберкульоз, надання йому певних рис - елітарності, "творчості", чуттєвості у 18-19 ст... рак - "хвороба людей, які стримують почуття"... холера, яка є "прокляттям бруду" - уся та нісенітниця, яка століттями писалася у медичних трактатах та передавалася бабцями на базарі - створили стійкі міфи та стереотипи про ці хвороби. Говорячи про хвору людину, ми забуваємо говорити про людину, а говоримо тільки про хворобу, ми відділяємо хворого від соціуму, записуємо його у табір "інших", створюємо прірву між здоровими та хворими. Що вже казати про хворих на сифіліс та СНІД - самі ці хвороби несуть відбиток "винності" та "ганебності" тих, хто на них захворів. Хвороба тут вже виступає як покарання. Зонтаґ же застережує від моралізаторства над хворобою, від розділення хворих та здорових, від перетворення хвороби та хворого на ворога.
  
  Це трошки наукова праця, де досліджується образи хвороб у світовій літературі, трошки філософська праця, де неодноразово звучать застереження людству, трошки крик відчаю - Сьюзен Зонтаґ написала цю книжку під час власного лікування від раку.
  
  P.S. І віруси, і епідемії - також не були забуті письменницею.
  
  «Так само як у п'єсі Чапека, герої роману Камю висловлюють думку про неймовірність появи чуми в ХХ сторіччі... наче віра у неможливість такої біди в майбутньому, в те, що вона не може взагалі більше статися, означає, що вона таки мусить статися».
  
  «Катаклізм набув форми такого собі довжелезного серіалу: не "Катаклізми уже тепер", а "Катаклізми відтепер - і надалі". Катаклізм став подією, що відбувається, відбувається і ніяк не відбудеться».
• 
  E. G.

  --Illness as Metaphor
  
  --AIDS and Its Metaphors
• 
  Nada Elshabrawy

  أعتقد هيكون أفضل قرائته بدلًا من الإستماع إليه.
• 
  Mehrsa

  Fascinating musings about the use of cancer, Aids, and in the past Tuberculosis as a metaphor for ills in society and morals. It is not a linear argument, but just a lot of interesting connections. It made me think of Emperor of all Maladies, the biography of cancer. He uses cancer as a metaphor there--about the fears and alienation of our current society.
• 
  Rahil Fallahfar

  کتاب دعوتی استه کنار گذاشتن استعاره ها در مواجهه با بیماری ها، خصوصاً به خاطر بار سنگینی که برای درمان روی دوش بیمار می گذارد.، رویکردی ضدّ تفسیر اما آنقدر فصول اول که این استعاره هارا مرور می کند جذاب است که از بعدش باید بیشتر مراقب باشم در دام این استعاره ها نیفتم.
  :)
• 
  Mehmet B

  Metaforların hastalıklarla, özellikle kanserle ve AIDS'le ilişkisinin söyleme etkisi üzerine zihin açıcı bir kitap. Toplumsal sapmaların hastalık sayılması ve her hastalığın psikolojik düzeyde ele alınabileceği yanılgıları suçu hastaya yıkmanın araçlarıdır. "Hastalıklara zihinsel durumların yol açtığı ve bu yüzden irade gücüyle iyileştirilebilecekleri şeklindeki teoriler, her zaman için, bir hastalığın fiziksel kaynağının ne kadar anlaşılamadığının bir göstergesidir."
  
  Hastalıkların nedenleri anlaşıldıkça (bakteriler, mikroplar, genetik nedenler) psikolojik açıklamaların geçerliliği ortadan kalksa da izleri günümüz toplumunda da devam etmektedir.
  "Sebepleri henüz aydınlatılmamış olan, bu yüzden tedavisi de genellikle etkisiz kalan her önemli hastalık, bir anlam akıntısının önünde sürüklenmeye eğilimlidir."
  Hastalıklarla ilgili imgeler, hastalığın yaygın görüldüğü dönemin olumsuz kabul edilen kavramlarıyla açıklanır.Tüberküloz 19.yüzyıl homo economicus'unun olumsuz davranışlarını özetleyen imgeler olan tüketme, israf, yaşama gücünün bastırılması ile tarif edilirken, kanser de 20. yüzyılın olumsuz davranışları olan anormal büyüme, enerjinin bastırılması, yani enerjinin tüketilmesine ya da harcanmasına imkan tanınmaması üzerinden tarif ediliyordu.
  
