{"id":267,"date":"2017-09-04T19:00:28","date_gmt":"2017-09-04T19:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/medicalrhetoric.com\/symposium2017\/?page_id=267"},"modified":"2018-05-31T15:22:52","modified_gmt":"2018-05-31T15:22:52","slug":"bryna-seigel-finer","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/medicalrhetoric.com\/symposium2017\/profiles\/bryna-seigel-finer\/","title":{"rendered":"Bryna Seigel Finer"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"BrynaTitle: <\/strong>Associate Professor<\/p>\n

University: <\/strong>Indiana University of Pennsylvania<\/p>\n

Email: <\/strong>brynasf@iup.edu<\/p>\n

Twitter: <\/strong>brynasf_edu<\/p>\n

Website: <\/strong>brynasiegelfiner.wordpress.com<\/p>\n

Description of Work:<\/strong><\/h3>\n

I am interested in the rhetoric of previvors (those genetically predisposed to disease\/disorders, specifically breast and ovarian cancer) and about previvors, but in general I am working on advocating for more explicit women\u2019s healthcare advocacy. By analyzing the rhetoric of and about previvors, I am hoping to encourage a more critical stance toward the breast cancer industry as an industry \u2013 a consumerist industry \u2013 and call for women to demand better for their health and a more feminist rhetoric of medicine and healthcare. I have been tracing the rhetorical effects of Angelina Jolie\u2019s New York Times<\/i> piece, \u201c\u201cMy Medical Choice,\u201d in which she revealed that she\u2019d learned she had a BRCA1 mutation, putting her at high-risk for breast and ovarian cancer, and therefore she\u2019d had a preventative bilateral mastectomy.\u00a0 In my current work, I am (1) analyzing Jolie\u2019s editorial as an example of agnatological discourse (Segal, 2007), (2) providing evidence of the problems that arise from reproducing this ignorance, (3) analyzing examples of feminist bloggers who counter this cultural reproduction in order to (4) call for a more \u201capparent feminism\u201d (Frost, 2015) in women\u2019s healthcare activism.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Symposium Submission:<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Reframing of \u201cMy Medical Choice\u201d to \u201cThe Angelina Effect\u201d:A Call for Feminist Healthcare Activism in the Rhetoric of Health and Medicine<\/strong><\/p>\n

In her May 2013 New York Times op-ed, \u201cMy Medical Choice,\u201d Angelina Jolie revealed that
\nshe\u2019d learned she had a BRCA1 mutation, putting her at high-risk for breast and ovarian cancer, and
\ntherefore she\u2019d had a preventative bilateral mastectomy. Jolie is a \u201cprevivor,\u201d an \u201cindividual who is
\na survivor of a predisposition to cancer but who hasn\u2019t had the disease\u201d (FORCE). Her narrative is
\nsimilar to other previvor narratives. While their stories are different, previvor narratives follow
\nseveral generic tropes like breast cancer narratives do; in this way, although Jolie is not a breast
\ncancer survivor, her narrative in the op-ed is similar to those described by Segal (2007), as
\nagnatological, or reproducing cultural ignorance (p.4). Segal uses this frame to demonstrate how an
\nentrenched standard narrative makes it nearly impossible to write an activist narrative, explaining
\nwhy dialogue about breast cancer is never really advanced (p.18). In an expanded presentation of
\nthis work, I (1) analyze Jolie\u2019s editorial as an example of agnatological discourse, (2) provide
\nevidence of the problems that arise from reproducing this ignorance, (3) analyze examples of
\nwomen bloggers who counter this cultural reproduction in order to (4) call for a more \u201capparent
\nfeminism\u201d (Frost, 2015) in women\u2019s healthcare activism. Below, I discuss a slice of this work in the
\nallotted word limit.<\/p>\n

