How Breast Cancer Changed Kobayashis Perspectives on Life

How breast cancer changed Kobayashi’s perspectives on life and how the society has influenced on her perspectives about the disease?
Introduction
Breast cancer ranks among the top most common types of cancers among women all around the globe. In addition to being a dreaded disease, cancer, in general, attracts very culturally biased opinions. As a result, those who are diagnosed with cancer are ‘forced’ to manage the disease in silence, and in the most conservatives communities – cancer patients are secluded from the community and isolated even by family members (Bhatti, Salek & Finlay, 2011). In Japan, breast cancer is among the most common cancers among women and statistic show that breast cancer incidences are only increasing with time. Statistics show that more than 40000 women in Japan are diagnosed with breast cancer annually. Japan being a largely conservative society, there is a ‘fear’ of cancer and a stigma attached to cancer patients (Daher, 2012; Matsuyama et al., 2007). As a result, cancer patients are forced to keep the news to themselves, to family, and/or close friends. However, some cancer patients often defy the trend and break the silence to announce that they are suffering from breast cancer. One of these was Mao Kobayashi. Kobayashi was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 34 years. She was a news anchor living in a conservative view of cancer, but she made the decision to break away from the tradition and announce that she had cancer through a blog. This research paper discusses how the disease changed her perspectives on life and how the society has influenced on her perspectives about the disease. The research is done through rhetorical analysis methodology.
Data analysis
Rhetorical analysis is the methodology used for data analysis in this paper. In particular, narrative criticism is the type of rhetorical analysis used. This method is used for analysis of stories, narrative, and tales with the objective of determining whether the message that the narrator seeks to pass has been effectively passed. Through this methodology, it is possible to analyze the narrative by Kobayashi as she broke the silence on her being a cancer patient.
Main focused rhetoric
i. The family rhetoric – is used dominantly in the narrative. Either directly or through the implication of family and family members – husband and children – the family rhetoric has been used dominantly in the narrative for various reasons. The family rhetoric has been used by the narrator as a source of concern on the aftermath, as a source of support, and as a source of pity not only for the period of her sickness but also after her death. To amplify the use of the family rhetoric, the narrator goes ahead to bring into the picture her age, the age of her children, and a lonely man strangling during the disease and after the death of the narrator.
ii. The threat rhetoric – is generated passively in the narrative through the depiction of breast cancer and the negative effects it has as a threat to the narrators family and her previously-normal self. Threat and fear form a primary part of this narrative as it could be regarded to be the major driver for the entire narrative. The threat rhetoric comes on early in the narrative as the narrator shows fear of what would become of her family as a result of being diagnosed with level 4 cancers, which in this case is meant to indicate the assured possibility of death. As a result of this fear, the patient opts to hide the ‘bad’ news that she has been diagnosed with cancer. This fear is further augmented by the nature of her job. Further down the line, the patient seeks to come out of the shadow of the disease to a ‘normal’ life, but this is hidden by the threat and fear of un-normal. The threat, therefore, plays a crucial role in not only connecting with the audience but also in the real-life progression of events in the narrative.
iii. The ‘un-normal’ rhetoric – this aspect of the narrative has been used in the narrative to form a counter-argument to what would be the normal – life without cancer. The un-normal life and lifestyle as a result cancer of cancer as per the narrator have caused a shift in lifestyle from the normal to an un-normal. This un-normal rhetoric has been used to create a draw the reader into the narrative with the objective of attaining pity, sympathy, and empathy from the reader. These elements are very important for the success of the narrative in that they help to carry the reader all through the narrative.
Definition of focused rhetoric
i. The family rhetoric
The family has been given special attention to play a role as a unit in the healthcare and medicine field. The family has often been placed prominently than the individual patient, a fundamental system in the delivery of health. The family has been used not only as a special system for the direct delivery of health care but also as a major factor in the healthcare environment (Nelson & Nelson, 2014). As a result, and with special attention to the chronic diseases, the family has been integrated into the care procedure. In this case, the family has been brought into the picture in various ways. First, the narrator who is also the cancer patient, bring in the family at the very start of the narration as if to say – “this is all about my family and not me.” Secondly, the narrator paints a picture of her as being part of a family and essential in continuing the family concept. Thirdly, the narrator brings in the family as a source of support and shield against the wild world, especially concerning the effects of her coming out to the public with the cancer news. Lastly, the family has been used by the narrator to create a sense of achievement, when all else seem to wither away as a result of the breast cancer disease.
