Here is Marysia & Kristen's reflection for you to respond to by Sunday evening:
After yesterday’s controversial discussion of Barbara Ehrenreich’s, “Welcome To Cancerland,” we were exposed to a very different and seldom expressed view on the tragedy of cancer. Although we understood her arguments saying that cancer is being sugarcoated and “normalized” we are still confused whom she is angry with, and why. Is she angry with the people who are trying to help raise cancer awareness and subsequently created a “breast cancer cult?” Is she angry towards humankind for inflicting themselves with this sickness? Or is she angry at both situations? If she is angry with the group of people who are trying to help breast cancer patients, then we do not agree with her arguments. Even when we point out the breast cancer culture’s faults, they are still beneficial to society and their positives heavily outweigh their negatives. If she is angry with humankind for inflicting themselves with this sickness, then she should also be angry with herself because she is part of the polluting population. It almost seems like she is just angry to be angry and create more anger in society. We all saw the frustrated response most of us had in class to this writing, and we were wondering how beneficial this piece is to the breast cancer cause? Is it meant to be beneficial or is she just expressing the isolation she feels from this “cult” that was originally intended to create a community for breast cancer patients who felt alone like her?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kristen and Marysia,
ReplyDeleteWhile the author's anger is the most evident emotion in "Cancerland", I think your question examining the root cause, and true direction, of Babara's anger is both wise and very difficult to answer. Because "Cancerland" is the only thing we have to determine where Barbara's anger stemms from, and it is so convuluted by criticism, I feel foolish even trying to decide if Barbara Ehrenriech's anger is directed at the breast cancer movement, or more towards the influence man has in causing the cancer. Barbara could be extrapolating her opininon of one element of the breast cancer community's flaws (due to her own negative experience) to the entire movement, or she could merely just be outraged at the superficial role people concerned with breast cancer play in curing it, especially when the human race often plays a role in the disease's origin in patients. Ultimately, however, I think only Barbara can know why she is truly so angry; though, I would venture to guess that instead ofbeing angry at one or the other, for some strong reason, Barbara is really just angry at anything related to the devestating illness she went through, and we only know as breast cancer.
I think it is hard to say what exactly Barbara Ehrenreich was trying to achieve through this writing. While I understand the anger she is expressing towards the "cancer cult," I don't believe that her writing is necessarily beneficial to anyone. While there may be other cancer patients who can relate to her frustration, I believe there are also those who probably appreciate the effort that was originally intended by the pink ribbon pins and other small novelties that help fund cancer research.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the writing seemed to do nothing but let Ehrenreich blow off some steam. Of course I respect her point of view on the subject, and I know i do not have the personal experience with the matter like she does, but the writing seemed rather helpless. Ehrenreich did not address what, specifically, she would like to see changed and she did not propose how the change ought to occur. Thus, the piece was more of a soap box, in my opinion, and the topic Ehrenreich discussed could be debated endlessly.
I believe Ehrenreich's piece is very controversial. It can be taken in two ways: beneficial or taken very offensively. It seemed that most of us became angry after reading "Cancerland". I can understand why the author would be frustrated and using words such as "cult" to describe the breast cancer community, however the amount of women involved positively in this community through pink rhinestoned ribbons and walks to particpate in love their community.
ReplyDeleteI understand why Ehrenreich would be frustrated with being diagnosed with cancer. It is a life -altering diagnosis that no one asks for. But I feel this piece gave a wrong depiction of breast cancer. I would be interested to see how other breast cancer patients react to this piece. Would they too be offended or simply agree?
I agree with everyone that Ehrenreich's documentation's were frustrating and controversial. However, if we are correct about her assumptions on the topic of cancer, she does bring up some valid points. The disease of cancer itself was inflicted upon by the polluting nature of human kind. While we are not all instigators of this, we are followers. It is hard because this is our life as we know it today and it would be nearly impossible to go back and discontinue the use of technology such as cell phones, and consuming products that are known cancer creators. There are so many products and activities out there today, that is nearly impossible to live a life in shelter of all potentially cancer ridden objects. There are many things that we participate in everyday that we are full aware are associated with cancer. However, if we spent everyday of our lives debating each and every decision based on its potential consequences, our lives would be very limited. It would be rather pathetic to have said that as a human you avoided cancer by living a life of simplicity, but isolating onself, and then ending up being hit by a bus crossing the street.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you guys that this piece was quite frustrating. How can one be upset with people that are only trying to help? Although I understand her point of view, I think she is looking at the situation from a very single minded perspective. Personally, I am not very familiar with all the things people do to "show their support" for breast cancer, but the activities I have seen seem to really be beneficial. Not only do they raise awareness of the disease, they also show support for people who are suffering for it. During the breast cancer walk this year I happened to be downtown and saw many of the people who were involved. Everybody had a little piece of paper pinned to their shirts that said why they were there. Many of the people seemed to have family members who had or had had breast cancer. Is it really wrong for these people to show support for their family members? I don't think they make it seem like a normal dilemma at all (like getting old). Furthermore, I bet a lot more people would be writing critical pieces if nobody was showing any interest in breast cancer.
ReplyDeleteI personally was annoyed with Ehrenreich's "Cancerland." I felt as if she was complaining about the wrong issues. People who buy ribbons and participate in races generally have a genuine desire to help. Often people want to help, but don't know how. By having this breast cancer "cult" it gives people the option to help in any way they can. While this culture may be detrimental to Ehrenreich, it helps countless others. Professor Bateman put the idea forth in class that this paper was merely intended as a way for her to vent. As a therapy of sorts for a person who was diagnosed with a life threatening illness. To me, this idea seems very possible. Perhaps she's more scared about the disease than the breast cancer "cult" seems to allow and that is why she is so angry with it and with those involved.
ReplyDelete