As an engineer, I
looked forward
to taking a
writing class
amid my heavy
math and
science course
load. Professor
Erol’s Writing
101 class, “Visualizing Medicine,”
initially caught my eye because of
its science-based curriculum. When
brainstorming for ideas to write
about, I immediately thought of my
family’s history of chronic illness.
My mother was just diagnosed with
breast cancer a little more than
a year ago and my grandmother
passed away from breast cancer, so
the topic definitely struck a chord
with me. In having such a strong
connection to the disease, I have
paid special attention to breast
cancer advertisements, especially
the pink ribbon campaigns for
breast cancer research. For a textual
analysis assignment, I chose to
examine the dichotomy between
breast cancer images, specifically
focusing on a National Geographic
image I had come across that
seemed to stand out from the rest.
In writing my final analytical paper,
I decided to expand on the topic
and analyze four distinct breast
cancer narratives prevalent in
today’s culture. The collaborative
editing workshops were extremely
helpful to me in developing my
initial brainstorm into a full-fledged
essay because of the candid feedback
I received from my peers and
professor in every step of the writing
process.
The Pink
Ribbon Culture
Caroline Lehman
Academic Writing (Spring 2012)
Visualizing Medicine
Professor Maral Erol
I
n early January, I participated in the tradition of “rushing” a sorority. One of
the days was themed “philanthropy,” during which the sororities expressed their
involvement in different national organizations. I vividly remember walking into
a room with girls dressed in pink shirts and being summoned to a table with pink
beads and safety pins scattered on top. The upperclassmen told me we were to
decorate the pins so that women could wear them during their annual Race for the
Cure event. I recall haphazardly creating these pins while simultaneously trying to
keep up a conversation with the upperclassman and “selling” myself to the sorority.
Little did I know that corporations around the world sell themselves to consumers
by adding a pink lid to their yogurt or a pink ribbon logo to their cosmetics. These
business strategies were not clear to me until further inspection: the pink ribbon
has been transformed from the symbol of an awareness campaign into that of a
marketing strategy.
Later in the day, an upperclassman read a memoir of her mother’s battle
with breast cancer to the eager-eyed freshmen that were waiting for a “bid” from a
sorority. Her personal account mirrored my story exactly: her mother, like mine,
was diagnosed with breast cancer the summer before college. I immediately felt
connected to the sorority and walked out of the room finding myself sold. Only
later did I realize that the sorority—like Avon, Campbell Soup, Yoplait, and many
other companies—manipulated my emotions to further their own agenda. It
worked. I am now a proud member of this same sorority. As a welcome gift from an
upperclassman, I received a pink purse with pink ribbons lining the interior. Inside
the purse was a package of tissues, with a pink ribbon imprinted on one side of each
tissue and the phrase “a portion of the sales of this product will be donated to Breast
Cancer Research” on the back. I am glad that now whenever I blow my nose, people
will see I support a cause.
38
This guise of social activism through consumerism has become especially
prevalent in today’s breast cancer culture. As a consumer, I find myself drawn
to products that prominently display a pink ribbon on their packaging because,
however deceptive it may be, I feel like I make an impact by purchasing that
product. Many companies utilize phrases such as the one on the tissues to advertise
to consumers that they are socially conscious, yet they often do not disclose exactly
how much of the proceeds are donated or where the money actually goes. Breast
Cancer Action, a grassroots education campaign, recently listed forty corporate
marketing campaigns that take advantage of the popularity of the breast cancer
movement to further the company’s own profits (Klawiter, 2008, 250).
The surge of corporate interest in breast cancer research and awareness
first coincided with an increase in breast cancer diagnoses and, in the past decade,
outpaced it. From the 1940’s until the beginning of the 21st century, breast cancer
incidence rates increased an average of 1 percent each year. The rate of breast cancer
cases significantly rose in the 1980s due to an increase in screenings but leveled off
in the 1990s. There has been an apparent decrease of new breast cancer diagnoses
since 2003. Still, in the past two decades, more women have died of the disease
than all Americans killed in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the
Vietnam War combined
(Eisenstein, 2001, 116).
