In my attempt to read more non-fiction, I picked up On Immunity: An Inoculation by Eula Biss, a book that I've been eyeing for about a year, but wanted to wait until it came out in paperback to buy.
 |
| If the cover is at all familiar, it is one of Rubens' most famous paintings, Achilles Dipped into the River Styx. |
In general I have a hard time making myself read non-fiction. For reasons I have yet to figure out, fiction is just more compelling to me than non-fiction, but I want to keep learning about things I don't know about. One reason On Immunity particularly interested me was because it speaks to debates going on now. On Immunity details the history of vaccinations, and how that history involves how we as human beings have conceptualized our own bodies, others' bodies, others' bodies in relation to our own, disease, and health. Biss is especially concerned with the metaphors we use, such as the war metaphor, of our bodies battling against an invader or enemy. This project started when she was pregnant with her son, and wanted to know more about vaccinations, considering there is a growing number of people against vaccinations. Biss is pro-vaccinations, but she explores the anxieties behind those that are not, and clearly presents the overwhelming amount of evidence that vaccinations are in no way dangerous.
The most powerful aspect of the book is Biss' exploration of how there is this fallacy that we as individuals are self-contained, and that our bodies do not necessarily effect others, and they don't effect us, this fallacy that we can make our own choices (in terms of vaccinations) because we are individuals, when in reality we are a community of bodies, making up one body. In order to protect the health of many, we need to vaccinate, we 'owe our bodies to each other' (18). This issue intersects with race and economics, as those who tend to choose to not vaccinate their children are white, college-educated, and have annual income of upwards of $75,000 a year, which can then affect those who cannot afford to give their children all the recommended vaccinations, and they tend to be black, younger unmarried mothers, and live in poverty (27). Those that come from a place of privilege put those that do not have access to proper healthcare at risk.
One reason people tend to be wary of vaccinations is their belief that it is a purely capitalistic venture, that 'Big Pharma' just wants to make money off of everyone by saying that vaccinations are absolutely necessary. Biss rejects this as a conspiracy theory, and actually talks about how pharmaceutical companies do not see huge profits from vaccinations (113). Vaccinations in fact, are in opposition to capitalism: receiving vaccinations is 'a system in which both the burdens and the benefits are shared across the entire population. Vaccination allows us to use products of capitalism [private pharmaceutical companies] for purposes that are counters to the pressures of capital' (96).
This all makes think of a passage from World War Z by Max Brooks. Now now, hang in there with me for a second: be open to this. World War Z is a book that is actually very smart in its discussion of disease, health, humanity as a community, and democracy. Brief summary: World War Z is about a zombie outbreak that almost decimates the human population on earth. The story is told from the point of view of many survivors detailing the various aspects of the catastrophe. At the end of the novel, one character says that there isn't anyone to blame. Not the politicians or businessman that used the outbreak for their own ends, but that everyone is responsible: 'That's the price of living in a democracy; we all gotta take the rap' (334). That line has stuck with me for a long time, and often echoes in my mind. I'm reminded me of this because in my mind, democracy is on the opposite side of the spectrum from capitalism, but at the same time, it is democracy that allows capitalism to exist. (Also take note this is definitely through the lens of democracy in the U.S., as is Biss' book, which largely focuses on the vaccination debate in the U.S.). Through the lens of Brooks' quote, I think it is important to note that in the foundation of the U.S. is a responsibility for each other, to consider others in our decisions. One cannot just ask, 'what is best for my child?', but 'what is best for all children?' It also points to the fact that one cannot stand by and simply berate those that would choose not to vaccinate their children, but actually take responsibility and work toward mending the systems and conditions that would push them to make those decisions, i.e., SES inequality, racial inequality, education, medical-industrial complex, and so on and so on.
No comments:
Post a Comment