The most critical aspect of human civilization, the cornerstone which separates the civilized from the uncivilized animal, is the prevalence of the language to describe the experiences and thoughts of those who have the privilege to express them. One key aspect of language which conveys meaning in a unique manner is the metaphor, defined as a figure of speech where one word or phrase is used in place of another to denote a comparison between the two. More particularly, in Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors written by Susan Sontag and “The US Obesity ‘Epidemic’: Metaphor, Method, or Madness?” written by Gordon R. Mitchell and Kathleen M. McTigue, the authors use metaphors for terms such as “cancer” and “obesity epidemic,” respectively, and explain them to some degree to illustrate the implied associations they have. Sontag introduces a metaphor that parallels cancer with an other-worldly invader, and Mitchell and McTigue explain the “obesity epidemic” metaphor as one that implies a sense of urgency and immediate action. What both metaphors accomplish is the inadvertent ostracization of the afflicted in the realm of “modern” diseases.

In Susan Sontag’s Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors, she dives into the breadth of metaphors that roam the realms of tuberculosis and cancer, mainly. However, for comparative purposes, the focus is on the cancer metaphors Sontag explains in her text. She begins her text by comparing the two diseases and their respective metaphors and continues on with that style. Sontag emphasizes the idea of the body being a host to the cancer, in which the human has no control over the situation (Sontag 68). The human is a reservoir of energy for the host to draw upon, thus illustrating the parasitic relationship which Sontag pushes for in her cancer comparison. She uses and explains the metaphor in their respective contexts to demonstrate the connotations these diseases carry, and their effect on the patient (demoralizing, sense of defeat) and how the doctors are able to respond to these metaphors. These have serious implications on a realm swarmed with diseases and how humans are able to respond to such ailments.

Building off Sontag’s use of cancer metaphors in her journal, the one that merits a more careful and thorough analysis is the one in which she compares cancer to an other-worldly entity. Sontag associates cancer with “a cosmic disease, the emblem of all destructive, alien powers to which the organism is host” (Sontag 68). Cancer is therefore other-worldly and not of any natural order, as it does not originate from Earth which creates a sense of otherness within the cancer disease itself. Sontag supplements this alien comparison by stating “Cancer could be described as a triumphant mutation, and mutation is now mainly an image for cancer” (Sontag 68). The description of cancer as a mutation evokes a sense of fear, as this mutation is something usually associated with science fiction rather than real life. It turns cancer into a sort of nightmare, with sci-fi connotations of alien probes and invasion which take form in this disease. These mutants come from outer-space and even accidental mutations are not natural, which is the point to be emphasized throughout the entirety of Sontag’s cancer metaphor. Cancer is not a natural disease, further illustrated by its treatment as a “demonic enemy” that is unnatural not in a holy sense, but in the sense of it being a host in the human body. Hence, society tends to view cancer as an unworldly demonic mutation which turns the human body into an energy reservoir. Thus, those who have cancer are afflicted by the metaphor(s) of cancer as well since these metaphors affect perception of the afflicted a great deal.

Gordon R. Mitchell and Kathleen M. McTigue’s article “The US Obesity ‘Epidemic’: Metaphor, Method, or Madness?” serves to identify the metaphor for obesity “epidemic” as one that demands a sense of urgency and immediate action. The word “epidemic” in itself denotes a grave disease/illness and one that must be addressed immediately, similar to the word “plague” as Mitchell and McTigue outline in their article. They explain that “utterance of the word ‘plague’ transforms the entire social situation” and “the medical profession is saddled with the overwhelming duty to contain an infectious disease that has the potential to wipe out society” (Mitchell and McTigue 395). This creates a sense of urgency within a population of people and rushes them to action, almost evoking a sense of fear from this disease, which in this case is obesity, as the rally calls to action are for the greater good of society against the epidemic which threatens their livelihoods. In addition, by coining the term “epidemic” to describe the obesity rates, it creates a metaphor in of itself by “comparing a property of literal epidemics (widespread affliction) with the large ‘proportions’ of the US population that are overweight or obese” (Mitchell and McTigue 396). By doing this, obese and overweight individuals are treated as subjects that must be treated in order to cure America of this “epidemic,” as “Americans’ escalating body weight as a public health epidemic sounds an alarm bell” (Mitchell and McTigue 395), and one that most Americans will respond to and immediately use to characterize the “afflicted” individuals, or rather collective group.

In addition, what this metaphor for the obesity “epidemic” serves to do for the obese and overweight peoples themselves is more than devestating: it’s detrimental to them. The connotation of an “epidemic” is certainly grim, and this call to action is an effort to mobilize the available units to stop this “epidemic” from reaching any further. It places the overweight and obese people in a category of their own, as patients of illness that are part of these greater rising numbers in body weight and must be treated. Rather than viewing them as individuals, using the term “epidemic” establishes a rhetoric that “highlights the prevalence of overweight and obesity as a society-wide concern that transcends personal interests implicated by individual cases” (Mitchell and McTigue 394). Essentially, the individual is completely disregarded and becomes a part of the conglomerate which comprises their need to reduce the rates of obesity, thus stigmatizing those people as lazy inadvertently by placing all the effort on others and not on the afflicted themselves. The metaphor serves to isolate the afflicted, which makes its effects all the more detrimental.

In both articles, the authors use the metaphors to highlight the issues which afflict the afflicted in each of their pieces. Mitchell and McTigue explain how the epidemic metaphor frames the “problem of escalating US body weight trends” (Mitchell and McTigue 398), as it uses the metaphor to place the obesity debate in the public sector and whether government intervention is necessary. By “raising the alarm” through the use of epidemic terminology, a greater emphasis is placed on the course of action. Moving from this topic, however, what this terminology does in actuality is obscure our understanding of the condition. It puts forth the obese individual as one who is part of a greater statistical figure and must be stopped to prevent greater rates of obesity in America. In addition, Sontag’s metaphor for cancer takes a similar stance as it also obscures our understanding of cancer. A sense of fear is evoked from the term “cancer” due to the associations people have with the disease, and it immediately places the cancer patient in their own sphere which belongs to the otherness. It detracts away from what cancer really is to people and diminishes their experiences to simple metaphors such as the one Sontag illustrates. As two “modern diseases,” the metaphors for cancer and obesity illustrated in both texts not only obscure our understanding, but they diminish the stance of the afflicted.

In conclusion, Sontag’s “cancer” metaphor implies cancer as an other-worldly invader, and Mitchell and McTigue explain the “obesity epidemic” metaphor as one that implies a sense of urgency and immediate action, while both metaphors inadvertently ostracize the afflicted in the realm of “modern” diseases. This revelation demonstrates that language, especially the use of metaphor, is a masterful craft that can be used to alter one’s perception of a disease and an individual with said disease. It permits people to make generalizations about a group before knowing the actual story, which is said to be the most dangerous of all. However, these metaphors are the places most tap into when presented with such illness, and are a cornerstone to how language works in general. Hence, the metaphor is an unavoidable reality that can only be subject to the test of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Mitchell, Gordon R. and McTigue, Kathleen M. “The US Obesity ‘Epidemic’: Metaphor, Method, or Madness?” Vol. 24 No.4, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/MitchellMcTigue2007b.pdf

Sontag, Susan.  Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors. Picador, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.