Some questions to get you thinking:
- Both Metzl and Klein are arguing "against health," but do they take the same position? Describe the similarities and differences in their positions.
- Metzl spends a lot of time summarizing other people's positions in his article. How do these summaries contribute to his own argument?
- In writing your summary, did you find any of Metzl's claims or phrases difficult to understand? Why? How did you deal with this difficulty?
- The word "rhetoric" shows up in Metzl's article a few times. What definition of rhetoric does he provide or presume? What is the relationship between "health" and "rhetoric" in his article?
Metzl and Klein had some very strong similarities in their arguments. For example, they both mentioned in one form or another how health has become the "new morality", or the basis on which people justify labeling or judging others. It was Klein who actually called it the "new morality"; in parallel, Metzl stated that "appealing to health allows for a set of moral assumptions that are allowed to fly stealthily under the radar." They both also used examples of the stigmatizing of smokers and people who are considered obese.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Klein and Metzl differed in their ideas about a resolution to this problem. Klein, influenced by Epicurean ideas, felt that pleasure was the necessary key to having good health. On the other hand, Metzl states in the beginning of this book that he and the other authors believe in "the germ theory...penicillin...access to healthcare" and so on. He tried to bring more attention to the different ways that health is defined and used to make judgements. He sought to answer questions about who is responsible and what should be done about it through the rhetoric and the critique of the additional authors.
In the two articles about why people are against health both writers Metzl and Klein have corresponding arguments and claims. One of the main arguments mentioned in both is the idea of "Health morality." Klein talks about health morality in a sense of health becoming a "dangerous compulsion" and getting out of hand with how obsessed people our with themselves and having a perfect image. He believes that every person is at some point addicted to something or a ritual they do which in turn is a bad thing and exemplifies poor moral. Metzl, on the other hand talks about health moral in a sense of people having assumptions about others due to their actions like smoking a cigarette or being morbidly obese. People look down on people with issues or actions like these and think of them as bad or corrupt people. Also they both talk about health depicted in the media and industries, telling about the myths and lies they make people believe. Metzl refers to health and fitness in magazines and how they portray "health" as primarily physical things such as perfect hair, good jeans, and personal weight loss stories that show before and after pictures.
ReplyDeleteRichard Klein and Jonathan Metzl had some similarities in their articles especially about the vague definition about health that Americans have. They both talk about that doctors, politicians, public health officials, etc. using the term but never explaining what it means to have health or much less good health. Klein and Metzl aldo use the term "morality" to describe how many Americans get caught up with having their body transformed into a "perfect image" or having an "ideal" image that will never be attainable.
ReplyDeleteKlein talks about physical health and how Americans can improve health by looking into different ideologies, like the Epicureans, and it is his only proposed argument and resolution. On the other hand, Metzl introduces many positions that arise when it comes to health. For example he mentions colonizing rhetoric and brings Erving Goffman to support his example. Metzl introduces many ideas that will further explain his argument of against health.
When reading Metzl's claims, some paragraphs were strangely difficult to get through. Most of the hardships arose from wordiness of the paragraphs and the large amounts of references and analogies to things that aren't common to the everyday vernacular. Certain concepts were difficult to understand at first, but these issues were resolved simply by looking up the definition of a word every so often. Also, a lot of Metzl's paragraphs are supported by claims made by sociologists and anthropologists so that took a little while to get used to as well.
ReplyDeleteWhile I thought that some of Metzl's definitions of rhetoric such as "stigmatizing rhetoric," "colonizing rhetoric" and consumerist rhetoric" were fairly easy to understand, I thought that others such as "normativizing rhetoric" had a confusing definition. "Stigmatizing Rhetoric" was a little simpler to understand because it coincided with Klein's viewpoint of "new morality." I believe that Metzl uses his different definitions of rhetoric throughout the article as an aid to describe the different uses of health that are used in present society that he doesn't necessarily agree with. In the beginning of his article he states that he is not wholly "Against Health," as he believes in it for certain medical attention such as illnesses. He goes on to describe "consumerist rhetoric," which is essentially industries creating different medications and ways to allure consumers into purchasing superfluous products in order to gain their cash, as one of the present day categories of "health" that he does not agree with.
ReplyDeleteThis article was one of the most interesting articles I have studied because it definitely made me think about the use of the word "health" in our society. Though seemingly very obvious, a lot of us fail to recognize the racism that the media so openly and legally displays all because of the new morality defined by health. I especially found the part about the growing number of practitioners from withing medicine criticizing health as a problematic consumerist rhetoric interesting because it shows that more and more people are becoming aware of this issue and (hopefully) attempt to reconstruct health in the country.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understood of Metzl’s writings, the definition of health is not just simply one’s physical and mental wellbeing anymore. In some of his examples, I got the sense that the word health is being thrown around the advertising world as a sort of word to use when you want people’s attention. With it carries underlying motives and subliminal messaging of the user. In an increasing complex society, health can never be just simple health anymore, but is used by others as a means to another end.
ReplyDeleteI really think the only similarity that Klein and Metzl have in being 'against health' is their agreement on the whole 'health is the new morality' deal. They differ in opinion about resolving the issue. Klein suggests an alternative approach, the Epicurean route, where pleasure is necessary for health and not considered taboo. Metzl believes that discussing the different definitions of health would lead to "deeper, more productive...more healthy interactions about embodied expectations and intersubjective desires" (9). So, understanding = health.
ReplyDeleteI think that by using summaries of other people's positions in his introduction, Metzl strengthens his own position. He highlights the vastness of the problem of health when thought of as a "universal good" by using a large number of scholars and academics who agree with him. Each person brings up another way in which health can be critiqued.
ReplyDeleteI found Metzl's description of the other author's works beneficial to his argument because they showed that this averse view on health is not just his, but shared by many other intellectuals. I often times did find Metzl's phrases and wording hard to understand, and had to pause during the reading to look up meanings. This made it difficult to get a whole view of the essay on the first try and I read the article multiple times before I was able to begin writing the summary.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite example of Metzl's in this introduction was his about Frito Lay's campaign of healthier snacks targeted to inner city neighborhoods. I had never thought about this connection between society's view on health and racism and found it interesting.
Metzl spends a lot of time summarizing other people's positions in his introduction to support his argument and to highlight the vastness of the critique of health as a "universal good." Each position brings to light a different way to critique health.
ReplyDelete