In their Time magazine feature, \u201cThe Angelina Effect,\u201d published only a month after Jolie\u2019s
\nNYT essay, the authors expressed concern that \u201cthe gravitational pull of a superstar role model has
\na way of distorting what needs to be a highly individual decision,\u201d implying that there might be a
\nsharp increase in the number of women deciding to have their breasts voluntarily removed because
\nof Jolie\u2019s decision to do so herself; they compare this to the sharp increase in families naming their
\nbabies Viviene after Jolie did in 2008. The difference in gravity of these two situations should be
\nobvious, but the authors make the comparison as if the significance to women is clearly analogous.
\nThis ignorance is continually reproduced throughout the article and many like it; in these articles,
\nmedical providers often express concern that women would have unnecessary surgeries because
\nthey are influenced by Jolie.<\/p>\n

For example, Dr. Frank Lipman wrote in his wellness blog, \u201cI worry that other women with
\nfamily histories of breast cancer will now rush out to get BRCA testing, and if they test positive, they
\nwill follow her lead and undergo potentially unnecessary and possibly dangerous elective surgery. I
\nsincerely hope others think twice before undergoing genetic testing that will put them in the
\ndifficult position of having to choose between their breasts and their peace of mind.\u201d This is only
\none example where a doctor asserts that women might not think because Jolie has already done the
\nthinking for them; it is also only one example where a doctor cannot fathom that a woman might
\nchoose peace of mind over her breasts.<\/p>\n

Practitioners like Lipman have rhetorically reframed a woman\u2019s medical decision to have a
\nmastectomy as a cultural phenomenon, something akin to the Jennifer Anniston \u201cFriends\u201d haircut
\nthat abounded in the 1990s. But hair and healthcare are not analogous. As with many issues in
\nwomen\u2019s healthcare, mainstream media has reframed the conversation to say: women are unable
\nto or shouldn’t be allowed to make their own choices about this. Dubriwny writes, \u201cnarratives
\nabout women\u2019s health\u2026not only depict a certain understanding of a given health issue but also
\nconstruct, or articulate, specific identities for individuals depicted in the narrative\u201d (p.5). When the
\nmedia continually constructs preventative mastectomies as something women might do without
\nthinking carefully enough about it, they create an identity for the women who do have the surgery:
\nuninformed, hysterical, bad decision makers. As rhetoricians in health and medicine, we need to
\ncall more attention to narratives that counter this reproduced ignorance \u2013 narratives that put
\nwomen\u2019s choice back into the equation and call attention to the harrowing lack of progress in
\nwomen\u2019s healthcare.<\/p>\n

Some women have, in fact, critiqued Jolie\u2019s op-ed. They are what Dubriwny might call,
\n\u201cfeminist activists working on women\u2019s health [who] form a \u2018counter-public\u2019 to the dominant
\ndiscourses of women\u2019s health in the public sphere\u201d (p.153). In other parts of this work, I provide
\nexamples of feminist activists writing counter-narratives, and I make use Frost\u2019s \u201capparent
\nfeminism,\u201d a methodology that encourages and recognizes perspectives that counter \u201ccurrent
\npolitical trends that render misogyny unapparent at the nexus of social, ethical, political, and
\npractical technical communication domains,\u201d (p.5) to look at feminist discourse operating as
\nactivism in women\u2019s healthcare in response to the \u201cJolie Effect.\u201d<\/p>\n

I also provide examples of what Dubriwny describes: \u201cwriters and bloggers\u2026 working to
\nprovide the discursive space in which challenging medical authorities and questioning treatments
\nfrom a feminist perspective is routine\u201d (p.67). The counter-discourse is where the important
\nquestions are asked, as I show through examples of critiques of Jolie\u2019s op-ed. These women disrupt
\nthe standard agnatological previvor and survivor narratives, encourage a more critical stance
\ntoward the breast cancer industry as an industry \u2013 a consumerist industry \u2013 and call for women to
\ndemand better for their health and a more feminist rhetoric of medicine and healthcare.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dubriwny, T. (2012). The Vulnerable Empowered Woman: Feminism, Postfeminism, and Women\u2019s
\nHealth. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP.<\/p>\n

Frost, E. (2015). Apparent feminism as a methodology for technical communication and rhetoric.
\nJournal of Business and Technical Communication. 30(1). 3-28. doi:
\n10.1177\/1050651915602295<\/p>\n

Jolie, A. (2013, May 13) My medical choice. The New York Times. Retrieved from
\n