And while statistics show
that more women die
from heart disease than
breast cancer, according
to professor and breast
cancer survivor Zillah
R. Eisenstein, “it is
breast
cancer
that
women seem to fear
the most” (Eisenstein,
2001, 68). Compared to
other illnesses, breast
cancer is unique in that
it is highly visible in the
media with awareness
campaigns
cropping
up everywhere from
television commercials
to newspapers and
magazines. In fact, breast
cancer has become
one of the most massmediated illnesses of the
21st century (Sulik, 2011,
113). Breast cancer awareness campaigns and images, while seemingly beneficial,
actually devalue the emotions of breast cancer survivors by primarily portraying
breast cancer in an unrealistic fashion.
In looking at breast cancer images over the past two decades, themes of
hope, empowerment, and positivity are omnipresent. In this essay I will analyze
four distinct breast cancer narratives to reveal how America’s present-day breast
cancer culture undermines survivors. The pink ribbon serves as the dominant
symbol in breast cancer culture and is exploited by companies as well as nonprofit
organizations to raise awareness and money for research. Breasts are also
inextricably tied to the cause and are often sexually objectified by the media in
association with breast cancer awareness. Conversely, mastectomized breasts are
39
“Themes of hope,
empowerment,
and positivity are
omnipresent. ”
rarely depicted, as they remind viewers of the horrors of breast cancer and that the
disease does not discriminate (Casamayou, 2001, 104). When audiences see images
of cancer treatments, such as mastectomies, they remember that breast cancer can
strike anyone at any time, especially females. Similarly, rare are the images of anger
and blame toward possible environmental factors of breast cancer.
Case Study 1: The Pink Ribbon
Copyright has expired.
From the New York Times, December 22, 1996 ©1996. The New
York Times. All rights reserved. Used by permission and protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States. The printing,
copying redistribution, or transmission of this Content without
express written permission is prohibited.
As evidenced in the logo for the Susan G. Komen Foundation, breast
cancer cannot escape association with the feminine pink ribbon. This image is
prominently displayed at the top of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure website, the
fifth website that pops up when one types the words “breast cancer” into Google.
Although the pink logo is subdued and does not explicitly state that the ad supports
breast cancer funding, audiences, as well as the search engine Google, immediately
link the pink ribbon with breast cancer and the Susan G. Komen brand. Komen
introduced its new “running ribbon” logo in 2007 in hope of developing a stronger
brand association and a dominant hold over the breast cancer market, such as
survivors and researchers, as well as the pink ribbon culture (Sulik, 2011, 150).
The pink ribbon is central in most breast cancer campaigns, serving as a
reminder for women to exercise, remain nutritionally healthy, and stay proactive
about detection (Eisenstein, 2001, 129). As seen in the logo for the Race for the
Cure event, the pink ribbon moves forward like a runner trying to cross a finish line
or a cancer patient trying to complete a chemotherapy treatment. This symbolism
reveals the themes of hope and positive thinking that are pervasive within breast
cancer culture. According to Barbara Ehrenreich, “positive thinking seems to be
mandatory in the breast cancer world, to the point that unhappiness requires a kind
of apology” (Ehrenreich, 2009, 26). While the pink ribbon symbolizes a person,
there is no actual depiction of a person struggling to survive. Instead, the
feminine curvature of the ribbon serves as a link to the curvature of a woman’s
body. Even the words “Susan G. Komen for the Cure” that accompany the Race
for the Cure logo have arched, rounded letters, giving off a girly, positive, and
lighthearted aura. The foundation is named after Komen and its logo similarly
emphasizes one woman’s name rather than the collective of women fighting
breast cancer. The lone “running ribbon” further characterizes the struggle
with disease as a singular one, revealing the isolation some women may feel in
their fight against breast cancer.
The two tones of pink within the ribbon stand in stark contrast to the bold,
black text. Breast cancer’s association with the color pink makes perfect sense, as
pink is most heavily associated with femininity. The color pink was first linked
with breast cancer in 1990, when Nancy Brinker founded the Susan G. Komen
Breast Cancer Foundation and the Race for the Cure. Initially, pink visors were
handed out to women, signifying that they were breast cancer survivors. The
movement quickly grew, however, and pink ribbons were handed out to every
participant in the Race for the Cure. Estée Lauder immediately recognized
the opportunity for commercial success and joined the effort by launching a
national pink-ribbon campaign in 1992. According to Lauder, “there had been
no publicity about breast cancer, but a confluence of events—the pink ribbon,
the color, the press… having Estée Lauder as an advertiser in so many magazines
and persuading so many of my friends who are health and beauty editors to do
stories about breast health—got people talking” (Associated Press, 2011). Estée
Lauder wanted to partner with Charlotte Haley, a 68-year-old grassroots activist
who handed out peach ribbons to promote funding for breast cancer prevention.
