1

Emily Diamond
Klein
WRTC 458: Scientific and Medical Communication
30 April 2014
Final Exam: Prcis on Illness as a Metaphor

Illness can be described as an affliction of the body or mind, and often people with
illnesses are mistreated. Some of this mistreatment stems from the way our language is used to
describe the illness in general, as well as those affected by it. The rhetoric and discourse
surrounding certain illnesses in particular are often presented in such a way that people afflicted
with these diseases feel as though they are social outcasts, or are forced to be defined as their
illness. In the non-fiction text, Illness as a Metaphor, written in 1978 by American political
activist and writer Susan Sontag, Sontag asserts that the language used to describe certain
diseases, such as cancer, tuberculosis and the AIDs virus, affect societys view of the disease and
suggests that this also affects those who are afflicted by them. Sontags text investigates this
issue from a rather personal perspective, because Sontag herself battled with cancer, and
therefore has authority and credibility on the topic. By supplying the reader with information
about two diseases, cancer and tuberculosis, Sontag builds her claim about the psychology
behind contracting certain diseases. Sontags purpose is inform readers about stigmatisms
associated with certain diseases like cancer, in comparison to other afflictions, such as heart
attacks, in order to end societys negative mentality towards these diseases. The authors
audience likely consists of those interested in medicine, or diseases as is evident through her

2
references to specific illness, symptoms and lasting effects and she addresses readers with a tone
that is both scientific and passionate.
Susan Sontag begins her text by stating, Illness is not a metaphor, and that the most
truthful way of regarding illness-and the healthiest way of being ill-is one most purified of, most
resistant to, metaphoric thinking. She further adds that though this is the case, it is nearly
impossible not to think of illness in metaphorical terms, and this is partially to do with the fact
that society thrusts them upon you. Her definition of metaphor is clearly expressed in her later
text, AIDS and Its Metaphors, when she explains that metaphors help broaden the understanding
of certain illnesses. This concept in theory makes sense, but when practiced, often leaves those
with the illnesses in a more vulnerable state. Sontag takes her audience through the language
surrounding those well-known diseases, cancer and tuberculosis, by providing background
knowledge, research and her own opinion on the subject matter.
First to be examined is tuberculosis-a disease that was formally known as consumption,
and was a medical mystery. Tuberculosis was thought to be contracted because of the repression
of feelings such as lust, love, or even creativity. The idea of becoming ill with tuberculosis
became romantic, and by the 19th century it was fashionable to look sickly. Sickness was a way
of making people interesting-which was how romantic was originally defined, Sontag
summarizes of a study of Greek poetry. Because tuberculosis was connected to creativity and the
idea of being interesting, writers such as Keats and Shelley found tuberculosis to be becoming
on other writers because it provided them with inspiration and meant that they were intact with
their feelings, making them better writers. It is also connected to the romantic idea of travelling,
which was thought to be the cure to tuberculosis. Though TB is linked to isolation, sufferers
would move to warmer climates and exotic places like Italy, which made them more

3
interesting. Sontag points out that TB is celebrated as the disease of born victims, of sensitive,
passive people who are not quite life-loving enough to survive. This language shows that she
tone is almost mocking of those who regard the disease as something to be envious of. Sontags
use of writings from the seventieth to nineteenth centuries show that the language surrounding
TB allowed for the disease to not place blame on the patient, or to make the sufferer feel any less
than, it actually made the disease desirable, which can not be said of the new tuberculosis,
which is cancer.
Language used to describe cancer personifies cancer as a killer, one that is fought or
crusaded against, and whose patients are victims. She also points out that the language
surrounding cancer is less romantic, and more relatable to military terminology, as Sontag points
out, Cancer cells are invasive, the cells are mutant, and colonize. Sontag continues to
show how the language surrounding cancer gives the disease a much more negative connotation
than other diseases because of the overpublicizing unpleasant side effects of the treatment of
killing the cancer cells. In the 19th century TB was thought to be contracted after repressing
feelings, versus the thought of cancer striking to dampen the hyperactivity of patients. Writers
such as Kant, spoke on behalf of cancer being the bodys way of handling excess amounts of
feelings or emotions and both diseases were thought to act as punishments for people who
repress, or lack passion. Sontag goes on further to provide the thoughts on breast cancer in the
early 1800s, which were that excessive grief and anxiety in women caused the disease. These
feelings have continued on in present days society because cancer is also thought of as a
shameful disease because of the stereotypes of the people who contract it, and the language used
to describe it. She also discusses how the language to describe cancer inspires paranoia for items

4
found in daily life, such as eating bacon, and hair dyes. This causes society to form the opinion
that those afflicted with the disease have possibly done something morally or socially wrong.
Sontag believes that societys language and attitude towards tuberculosis in previous
centuries, is now being shifted onto the disease of cancer. Though the two diseases are vastly
different, Sontag makes a point that the language used to describe them are similar, as are the
effects of using such language. For example, Sontag mentions the different symptoms patients of
both diseases face, and how those symptoms have been publicized, and therefore, how they are
viewed in the public eye. The symptoms a cancer patient, according to Sontag, are considered to
be de-sexualizing because of the extreme fatigue, nausea, weight loss and loss of desire. On the
contrast, tuberculosis has a bit of a sex appeal; symptoms include spells of euphoria, it was
imagined to have powers of seduction, and physical symptoms such as rosy cheeks, which are
deceptive. Both diseases had fantasies in the early stages that were linked to repressed passions
causing the disease but Tuberculosis was also thought to make the sufferer sexy versus [with
cancer] you just give up, you resign-and, then, you shrink.
Tuberculosis and cancer are both described as predators, who seek individuals to attackno one ever really knows that it is coming, or to whom but it is believed that certain types of
personalities or types of people can contract the diseases. To provide another well-known
example of this, Sontag references other diseases, such as Syphilis, that contrasts the idea that
illnesses like TB or Cancer attack a certain personality. The syphilitic personality type was
someone who had the disease, not someone who was likely to get it. What she means is that
society realizes that a person who has syphilis is someone who is most likely sexually active, and
that this generalization has formed because of the nature of the disease. The author points out
that when literature on both diseases are studied, it is evident that The tubercular could be and

5
outlaw or a misfit; the cancer personality is regarded more simply, and with condescension, as
one of lifes losers. Her writing expresses a tone of disgust for how people with these diseases
are regarded and treated. By comparing the attitudes of people with cancer to those with syphilis,
Sontag further shows her distain for how these diseases are being represented.
The final chapters of Illness as Metaphor focus on the metaphorical language that
remains, even though we know more about both diseases. Sontag also discusses how these
metaphors effect societys view of the patients, and ultimately their treatment in society. Both
diseases were thought to be contracted because of the persons negative mental state, and it was
believed that if someone were happy, they would not catch the diseases. As stated above, the
stereotypes of who contracts the disease are very different; people with TB are thought to be
regal, creative and passionate sufferers, whereas those with cancer lack these feelings and find no
romance in their treatment. Metaphorically, TB is thought of as an emblem of refinement,
whereas cancer is the barbarian within. The idea that only certain types of people catch certain
diseases, are referred to as a psychological theory. Psychological theories of illness are a
powerful means of placing the blame on the ill. Patients who are instructed that they have,
unwittingly, caused their disease are also being made to feel that they have deserved it. The
authors tone is critical of other writers, and suggests that she hopes to improve the rhetoric used
to describe illnesses. Sontag leaves the reader with hope that one day, just like with tuberculosisthe cancer metaphor will fall away.