Battle Language: Does it Help Us Cope With Illness?
Language is a tool. It is inherited and yet constantly evolving. It serves us not only in communicating with others but in understanding our own human experience. Metaphors in particular have a powerful impact. Sometimes patterns emerge that require examining to determine how they are serving us. For example: If you skim through an obituary you will undoubtedly see many phrases like “courageous battle”, “lost the fight”, “valiant warrior”, and other verbiage which could be called military metaphor or battle language. I’m not suggesting this is bad or wrong. Like many things in life it doesn’t fit neatly into those boxes but since it is so prevalent it’s worth a closer look.
Some of the ways I’ve seen this type of framework have positive impacts are in bolstering a person mentally and emotionally to face the difficult decisions and experiences ahead with resolve, focus, and composure. It can be a healthy coping strategy and it can assist in perseverance. For some, this way of thinking is the tried and true way of approaching difficulties in all aspects of life. The way I see it, if it’s working for someone and not hurting others, why change it.
I have a good friend whose mother went kicking and screaming till the bitter end. I’m not exaggerating. If you mentioned the word hospice in her presence you were immediately exiled from the room. She was fighting the same way she fought her way out of poverty, fought as a single mom for her kids, and fought through each medical treatment. I think she may have been born fighting. The determination she showed throughout her illness was admirable. She wanted to be present for her family as long as possible. And, her last moments were quite painful and even traumatic for herself and her family at her side.
That leads me to the question of when the battle language turns into something unhelpful or even burdensome. There seems to be a distinction among doctors and researchers that battle verbiage is more helpful in early stages of illness than later stages. Perhaps at some point what is being fought for changes. The thing is, in battles there are winners and there are losers. The obvious argument being that if you say someone was victorious it implies someone with an opposite outcome failed. And do we accept the implication that death is a failure? That can be an undue burden on a person already suffering. Not to mention, if it’s a fight, it’s not a very fair fight. Dr. Sunita Puri, Medical Director at USC states “ Sometimes we inflict a lot of suffering on ourselves by trying to push past our limits.” and “[battle language] can be an armor that doubles as a veil.” Meaning, it can prevent us from having open discussions about the reality of our situation and of what is possible or in our best interest. Puri goes on to say “It can also lead to painful and sometimes futile medical procedures robbing people of comfort and quality of life.”
So, if the war metaphors are not serving someone what might be an alternative way to imagine this difficult task? I am compelled by Stephen Jenkinson once again when he states in his revolutionary book Die Wise “ What if your job, should you accept it, is to wrestle with this angel of your dying instead of fighting it?[ …] Wrestling is a different thing entirely. Wrestling has choreography. The purpose.. Isn’t to get to the end, to have it be over, to resolve it, to let it go, to accept. Wrestling has an intimacy to it that fighting will never attain[….] Wrestling isn’t what happens to you. It is what you do.”
Being aware of the lens with which we view our condition is imperative to our well being. If our view is being influenced by the words we use in a way that hinders us from our actual goals we can take what is helpful and leave the rest. We can also be more aware when supporting others through illness. And at a time that can feel quite powerless we find a seemingly small but mighty tool that is in our control.
Sidenotes;
The battle language trend seems to have taken root after the National Cancer Act of 1971 was signed by President Nixon who nicknamed it “The War on Cancer”. By 1970 cancer had become the nation’s second leading cause of death and the bill served to advance the understanding and treatment of cancer.
The territorial nature of cancer especially lends itself to military metaphor.