Stephanie Toussaint
Professor Creaney
Composition For Creative Expression FIQWS

October 14, 2021

During the past month, specifically during class discussions and our examination of readings and the use of language, I have become more acutely aware of how our perception and interpretation of what we hear may be totally different from how another person receives the same communication. We also engaged in extensive discussions on the use of rhetorical devices in communicating effectively, and this assignment to examine two metaphors only continues the discourse. This presentation will look at one metaphor from one of our readings and another metaphor that I have heard and used in the past. Stanley Thangaraj’s Racism is a Virus, 2021 is the first and primary metaphor that will be discussed, while “Disease is the enemy” is the second metaphor that will be reviewed in order to show how both metaphors shape our understanding of pain, suffering, disease or illness. Both metaphors will be analyzed to show how subjective and divergent our interpretation of a metaphor which purports to represent pain and suffering is likely to be.

Stanley Thangaraj’s Racism is a Virus, Challenge the Discourse and Remake the Nation, July 2021, critically analyses the (lack of) appropriateness of the pervasive and topical comparison of racism to a virus. The author rejects the comparison, and categorically states that racism is not a virus. According to the author, a virus has the potential of never being eradicated, needs a host (“would this be the entire nation possibly?”) to survive, and the comparison absolves racist individuals of perpetrating their insidious racial acts and simplifies the discourse of race and racism

(Desiballer). Thangarai posits that racism is endemic to (a disease or condition regularly found among particular people or in certain area) America, is “part of the very foundational structure of the nation” and thus cannot be considered a virus (which is an infective agent or foreign to a body) (Desiballer). Racism is key to the historical formation of America, and thus to equate it to a virus is to trivialize and negate its integral role in the creation of nation states and the finding and “mapping” of America. “Racism is a virus” is deceptively racist and serves to reinforce the categorizing of minorities and certain groups as the ills, the “vermin and disease” of society. The metaphor fails to acknowledge and address the centuries of slavery and the political and social structure that supported the continued enslavement of Africans, , and only perpetuates the notion that.

“Disease is the enemy” compares disease to not merely “an enemy”, but to “the enemy”. There is nothing good about disease, as it is defined as a particular quality, habit, or disposition that is regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people. Alternatively, adversely affecting a person or a group of people, a disease can also be classified as a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of a physical injury. An enemy is a person who is hostile or actively opposed to someone or something. Comparing a disease to not just any enemy, but to the enemy, not only personifies the disease and gives it character (albeit a terrible one), but in the process, we are almost inclined to forget about the person facing the disease, and think of the disease as the person.

Disease can take innumerable forms and its onset may be the result of genetics, adopted lifestyles or often, bad luck or the (non)luck of the draw. Regardless, disease is a thing, a state of being, a disorder which most people do not like having. Once a disease sets upon a living being,

immediate measures are usually implemented to eradicate or put the disease into remission. Comparing a disease to the enemy is a metaphor that is imprecise its comparison, since the similarities between a disease and an enemy are significantly less than their dissimilarities. People (or animals or plants) who have diseases are immediately thought of with consideration and sympathy for their affliction. We may initially think “There but for the grace of God go I”, until we better understand how and why the disease onset. Conversely, there is nothing compassionate or friendly about an enemy. When we think of an enemy, we feel anger, hatred, fear and distrust. To personify disease as an enemy is to give it life and to detract from the life of the person afflicted with the disease. The exaggeration or hyperbole of calling disease “the enemy” is too much of an amplification of the combativeness or deadliness of the disease. Patients may believe they need to always be in a fight or flight mode, and could possibly not even desire to begin a treatment regime, may not feel up to fighting yet another enemy, or, if these patients believe they are not getting better, they may simply choose to toss in the towel, and stop receiving treatment. Concurrently, patients may believe that – because they are in a battle with not just “an” enemy, but with “the” enemy – they have to project a strong, battle-armored demeanor, and not express their fears, concerns or feelings of lack of control over their lives, and the disease’s impact on their familial relationships.

In equating disease with the enemy, we are potentially marginalizing people who have the disease. Is it possible to separate a person from their disease? Once a person has a disease, is that disease not a part of that person and do we not therefore treat both the person and the disease? Alternatively, by objectifying a disease as an enemy, we may be committing a grave injustice to people who have survived wars and the enemies of war. On the flip side, calling a disease “the enemy” does not acknowledge the treatments or options available to conquer and eradicate the

scourge on that person or group of people. It is quite possible that successful treatment options are available, and the treatment regime may even be soothing to the patient; in the predictability of office visits and visible improvements during therapy.

In conclusion, metaphors are common in our daily vernacular. The use of metaphors is commonplace, and their usage can evoke visceral reactions and emotions. However, because metaphors rely on the comparison of at least two things, our interpretation of the items being compared may not be identical or even similar to the message the communicator or writer is trying to convey. Additionally, a metaphor may not be highly successful if the items being compared are more dissimilar than similar. Even when a metaphor may compare things that are extremely similar, our interpretation of the meaning/symbolism of the metaphor may reflect our experiences, and not the ideas of the communicator. Metaphors are as commonplace as they are difficult to use commonly, particularly if those metaphors aim to convey pain and suffering to the readers.