  Kanser metaforları (invazyon, kolonizasyon, radikal cerrahi, vücut taraması, radyoaktif ışın bombardımanı, kanserli hücrelerin öldürülmesi vb) savaş dilinden seçilmiştir. Sontag, hastalıkların bu metafor yüklü dilden arındırılmasını, bu kavramların bazılarına (örneğin bağışıklık savunma sistemi yerine bağışıklık yeterliliği) başka adlandırmalar öneriyor.
  
  Covid-19 salgınından yıllarca önce yazdığı kitapta Susan Sontag, endüstriyel kirlenmenin etkileri ve küresel fimasn piyasaları gibi AIDS (ya da enfeksiyon hastalıkları) krizleri de, önem taşıyan hiçbir şeyin bölgesel, yerel, sınırlı kalmadığı; dolaşıma giren herşeyin ve her meselenin dünya çapında nitelik kazandığı, ya da er geç kazanacağı bir dünyanın kanıtı olduğunu söylüyor.
  
  Sontag, son pandemiyi görmedi ama söylediklerinin güncelliği hiç değişmemiş görünüyor. Covid-19 salgınını da, AIDS gibi "global köyün distopyacı müjdecisi" olarak tarif edebilirdi.
• 
  Shona Edwards

  It was an doubly amazing experience to read this: in the post(?)-pandemic world, and as a cancer patient.
  
  I think it should be required reading for health care providers, because the language we use to talk about disease directs how we treat people, both medically and simply how we interact with each other. There is compassion and wry humour through the book that I found touching.
  
  Many of Sontag's insights feel especially relevant today:
  
  'Authoritarian political ideologies have a vested interest in promoting fear, a sense of the imminence of takeover by aliens - and real diseases are useful material...With the inflation of apocalyptic rhetoric has come the increasing unreality of the apocalypse... now a long-running serial: not 'Apocalypse Now' but 'Apocalypse From Now On.''
• 
  Razieh Shahverdi

  چرا پنج نگيرد كتابى كه خوب نوشته شده، خوب ترجمه شده، از خواندنش لذت برده ام و براى پژوهشى كه رويش كار ميكنم كلى ايده داده؟
  هميشه آدمهايى را كه در يك موقعيت بحرانى تنها به غم خوردن بسنده نكرده اند و به انديشه و نوشت��ر و تامل دست زده اند، تحسين كرده ام. سونتاگ وقتى مبتلا به سرطان ميشود اين كتاب را مينويسد و اگر بخوانيدش ميفهميد كه چقدر براى نوشتنش تحقيق و تلاش كرده و انصافا كار خوبى از آب درآمده.
  پاراگراف آخر را بخوانيد:
  نه، "كلى" بودن هيچ منفعتى براى پزشكى ندارد، چنان كه براى جنگ نيز نداشته. بحرانى هم كه به واسطه ايدز به وجود آمده چيزى "كلى" نيست. ما مورد هجوم قرار نگرفته ايم. بدن ميدان جنگى نيست. بيماران نه تلفات غيرنظامى اجتناب ناپذيرند و نه دشمنند. ما - پزشكى ، جامعه - مجاز نيستيم به هيچ شكلى تدارك حمله متقابلى ببينيم... درباره آن استعاره هم، يعنى همان استعاره نظامى سخن لوكرتيوس رانقل به مضمون مى كنم: پس بدهيدش به همان جنگ طلبان.
  
  
  كتاب سونتاگ خيلى بيش از نوشتارى بر بيمارى است.
• 
  Andrew Howdle

  Twenty years after Sontag wrote her perceptive book, the newspapers (in the UK) headline with the news that images of warfare do not aid those recovering from cancer: new metaphors are required for healing.
  