The first instance where the family rhetoric comes into the narrative is when the narrator talks about her being diagnosed with breast cancer. This is in the second sentence of the narrative where she writes “my daughter was three, my son was only one.” the use of the family rhetoric, in this case, serves to inform the reader that there are children involved, and with the clear understanding the level 4 cancer is a death sentence, this serves to attract pity from the reader. It is important to note that, even though the narrator is married, there is no mention of the husband in this instance, possibly because a mention of a husband in this situation would dilute the intention of the section.
The family has also been used to bring out the fact that the patient is limited to performing her domestic motherly role, as was directed by her mother. The rhetorical use of the family in this instance is also done to elicit concern, pity, and empathy by the narrator. Almost in the same breath, she adds that she was hospitalized and thus “had to leave my children.” This way, she directs the reader to a specific limitation which would expectedly be painful to the reader. While “battling” with the breast cancer disease, she also expressly states some of the limitations that she has faced as a result of the disease “I couldn't cook for them or drop them off and pick them up at the kindergarten.” Even though she is faced with these meant-to-sound insurmountable challenges, she still states that she loves them, hence attracting a favorable admiration from the reader.
The family rhetoric is also employed when creating a picture of her death. It is important to note that, she even makes a direct quotation of how people would talk after she’s dead. This direct quotation creates credibility of the statement. Secondly, the direct quotation serves to detach the reader from the critics and ascribe to the narrator's opinion.
The family rhetoric, in this case, is undoubtedly successful as it creates the required emotions from the reader. In addition, the use of family rhetoric attracts pity, sympathy, and empathy from the reader, and these are vital for carrying the reader along and identify with the narrator's message.
ii. The threat rhetoric
The threat rhetoric has been used extensively in the narrative. This rhetoric has been implied as well as words used to establish fear within the reader, for example, she writes that she was “scared” of the fact that she had breast cancer. The threat to the reader creates emotions and feelings of concern on the fate of the narrator. The use of the threat rhetoric in this narrative would be linked to the fact that there is an aspect of fear that emergence with the mention of death. Breast cancer at level 4 is assuredly a death sentence which creates fear among the members of a conservative society. While it may result to isolation of the patient, it has a primary role in galvanizing the readers. However, it would be argued that in this narrative, the author uses the threat rhetoric not for the disease and the death that follows, but as a result of the negative effects of having level 4 cancer.
As soon as the narrator breaks the news that she has been diagnosed with cancer, she immediately dissipates the notion that it would be cured by stating that “I still have cancer in my body.” This silences any would-be comforters and drives home the fact that, yes, she has cancer and nothing can be done this far. This effectively generates fear due to the inability created and with the threat notion; it serves to generate pity for her from the reader. After her death, she argues that critics would wonder “poor thing…” It would be imagined that such an exclamation would be made with jaws agape, with a fallen face, or with a supported jaw gesture.
The use the threat rhetoric in the narration is vital for it first serves to counter any contrary arguments. Secondly, the fear rhetoric is used to bring the reader onboard by drawing pity for the narrator.
iii. The un-normal rhetoric
This focused rhetoric has been used primarily to draw the reader to the understanding that, as a result of the breast cancer the narrator is suffering from, her life is no longer what is considered to be a normal lifestyle. In creating a normal vs. un-normal picture, she creates a battle in an effort to retain the normal. This battle has its effects which include isolation, pretense, stopped communication, and showing her weaknesses. She also writes that she wanted to go back to who she was before – the normal – but as much as she tried to, the more she drifted towards the “shadows” – the un-normal. She had also sought to be involved in what is known to be a normal wife lifestyle, a normal defined by the behavior that had been exhibited by her mother.
The narrator used the un-normal rhetoric to attract pity from the reader in that she can’t partake in what is expected to be a human, wife, and mother normal lifestyle. However, she is also quick to note that she has already lived that normal lifestyle and made good on the same. This would be considered as an indication of the fact that, she has a clear understanding of the normal and un-normal and secondly, as a counter-argument to her critics who might argue that her normal life is nothing abnormal.
The relation between the identified focused rhetoric
The three focused rhetorical elements used in the narrative are related and work to support each other in bringing out the main theme in the narrative. Family rhetoric is the first identified focused rhetoric. This arguably forms the basis of the entire narrative and it plays a crucial role towards the themes emerging from the narrative. The family rhetoric serves to create a common touch with the targeted audience. Essentially, every person belongs to a family, can identify with a family, and has a natural instinct to protect the family (Blazer & Hernandez, 2006). This, therefore, doesn’t not only create a common point of touch with the readers in relation to the narrator’s experience but also serves to authenticate the narrator’s perspective.
