Samantha Call
Seminar in Composition
Dr. Adam Johns
October 29, 2014
Cancer Kills and
Cures
Cancer is
bad. Cancer only leads to heartache and
death. Cancer is useless. Most people tend think along these lines due
to the grief that comes along when one is diagnosed with or dies from
cancer. What is to say that cancer is
all bad though? The Oankali challenge
the way humans look at cancer in the novel Lilith’s
Brood by Octavia E. Butler. Instead
of seeing it at face value as simply a means of death, the Oankali expand their
definition to include other aspects of cancer that are not negative. By challenging human institutions and what
humans consider conventional wisdom, the Oankali show a deeper understanding of
how the world works and are therefore on a better track to become prosperous
and successful.
Lilith
is not at all surprised when she is told by Jdahya that a cancer had been
growing inside of her and had been removed, but is extremely taken aback when
Jdahya mentions that cancer is of great interest to the Oankali because of its
“abilities” (Butler, 40). The Oankali do
not see cancer as a purely destructive force, but as an interesting phenomenon
that can help in the furthering of their own race. Unlimited by social pressure, much more
research can be done and other ways of dealing with cancer can be found. While humans set out to eradicate cancer, the
Oankali set out to observe and utilize it.
They see the possibilities it has for the “’regeneration of lost limbs’”
and “’increased longevity’” (Butler, 41).
Instead of using human wisdom and ideas circulated through the human
hierarchy that say cancer is a killer, the Oankali turn it around and say
cancer can be a savior, both of limbs and lives.
The
Oankali have opened the door to scientific research that goes beyond the
confines of normal human investigation that has been shaped by social institutions. This is due to the lack of a hierarchical
system among the Oankalis. Lewontin says
that “money, energy, and public consciousness” (Lewontin 52) all hinder
advances in science because scientists are no longer working for the good of
society, they are working for the good of specific companies or
individuals. They no longer want to
serve the public, they want to serve themselves. The absence of a hierarchy in the Oankali
culture keeps them from the kind of bias that would hinder advances, and thus
makes their discoveries more credible.
Human scientists are pressured by hospitals and companies that want to make
money off of the destruction of cancer, so they simply ignore the fact that
cancer could be useful in some way.
Since the Oankali don’t have a hierarchy that would put pressure on them
not to expand their research, they are more open and able to investigate other
aspects of things such as cancer. They
are to be better trusted in developing methods of treating people because they
aren’t so heavily influenced by a hierarchy.
This is a system that should be implemented by anyone serious about
furthering the human race as a whole.
Humans should be more like the Oankali because we would have more
opportunities for researching cancer and its abilities other than killing
people.
The treatment of
cancer that comes from the Oankali is far more useful, as well, than our
treatment of cancer as humans. While
humans are constantly seeking to learn just enough about cancer to get rid of
it, the Oankali are seeking to learn everything there is to know about it so
they can find uses for it. It is far
more productive to have a goal in mind, like the Oankalis do, then to be
searching aimlessly within human genes to perhaps one day stumble upon an
answer to a question that doesn’t need to be answered. Asking the correct question is the key, and
that is what the Oankali are doing. Why
destroy something that could be useful?
Humans are stuck looking at science from one perspective, which hinders
us. As Lewontin mentions in “Biology as
Ideology,” we must know the difference “between correlation and identity”
(Lewontin, 34). Humans see only the
correlation that cancer has with death and pain, so they overlook the identity
of cancer. Its identity, which is what
the Oankali are studying, encompasses all aspects of cancer instead of just its
destruction. By doing this, they are
refusing to limit the potential of cancer.
Yes, they realize it is harmful, so they take it out of those who have
it, but they also realize that not everything can be taken at face value. While humans waste time trying to discover
how to destroy cancer so they can go on living life as they always have, the
Oankali use their time more efficiently, trying to discover how they can use
cancer to increase their own quality of life and live in a way that is better
than how they were living before. The Oankali
are looking forward into the future, thinking of how to regrow their limbs and
make themselves a more durable race.
Humans, on the other hand, are not looking to become better, only to go
on as they have. Eventually, according
the theory of evolution, as stated by Darwin, that won’t work forever because
humans will be unable to adapt to changing conditions. Progress is what keeps a species from going
extinct, and the Oankali have realized that.
Commonly, humans
are stuck in the mindset of “If it’s not broken, why fix it?” People say this without realizing that
although we may be fine now, what we’re doing cannot last forever. Destroying cancer may seem like good thing now,
but what happens in the future when we could use the ability to “regenerate
limbs” but can’t figure out how to do it because we didn’t use our resource,
cancer, in the right way? We will be
stuck, confined by our own social structure and mindsets to slowly become less
and less adapted to our environment. The
Oankali have learned to adapt, unlike humans, which is why they are healthier
and live longer. Their stance on cancer
is the reason for their longevity and success, so if humans value those things
in ourselves, we should follow their lead.
Works Cited
Butler, Octavia E. Lilith's
Brood. New York: Aspect/Warner, 2000. Print.
Lewontin, R. Biology as ideology. New York, NY: HarperPerennial,
1992. Print.
The fact that you got really small is the best part of this essay. You took one small characteristic and expanded it into a realm of thought that considers Cancer from all sides. You ask very useful questions. The way the essay could be expanded is more discussion upon what this difference in cancer means ideologically. You have great scientific discussion on what the different understanding of cancer means physically. What you could address is why dangerous things (Cancer) is interesting to the Oankali instead of the way humans see dangerous things. Overall it's a very good essay with good insights and useful and concise ideas and quotes.
ReplyDeleteI have no one else to comment on, so I'll comment on yours.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, pretty great, really solid. The argument's well-thought out, and it doesn't wander. One thing I liked in particular was how you tied Lewontin to help explain the current human mindset, and its flaws. A point you could expand or explain is the part about evolution and humans. It's just a part thrown out there, but you could elaborate on that, because for now, it doesn't have too much support. How does our unwillingness to utilize cancer spell out doom for us? And so on.
You start out well. Part of me wants a more streamlined thesis, something about how cancer can have other meanings than what we think it has, but your approach has merit as it stands, too. I especially like this line: “Unlimited by social pressure, much more research can be done and other ways of dealing with cancer can be found. “ You already have some ideas about how culture, research, and meaning differ (with all three being connected) between the Oankali and humanity.
ReplyDeleteI liked your third paragraph. One thing I’d be tempted to add is an analysis of how hierarchical thinking is oriented toward conflict - hence our persistent metaphor of cancer as warfare. The Oankali, not being hierarchical, don’t see it that way, and can therefore interrogate its other meanings.
Your final two paragraphs are pretty outstanding. Lewontin is hard and Butler isn’t so easy, but your’e able to make a deep connection between them, a connection which is distinctly your own. Not as a complaint, then, but as an idea, let me ask a big question here. Is the idea that cancer has an identity which can be put to use meant (maybe by Butler, but especially by you) as a serious question? I admire your approach, but for it to work as well as it could, that’s a question you need to engage with, since that’s where everything ultimately leads here. What is the inner truth of cancer, waiting to be understood and put to work?