Hanne M, Hawken S J
Programme in Comparative Literature, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Med Humanit. 2007 Dec;33(2):93-9. doi: 10.1136/jmh.2006.000253.
Essayist Susan Sontag alerted us more than 20 years ago to the way in which clusters of metaphors attach themselves to our discussion of certain diseases, and the influence these metaphors exert on public attitudes to the diseases themselves and to those who experience them. This study of feature articles on five diseases-avian flu, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and HIV/AIDS-published recently in the New York Times reveals distinct patterns of metaphor usage around each. While the metaphors used in relation to the diseases Sontag studied-cancer and HIV/AIDS-have become less emotive and more positively informative, the sensationalist connotations of the metaphor clusters that have formed around two diseases that were not on the agenda for wide public debate in her time-avian flu and diabetes-are hardly congruent with the serious intent of the articles in which they appeared. By contrast, discussion of heart disease involved very limited use of metaphor. The article ends with a call for journalists and medical professionals to become more aware of the impact of the metaphors they use and to collaborate in developing sets of metaphors that are factually informative and enhance communication between doctors and their patients.
20多年前,散文家苏珊·桑塔格就提醒过我们,隐喻群是如何附着在我们对某些疾病的讨论上的,以及这些隐喻对公众对疾病本身以及对患病者的态度产生的影响。这项对近期发表在《纽约时报》上的关于五种疾病——禽流感、癌症、糖尿病、心脏病和艾滋病毒/艾滋病——的专题文章的研究揭示了围绕每种疾病独特的隐喻使用模式。虽然与桑塔格所研究的疾病——癌症和艾滋病毒/艾滋病——相关的隐喻已变得不那么情绪化,且更具积极的信息性,但在她那个时代未列入广泛公众辩论议程的两种疾病——禽流感和糖尿病——周围形成的隐喻群的耸人听闻的内涵,与它们所出现的文章的严肃意图几乎不一致。相比之下,关于心脏病的讨论涉及的隐喻使用非常有限。文章最后呼吁记者和医学专业人员更加意识到他们所使用的隐喻的影响,并合作开发一系列既具有事实信息又能加强医生与患者之间沟通的隐喻。