  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2...
  Science isn't always in the frontline; in this case, two decades behind literary criticism.
• 
  Ilinca-Cezara Stanciu

  La vremea apariției ei (1989), cu siguranță a fost o carte zguduitoare, împăciuitoare, blândă cu pacienții și dură cu stigmatele societății. Ori lipsa de informații medicale de la vremea aceea, ori lipsa de încredere în medicină, ceva dictează un ton superficial și neîncrezător în ceea ce privește tratamentele medicale ale bolilor precum tuberculoza, cancerul, holera, ciuma și SIDA. Deși e o carte extrem de bogată în referințe literare și pastile de cultură generală, pare mai degrabă conspiraționistă și antimedicală.
• 
  Shivani

  Sontag came up in two of my recent reads. In Mukherjee's
  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer for her views on cancer and
  Eminent Outlaws: The Gay Writers Who Changed America for her "Notes on Camp". And somehow I decided to try her out.
  
  image:
  
  I quite liked Illness as Metaphor. AIDS and Its Metaphors not so much. But over all I could get through without any loss of interest.
  
  If you think that the book talks about defusing illness through metaphors, you are DEAD WRONG. The title may give that suggestion, but it is far from truth. We often come across terms like "Society is plagued..", "..is a cancerous vice", "..has crippled the administration" etc. etc. We have been bombarded by such laments to an extent that we have become inured to them. But something even more important skips us by. In its attempt to be morally severe and indignant human society has essentially given meanings to illnesses. And Sontag, a cancer patient herself, admitted..
  
  “It was the discovery of the stigmatization of people who have cancer that led me to write Illness as Metaphor.”
  
  Sontag elaborates on different metaphorical interpretations: How TB and insanity were romanticised for associations with passion, aggravated consciousness and artistic sensitivity. How Cancer metaphors drawn from language of warfare turn out to be demoralizing and reminiscent of fighting a losing battle. How diseases with sexual license (syphilis and AIDS) get attached with metaphors evoking shame and guilt. She quite systematically goes about revealing the dire effects of such metaphorical associations. According to Sontag, metaphors are two-way roads.
  
  “First, the subjects of deepest dread (corruption, decay, pollution, anomie, weakness) are identified with the disease. The disease itself becomes a metaphor. Then, in the name of the disease (that is, using it as a metaphor), that horror is imposed on other things. The disease becomes adjectival. Something is said to be disease-like, meaning that it is disgusting or ugly”.
  
  And once these metaphors become prevalent they stick for considerable lengths of time. TB may have devolved back to a bacterial infection (owing its demystification to scientific discovery of cause and treatment), but there is no denying the fact that it was practically hailed as a "much-desired" affliction (apparently being tubercular made one more artistic and was considered a sign of refinement) as late as mid-20th century. No wonder most of the classics tend to off their characters with consumption. (It irks me to no end though ヽ(`□)ﾉ They just start coughing and die within a chapter or two.)
  
  Syphilis, and later AIDS, became synonymous with pollution. They became markers of licentiousness and reinforced stigma surrounding their venereal origins. They entail harsher judgements on those infected and give rise to bizarre unfounded fantasies.
  
  “Getting the disease through a sexual practice is thought to be more willful, therefore deserves more blame.”
  
  On the other hand, the language used in cancer diagnosis (invasive, mutative, combative, resistant) and treatment (bombardment with radiation) recalls to mind the horrors of destruction. But such a destruction when visualised within one's body serves to amplify the depression and hopelessness. Cancer metaphors invoke an image of bodily rebellion and betrayal. While none of the aspects of cancer can be romanticized like TB, it can definitely be kept from becoming mentally agonizing.
  
  Sontag says,
  
  “The metaphors have to be exposed, criticized, belabored, used up.”
  
  As long as a disease continues to be treated as an evil, it will only add to the suffering of the afflicted. Which is true and there is a dire need to rectify the conception of the disease and to de-mythicize it. Just stopping the use of metaphors would be a Herculean task. After all, old habits die hard. Dissociating the entrenched metaphorical thoughts from their disease analogies is easier said than done. What we project on diseases ultimately ends up projected onto the world. The world and by extension life seems bleak. Hemmed both physically (due to symptoms) and mentally (due to stigmas), a patient ends up getting doubly injured. And more often than not, the mind gives in before the body does.
  