While Lauder offered Haley national attention, Haley wanted nothing to do with
the commercialization. From its inception, the pink ribbon rapidly transformed
from a personal emblem of survival to a method of furthering corporate agendas.
Today, the ribbon not only symbolizes breast cancer survivors, but also embodies
40
the entire community of women afflicted by breast cancer, as well as awareness,
research, and support for the cause (Elliott, 2007).
Case Study 2: This Year’s Hot Charity
It was not long after the inception of the pink ribbon and the creation of
multiple breast cancer nonprofit organizations that the disease became a national
headline. In 1996, The New York Times Magazine ran a quite controversial cover,
shown at left, concerning the rapid rise in attention being paid to breast cancer.
Instead of using an image of women’s empowerment, the magazine’s editors decided
to run a picture of an overly sexualized half-naked supermodel posing as the face
for “This Year’s Hot Charity,” breast cancer. Having a famous model rather than
an unknown cancer patient pose for the cover, the magazine used the practiced
approach of associating a familiar face with the disease to attract more attention
to the cause (Casamayou, 2001, 105). As the cover photo vaguely hints, the article
discusses how breast cancer quickly transformed into a “chic” enterprise, one in
which wealthy individuals, CEOs, and politicians could take part (King, 2006, viii).
The cover does not explicitly indicate that breast cancer is the topic
of interest except for the fact that the naked model is covering up her breasts.
Surprisingly, there is not even the slightest trace of the color pink or a pink ribbon.
The image clearly sexualizes the female figure, with the model’s body glistening
and her mouth slightly open. The model looks unhealthily skinny with some of her
ribs visibly sticking out. Images that sexualize the female body like this one does
are unfortunately prevalent in breast cancer culture. Breast cancer is unique among
illnesses in that it continues to mirror socially sanctioned forms of discrimination
against women (Ferguson et al., 2000, 365). Unlike people diagnosed with heart
disease or other cancers, breast cancer patients continually hear social messages
that they will lose their gender identity and sexuality if diagnosed with the oftdisfiguring disease. This image perpetuates the stereotype that women are purely
sexual beings and reaffirms societal gender expectations.
In the foreground of this image are a man and woman in formal attire, attire
that would perhaps be worn to a large gala fundraiser for breast cancer research.
Their hidden faces emphasize anonymity, paralleling that of large corporations
which can hide behind carefully constructed smokescreens of donating large
amounts of money to nonprofits. As the image and article suggest, it has become
fashionable for corporations to appear to “think pink,” especially since strategic
corporate philanthropy improves public relations and builds consumer loyalty
(Sulik, 2011, 128). The strategy of using the body of a supermodel reflects the
common use of celebrity in American culture, as well as breast cancer culture, as a
way to further promote products and ideas.
Case Study 3: You Can’t Look Away Anymore
Just three years earlier, in 1993, The New York Times Magazine ran a cover
story depicting the breast cancer activist and artist Matuschka and her mastectomy
scar. The article was dedicated to the “Anguished Politics of Breast Cancer” and the
rapid rise of the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC), a feminist lobbying
organization founded in 1991. It details the agenda of the NBCC and its ambitious
goals of garnering more scientific and governmental attention to prevention,
expanding the federal budget for research, and increasing the influence of breast
cancer survivors over the federal research agenda (King, 2006, viii).
Matuschka, like the headline boldly states, looks away from the audience,
almost ashamed of her condition. She is dressed in all white, signifying an innocence
and purity that coincide with womanhood and femininity. However, her innate
femininity is lost due to her invasive breast cancer treatment. In today’s society, like
in the 1990s, it is a cultural taboo to amputate the part of our bodies associated with
maternity and sexuality. Therefore, for many in U.S. culture, mastectomies are an
41
Photo courtesy of Peter Essick
assault on beauty and a violation of femininity (Potts, 2000, 44).
Even though Matuschka’s face is turned away, her powerful gaze and
dominant posture instigate a sense of hope and empowerment among readers.
She wears a dress, emphasizing that while half of what makes her “feminine” may
be gone forever, her sense of womanhood will never be lost. The flowing white
headscarf, an article of clothing usually worn by women who have lost their hair
due to chemotherapy treatment, serves as a symbol of endurance, survival, and
unity among breast cancer patients.