With the family rhetoric successful it is therefore understandable when the narrator presents breast cancer as a threat to the family. The depiction of cancer as a threat feeds on the fact that, this threat is to the family. Without the family and without the reader buying into the vital role of the family, then the threat rhetoric would be meaningless. This two focused rhetoric thus far depend on each other to carry the reader, to make the reader buy into the narrative, and essentially, to understand why the narrator is making the case.
The un-normal rhetoric serves to bind the family and the threat rhetoric. The un-normal rhetoric shows how breast cancer is ‘forcing’ the narrator to abandon the normal and good way of bringing up her family. Thus, the un-normal in undesirable as it threatens the family. The three identified focused rhetorical elements of the narrative are therefore considered to work together, to be related, and to work harmoniously towards bringing the entire purpose of the narrative home. Through the three focused rhetoric elements, the narrator is able to not only achieve the emergent theories of the narration. One of the emergent theories that would be attributed a success through these three is that breast cancer affects the entire family, thus the entire family should tackle it as a unit.
The family rhetoric seems to answer the question “who?” the threat rhetoric answers the question “what?” and the un-normal rhetoric answers the question “how?” therefore, these three parts would be considered to work harmoniously towards creation and completion of the narrative. In addition, the three rhetorical elements relate effectively towards the establishment of the core theories of the narrative.
How the analysis relates to Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical view of social psychology by Billig (1996)
This analysis mirrors the work by Leach (2000) and Haste (1994) but it is considered to vary to the work by Billig (1996). According to leach (2000), rhetoric is both the production and the analysis of persuasive communication. So far, the analysis of the work by Kobayashi is considered to be both a production and the analysis of the narrative. Rhetoric has been used in the work to make it appealing, engaging, and communicative with the target audience. The use of rhetoric as a form of producing communication is critical in this work by Kobayashi because of the nature of the target audience. The blog by Kobayashi was meant to reach the conservative Japanese society that never acknowledges cancer patients thus those diagnosed with the disease would keep it private. To reach this audience, the narrator required to use specialists writing skills to bring the audience on board and engage them without attracting backlash and negative emotions.
Haste (1994) argues that while language is essential, it has to be from a point of shared premises or conclusions. In addition, communication has to deliberately use shared and common meanings, values, and assumptions with the intention of changing the understanding of the audience. This is exactly was the narrative by Kobayashi does and what it seeks to achieve. The primary background for the shared premises, meanings, and values is culture. The narrator in a Japanese writing for the Japanese audience with the intention to cause them to at least review their perspectives on cancer as it regards publicizing the diseases after diagnosis. The content by Haste (1994) is even more relevant to the analyzed narrative because it presents an illness as a case of rhetoric. Haste argues that for diseases like cancer and HIV AIDs, are normally approached with bias, stigma, and fear and those who come out are considered to contravene the “accepted models for rational explanation” (1994, p.38).
However, the analysis is considered to vary with Billing (1996) mainly because Billing argues that rhetoric and its use is a form of innovation. This form of rhetoric presented by Billing is very divergent from what is used by Kobayashi. First, the form of rhetoric that is presented by Billing is unknown to the common members of the public. This is contrary to what comes out from the narrative by Kobayashi. First, even though she is a news anchor, there is no evidence that she is a writing specialist. Despite the definitive clarity that she is a writing specialist, she is able to write a very convincing rhetorical piece that is considered a success in shifting the society’s perspective on cancer.
Analytic and reflective memo
Thesis statement that the narrator seeks to make
She seeks to change the understanding of her Japanese readers to accommodate cancer patients and allow them to talk freely about their cancer status after diagnosis of the diseases.
The topic the narrator has studied
Primarily, the author singularly tackles the issues of cancer, in particular, breast cancer. To do this, she employs various writing styles with the rhetorical presentation being the primary style. The topic is the cultural-oriented fact that the majority do not like making this positive cancer diagnosis public but rather, secret among close friends and family.
Why this topic?
The narrator has been diagnosed with breast cancer. She is a news anchor with a TV company and in addition to other reasons; she is required to keep it a secret that she has breast cancer. Despite the fact that the weight of the disease, the changing body physique, lifestyle, and personal pressure are pushing her to get it out. The narrative is her own way to come clean and literary let the weight of her chest.