  What Sontag wished for is a direct tackling of the disease itself. A view of diseases unencumbered by meanings and conducive to discussions about life and death. The medical advancements have negated some of the thought processes that went in these books. Shame and blame have reduced if not completely reasoned away. And no one in present times would entertain any disease myths, romantic or otherwise. No wonder humanity has come quite far. And while it is true, that epidemics and pandemics have interspersed the history and would continue to do so, what is required is a focused crack down. Without fear and prejudice, with the sole aim of being ill in the healthiest possible way.
• 
  Ehsan Movahed

  سوزان سونتاگ تو مصاحبه ش با مجله ی رولینگ استون، کار خودشو مثل جدا کردن بی پایان سر از مار چند سر توهم، عوام فریبی و آگاهی کاذب می دونه. با همین هدفه که این کتاب انقدر رهایی بخشه. نه از بیماری های سل، سرطان، سفلیس و ایدز، این کتاب ما رو از "نام" این بیماری ها رهایی میده. نام هایی که از کلیشه ها، پیش داوری ها، انتظارات، ترس ها و حتی شکست های تاریخی و بشری ما انباشته شده ن. نام هایی که در حالت کلی، لوازم طبیعی تفکر ما هستن و در عین حال سد راه اون. هدف نهایی سونتاگ، رهایی تا حد ممکن انسان از خودشه
• 
  Repix

  Aunque un poco anticuado sí me ha parecido que aporta ideas muy interesantes.
• 
  Mack

  Learned a lot about Tuberculosis, Syphilis, Cholera, AIDS and so much more — I love a cultural history of anything
• 
  Megan

  I've been thinking a lot about the metaphor of healing lately, so this seemed an appropriate read. I was struck by Sontag's reflections on both the metaphors we use to describe illness and the way illnesses are used as metaphors. We describe cancer as a war, and we describe violence as a cancer.
  
  My recent bout of hyperparathyroidism made me think a lot about how some illnesses are just too much of a mouthful to be metaphorized. Too clunky, too obscure, too easily confused with a thyroid condition. If I don't say so first, people tell me it must have been like the story of the frog in the pot of boiling water, a functional (if also apocryphal) metaphor for my experience. Yes, indeed, it happened too gradually to notice before it was about to destroy my life. But I can't use the metaphor in the opposite direction. I'll never describe my anger as hyperparathyroidist, and I'll never claim Trumpism to be America's hyperparathyroidism. Sontag points out it's not just the clunkiness preventing the metaphor: it's also the clarity of treatment. "Any important disease whose causality is murky, and for which treatment is ineffectual, tends to be awash in significance." Not so for my easily resolved illness with its highly effectual treatment: remove the offending gland, and you're all fixed. (Physically anyway. Your ill-minded self may leave behind some relationships broken beyond repair.)
  
  Anyway. I imagine I enjoyed the book more having recently read the grand epic of tuberculosis, The Magic Mountain... otherwise all the talk of tuberculosis's metaphors may have been hard to follow. It was interesting to learn how much cancer was stigmatized as a personal failing until the shame of AIDS overshadowed its image, and that helps to explain why, in 1966, my grandmother seemed to "suddenly" die of cancer. How was it that no one knew whether she herself knew her diagnosis? Sontag reports on the widespread practice of keeping patients ignorant of their condition, and that makes my grandmother's strange story a little more logical.
  
  I didn't expect all the reflections on epidemics and pandemics, which made the extended essay on AIDS all the more relevant as we close out our own plague year. “One feature of the usual script for plague: the disease invariably comes from somewhere else. The names for syphilis, when it began its epidemic sweep through Europe in the last decade of the fifteenth century are an exemplary illustration of the need to make a dreaded disease foreign. It was the "French pox" to the English, morbus Germanicus to the Parisians, the Naples sickness to the Florentines, the Chinese disease to the Japanese. But what may seem like a joke about the inevitability of chauvinism reveals a more important truth: that there is a link between imagining disease and imagining foreignness.” The Chinese disease, eh? We've heard that before.
  
  It didn't diminish my reading experience, but I struggled with Sontag's push against illness as metaphor, her idea that all this meaning-making distracts from the actual meaning--and treatment-- of the illnesses. While misplaced meaning-making may lead a cancer patient to choose an ineffective course of treatment, and thus reduce their remaining lifespan, no meaning-making at all would make an extended lifespan pretty dull. To use another metaphor, we need not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
  
  Before my surgery, my therapist encouraged me to figure out the meaning I could give to this little mutilation. Sontag might ask me, what meaning does it need besides the healing it offers? And I suppose it doesn't need anything more, but what really needs meaning in this paltry human life of ours? What needs meaning on this tiny mote of a planet in the scope of the universe?
  
  Nothing. Nothing at all.