I’ve stayed away from most of the Jolie news coverage this week, but judging by my friends’ comments, it’s been, um, ungenerous.

Image source

In case I wasn’t clear enough in my last post — I have no problem with what Jolie did nor with how she presented it. I see it as an opportunity to open the door to further conversation.  The fact is, women with this mutation don’t have any good options. I feel for her, a mother, doing all she can to stay with her babies. I am that mother too.

I’m often frustrated with the difficulty of getting out the message of breast cancer. In fact, that frustration is a main factor in my decision to walk away from Uneasy Pink. It sometimes feels hopeless and pointless. I feel like the truth is often overtaken by our weird and unhealthy cultural ideas about women and by the stories of triumph that organizations like Komen love to tell and people love to hear.  You know, the stories that attract donations.

I watched an episode of Bill Moyers this week, featuring Marshall Ganz, author of Why Sometimes David Wins.  To him, it comes down to narrative.  He said:

It’s the particular. See, we often think, we associate understanding with abstraction. It’s just the opposite.  The particular then becomes the portal on the transcendent, because it’s through the particular experience that I’m able then to communicate the emotional content of the value that is moving me.

Bingo.  That’s the answer. It’s not the railing against the Pink Goliath that will change the course of how we think about this disease, it’s about communicating the particular.

1 thought on “Bingo”

  1. Luv the pic. Studies suggest contexts where experiential learning or vicarious (observational) learning are particularly advantageous over other forms of learning. These contexts include when students are older, when knowledge to be conveyed is tacit and not easily codified, and when knowledge to be conveyed has large sensory component.

Comments are closed.