The intent of the narrator
To change public opinion of breast cancer, to accept cancer patients, allow publicizing of one’s cancer status if they so wish. In general, she is giving breast cancer the attention it needs to ensure effective care and to start a conversation on the disease. The narrative is considered to be informative, educative, yet at the same time critical is a passive way.
Audience
The target audience for this narrative is conservative Japanese readers who are still held in the shackle of stigmatizing cancer patients and making them isolated from the society through culture-oriented biases and misconceptions.
The arrangement of ideas and use of quotes
The narrative has been arranged with the objective of step by step in a progressive manner to bring the reader on board. For example, after breaking the news of her having breast cancer, she almost immediately shifts the conversation to her young children. The family is used by the narrator as a source of concern on the aftermath, as a source of support, and as a source of pity not only for the sick but also after her death. The arrangement of words and phrases has been done to achieve a specific result with the reader. In addition, the author has used quotation which is considered to play a vital role in delivering the message therein. Moreover, using quotation gives the text raw credibility as well as helps to create an imagery of the intended speaker.
Discussion of findings from the analysis
The narrative is meant to challenge the public opinion concerning breast cancer in Japan. The narrative is written by a woman who has been diagnosed with level 4 breast cancer. However, in the narrative, she seems to more prominently to bring out the mother card. Other options she could have used include being a wife, being a news anchor, or simply being a breast cancer patient. However, of her various identities, the mother identity best serves to pass the message across.
Secondly, the narrative has been woven professionally so as to bring together the various parts of the narrative. Various rhetorical aspects have been used in the narrative, however, from a general reader’s perspective; the narrative is smooth reading and easy flowing. From an analyst’s viewpoint, various rhetorical elements have been used to make the narrative very effective. These include narration, description, exemplification, and cause and effect. Through these elements, the narration has huge success in the realization of the author’s goal, to change people’s understanding.
All through the narrative, the author has been able to successfully attract emotions from the readers. From the world go, the author seeks to martial the readers towards per worldview with regard to breast cancer. To do this, she solicits empathy and sympathy from the reader primarily through the use of the family setup and her role she is required to play as a mother for the success of the family system. Through the use of this commonly identifiable premise, the author is able to galvanize the target audience emotionally.
The methodology
The rhetorical analysis methodology has been used to analyze this story and in particular, narrative criticism. First, by the mere fact that this is a story, narrative criticism is the best suited rhetorical analysis method as it allows for analysis of the various aspects of a story e.g. the settings, the narrator, the target audience, the themes, events, and causal relations (Bruce et al., 2016). Narrative criticism allows for the comprehension of how the narrator imposes order in the various experiences and actions within the narrative by the mere fact of giving them a narrative form, narration is a fundamental form of communication among human beings as it gives form and structure to experiences, thoughts, desires, and influences persons who have a common understanding and explanation.
Second, the choice of the narrative rhetorical analysis method is considered appropriate for this narrative because it allows for a deeper analysis of the various parts of the narrative e.g. words usage, linguistic style, and repetition. Rhetorical analysis helps to decode and encode the message contained within the text and to determine its effectiveness whether it was a bad, good, or both message.


References
Bhatti, Z., Salek, M., & Finlay, A. (2011). Chronic diseases influence major life changing decisions: a new domain in quality of life research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(6), 241–250.
Billig, M. (1996). “Protagoras and the origins of rhetoric,” in Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical view of social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Blazer, D. G., & Hernandez, L. M. (Eds.). (2006). Genes, behavior, and the social environment: Moving beyond the nature/nurture debate. National Academies Press.
Bruce, A., Beuthin, R., Sheilds, L., Molzahn, A., & Schick-Makaroff, K. (2016). Narrative research evolving: Evolving through narrative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1609406916659292.
Daher, M. (2012). Cultural beliefs and values in cancer patients. Annals of oncology, 23(suppl_3), 66-69.
Haste, H. (1994). The sexual metaphor: Men, women, and the thinking that makes the difference.
Leach, J. (2000). “Rhetorical Analysis,” in MW Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.) Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook (pp. 207-226).
Matsuyama, R. K., Grange, C., Lyckholm, L. J., Utsey, S. O., & Smith, T. J. (2007). Cultural perceptions in cancer care among African-American and Caucasian patients. Journal of the National Medical Association, 99(10), 1113.
Nelson, H. L., & Nelson, J. L. (2014). The patient in the family: An ethics of medicine and families. Routledge.