Unlike the pervasive narrative of the sexualized female body seen in Case
Study 2, this image portrays a mastectomy scar. In a culture in which breasts are
“concealed, revealed, adorned
and exhibited primarily for and
from a male point of view” (Potts,
2000, 40), images of anything
other than large, voluptuous
bosoms are rare in popular
magazines. In a study conducted
during a three-year period,
which analyzed over 800 breast
cancer images in newspapers,
only two pictures were found of
mastectomized breasts (Potts,
2000, 43). Mastectomy images are
not prevalent in media because
audiences would rather not be
reminded that cancer can strike
anyone at any time, no matter how
proactive one is in getting routine
mammograms or performing
monthly breast self examinations.
Through these images, women are
told that they are vulnerable and
are reminded of the seriousness
of their responsibility to perform
breast examinations to prevent death. Yet, studies show that while self-examinations
increase the likelihood of detecting cancerous tumors early, it does not cut the
chances of dying from breast cancer (Kösters, 2003).
Case Study 4: Breast Cancer Survivors
An image found on National Geographic magazine’s website, above left,
shows three women from Richmond, California, all of whom have been diagnosed
with breast cancer. A blurb accompanying the photo discloses that the women are
trying to force a nearby oil refinery to reduce its emission of excess gases into the
atmosphere, gases that most likely contributed to their cancer. The woman in front,
Marleen Quint, holds a portrait of herself naked, disclosing the mastectomy she has
undergone to combat the cancer, a procedure that altered her body forever. “My
mother is 79 and has all her body parts,” describes Quint, who suspects that living
near the oil refinery was a major contributor to her cancer. The photo plays with
the emotions of the audience, hitting a nerve with those who know all too well what
it is like to have friends and family members left disfigured by the scars of breast
cancer. Even among people who do not have any connection with the disease, the
photo is so shocking and unusual that it strikes a chord with them.
This photo is unique amid breast cancer images in that it depicts anger. It is
a call to action, expressing the need for the corporate world to take a stand against
oil refineries and factories that emit toxic and often extremely harmful pollutants
42
into the atmosphere. Pink ribbons are nowhere to be seen in this image. Instead, the
women are portrayed as survivors, fiercely fighting for their lives in a war against
cancer. In a breast cancer culture in which being upbeat and positive is the norm,
this photo is refreshing in that it ignites anger and fury, rather than passivity, in me
and presumably in its audience.
Discussion and Conclusion
In analyzing the dominant narratives in breast cancer culture, those of the
pink ribbon and the sexualized female body, similar themes of hope, courage, and
optimism are evident. According to Dr. Susan J. Ferguson, “the pervasiveness of
these kinds of depictions implicitly sends the message that feeling sad, angry, and
entirely unlucky to have breast cancer are not appropriate responses” (Ferguson,
2000, 318). While optimistic images in breast cancer culture are extremely
prevalent, they do not accurately represent the struggle breast cancer patients
undergo every day in battling their disease. There is a large disconnect between
society’s expectations for women diagnosed with breast cancer and women’s actual
experiences with the illness (Ferguson et al., 2000, 364). Barbara Ehrenreich, author
of Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking has Undermined
America, reveals what she first saw when walking into the doctor’s office for a routine
mammogram. “Almost all of the eye-level space had been filled with photocopied
bits of cuteness and sentimentality,” she writes, “pink ribbons, a cartoon about
a woman with iatrogenically flattened breasts, an ‘Ode to a Mammogram,’ a list
of the ‘Top Ten Things Only Women Understand’ (‘Fat Clothes’ and the ‘Eyelash
Curlers,’ among them), and, inescapably, right next to the door, the poem ‘I Said a
Prayer for You Today,’ illustrated with pink roses” (Ehrenreich, 2009, 16). In seeing
this overwhelming cheerfulness and femininity among the décor, Ehrenreich, who
learned that day that she had breast cancer, immediately felt the looming sense that
she must stay upbeat about her diagnosis. Because the positive pink ribbon symbol
is inescapable in breast cancer culture, some patients, like Ehrenreich, feel isolated
in their disease, especially if they do not experience feelings of cheerfulness. In fact,
Ehrenreich felt quite the opposite of hope after prognosis; she instead felt anger
toward the possible environmental causes of her disease.
