One of the most salient differences between BCAction and Susan G Komen are the ways in which they tackle solutions to the current breast cancer epidemic.
Susan G Komen’s tendency to offer individual solutions to a global issue bears a striking resemblance to rhetoric of the post-feminist era as articulated by McRobbie (Mc Robbie notes that post-feminist discourse adheres to neo-liberal values). With neo-liberalism came a marked shift in how the state addressed health care. Somewhere along the line, the state absolved its responsibility to ensure adequate health care for its citizens, and placed this burden on individuals. Komen seems to be exacerbating this phenomenon, which is not necessarily a good thing.
On the contrary, BCAction seemed adamant in addressing the systemic issues that correlate with breast cancer. Issues such as poverty, sexism, racism, consumerism, etc. In doing this, BCAction is putting pressure on the state to take responsibility for structural inequalities that are conducive to breast cancer. Moreover, they are asserting the idea that eradicating breast cancer is a collective and holistic activity. Collective as in it takes people from every rung of the social ladder to address and pose solutions to breast cancer (not just for individuals who suffer the disease), and holistic as in it strives to eradicate the underlying causes of breast cancer so as to eliminate the disease entirely (as opposed to ‘just dealing’ with the disease once diagnosed).
Endearingly enough, however, Komen (and BCAction) offer resources (financial and supportive) for persons with breast cancer on their website. While I strongly believe that addressing systemic issues is integral to combating most health epidemics, I would also argue that it is necessary to provide ‘grass roots’ aid to those suffering, albeit a ‘band-aid solution’, for the time being.
Hi Allison,
I really admire the approach you took in comparing the websites of Susan G Komen and BC Action. Its interesting at a base level to find that two separate sites, both of which are dedicated to raising both awareness and money for breast cancer, could have completely opposite underlying ideologies. This brings about many questions for me: is there one sole author of each website who sees breast cancer as either an individual problem (in the case of Susan G Komen) versus a collective societal issue (BC Action), or do these beliefs underlie the entire organizations that run the sites? Are the ways in which these views impact the websites intentional, or are they subconscious and accidental? While I’m sure it would be difficult to obtain answers to these questions, you bring up some great points that open the floor for debate.
Hi Allison,
I really like how you tied in Komen for the Cure’s approach to McRobbie’s analysis of postfeminism. I think the website is a good example of the co-opting of quasi-feminist means for neoliberal ends that is characteristic of this era. I agree with you that although there are problems to Komen’s approach, in the way that the organization fails to address many systemic issues contributing to breast cancer diagnoses, but I too appreciated all the resources that were outlined on the site. I found the literature to be very comprehensive, even if it skimmed over some of the gaps in breast cancer research. I think it would be great to have an organization that maybe even took both approaches, in order to offer the feel-good message while tackling the hard hitting issues. The problem is that for a variety of reasons ‘softer’ activism, like Komen, has become the mainstream and so many people aren’t even aware of the initiatives of organizations like BCA.
Hi Allison,
I liked reading your blog about the differences between the BCA and Susan G. Koman Foundation site. I too found that BCA seemed to address a large group and the Koman site talked more about what we can do as individuals. To be honest, until I had done more research I had never actually heard of BCA. All I knew about was the Koman Foundation due to all their constant advertising. We constantly see adds with the slogan “Benefiting Susan G. Koman for the cure”. It’s great that they get the word out there, but their adds don’t show the seriousness of what Breast Cancer does to people affected by it. They try to maintain a optimistic image, which has it’s pros and cons. I think you hit the nail on the head when giving the differences between the two. Neither organization is above the other. Both offer support for victims of Breast Cancer and loved ones of those victims.
I think the key question is “what is the end of these strategies?” Komen’s strategy ends to keep toxics in the environment and implicitly to allow the most desperate to “choose” personal care products, housing and employment that puts them at greater risk, while BC Action seeks to eliminate exposure for all women. Research is only a band-aid solution on a social and economic problem.
Reading testimonials and getting support can help, but it is only when we become angry with the system that exposes people along economic and class lines that we can demand hard limits be placed on exposure. That’s how we eliminated lead in gasoline across North America, and how Bogota banned cars on streets where residents were too poor to own a car themselves.
Those changes saved lives. Therapy needs to lead to action if it is to force a meaningful societal transformation.