The alternative narratives—the environmental narrative, and mastectomy
imagery—are scarce in breast cancer awareness campaigns, but portray important
themes of empowerment, activism, and social justice as well as stronger feelings
of anger. Even though some alternative breast cancer campaigns are beginning to
emerge, we must make greater strides to promote activism rather than passivism
while we simultaneously shift away from the overwhelmingly positive pink ribbon
culture. As one breast cancer survivor said, “We used to march in the streets, now
we run for a cure” (King, 2006). Whether we are running for a cure, wearing a
pink ribbon, or purchasing dog food to benefit breast cancer research, we passively
support a cause. The fact is, our passive consumerism does not raise awareness
for breast cancer nor does it help herald a safer environment free of toxic, cancercausing chemicals.
By choosing Yoplait yogurt over another brand in hope of making an
impact, we are submitting to the agendas of large businesses. Many breast cancer
survivors feel undermined by companies’ use of breast cancer to increase their
revenue. As one woman proclaimed, “It’s almost like our disease is being used for
people to profit” (King, 2006). While action should be taken to eliminate corporate
interests profiting from the disease, it is admittedly difficult due to the fact that
large corporations fund breast cancer research. However, the corporate funding
for breast cancer research is not necessarily the problem; it is the crass marketing
of it. These companies spread awareness, advocate for women to perform selfexaminations and to regularly get mammograms, and raise millions of dollars each
year for research. In a way, these corporations do more good than harm in the long
43
“Our passive
consumerism does
not raise awareness
for breast cancer nor
does it help herald
a safer environment
free of toxic, cancercausing chemicals.”
run. Nevertheless, as consumers, we can do our part by becoming more aware of the
lies we are being fed when we walk into the store during Breast Cancer Awareness
Month, or, as it more accurately should be called, National Cancer Industry
Awareness Month. Companies must be more proactive in clearly indicating exactly
how much money is donated and where the money will go so that we as consumers
can make more informed decisions.
Now, whenever I go to blow my nose and see the pink ribbon staring
me in the face, I am reminded of my passive contribution to the pink ribbon
culture that undermines breast cancer survivors’ agency. Social change starts with
exposing the misconceptions and false messages women often receive about breast
cancer. Society must begin to acknowledge the full range of women’s breast cancer
experiences, recognizing not just the dominant positive narrative of survival but
also the stories of outrage and struggle. In order to do this, media portrayals of
women with breast cancer must begin to change drastically.
Bibliography
Associated Press, Fox News. (2011 November 13). Evelyn Lauder, Creator of Cancer’s Pink Ribbon,
Dies at 75. Retrieved July 27th from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/13/evelyn-lauder-creatorcancers-pink-ribbon-dies-at-75/.
Casamayou, M. H. (2001). The politics of breast cancer. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press.
Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Bright-sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined
America. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Eisenstein, Z. R. (2001). Manmade breast cancers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Elliott, C. (2007). Pink!: Community, contestation, and the colour of breast cancer. Canadian Journal
of Communication, 32 (3/4), 521-536. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/2196037
97?accountid=10598
Essick, Peter. (Photographer). (2012). Breast Cancer Survivors [Photograph], Retrieved
February
10th,
2012,
from:
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/photos/cancer/#/breastcancer_854_600x450.jpg
Ferguson, S. J., Kasper, A. S., and Love, S. M. (Eds.). (2000). Breast cancer: Society shapes an epidemic.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.
King, S. (2006). Pink ribbons, inc.: Breast cancer and the politics of philanthropy. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Klawiter, M. (2008). The biopolitics of breast cancer: Changing cultures of disease and activism.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kösters, J. P., Gøtzsche, P. C. (2003). Regular self-examination or clinical examination for early
detection of breast cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003 (2). Retrieved from http://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003373/abstract;jsessionid=2B813135E290F275C
69C5F223799A4C9.d01t03
[Logo for Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure]. Retrieved February 20th, 2012 from:
http://ww5.komen.org/
Potts, L. (Eds.). (2000). Ideologies of breast cancer: Feminist perspectives. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Sulik, G. A. (2011). Pink ribbon blues: How breast cancer culture undermines women’s health.
New York: Oxford University Press.
[The New York Times Magazine August 15, 1993]. Retrieved March 20th, 2012 from:
http://oldmags.com/issue/New-York-Times-Magazine-August-15-1993
[The New York Times Magazine December 22, 1996]. Retrieved March 20th, 2012 from:
http://oldmags.com/issue/New-York-Times-Magazine-December-22-1996
44