Breast Cancer Survivors versus Their Breasts: Which Is More Important?

In advocating for healing within breast cancer survivors and raising awareness about breast cancer, what is most focused on? The survivors themselves or the importance of their breasts?

As breast cancer survivors, both the physical and psychological aspects of healing are a process which many struggle with. There are many support groups and organizations that reach out to breast cancer survivors in order to help them heal or raise awareness on their struggles. However, the interpretation of what successful healing is supposed to look like varies. In Audre Lorde’s book The Cancer Journals which documents her experiences before and after her mastectomy, readers are given knowledge on Lorde’s personal thoughts and feelings throughout the process of coming to terms with what was happening. As a lesbian black feminist, Lorde’s perspective and questions during her journey with cancer are not aspects often addressed or explored by organizations which seek to help breast cancer survivors. However, much of their advice and structured path of healing for survivors is easily viewed as the correct path due to its neat fit into already established norms.

In The Cancer Journals, it was seen through Lorde’s experience that the options she was given by institutions and organizations for healing mainly viewed breast cancer treatment by a mastectomy as a cosmetic issue. For example, Lorde’s encounter with the group Reach For Recovery presented the application of lambswool as a substitute for the removed breast as an important step in feeling “normal” again. Audre Lorde was clearly disgusted at this practice as a means to heal from her trauma with breast cancer, as “This prevents a woman from assessing herself in the present, and from coming to terms with the changed planes of her own body. Since these then remain alien to her, buried under prosthetic devices, she must mourn the loss of her breast in secret…” (Lorde, 57). Lorde further discusses how this alienates breast cancer survivors from each other, and encourages women to remain in a nostalgic state.

Although I am not a breast cancer survivor, nor does my reading The Cancer Journals make me an expert on Audre Lorde’s experience, it was apparent to me through Lorde’s narrative that the presented options by Reach for Recovery for settling back into life as smoothly as possible post-mastectomy created an opening for more psychological damage. As Reach For Recovery worked with the hospital, it was unsurprising for Lorde to experience a push from the hospital staff as well to begin using the prosthesis. Through Lorde’s frustrations, it seemed that prostheses were meant to integrate women without both breasts back into a society which objectifies women. Without both breasts, this objectification would be disrupted. When looking at popular sources for information on psychological healing from being a breast cancer survivor, a familiar rhetoric would present itself time and time again. On breastcancer.org when exploring the option of breast reconstruction surgery, the website states “It’s normal to feel anxious, uncertain, sad, and mournful about giving up a part of your body that was one of the hallmarks of becoming a woman: a significant part of your sexuality, what made you look good in clothes, how you might have fed your babies…Moving forward, you now have the opportunity to determine what you want to have happen next.” (breastcancer.org). Although the statement stresses the very real pain and sadness that comes post-mastectomy, it alienates certain women and is biased toward women taking certain options to “move forward”. This statement assumes that the breast cancer survivor has children, and that breasts are exclusive to women. By emphasizing breasts as “what made you look good in clothes” and being “a significant part of your sexuality”, this implies to post-mastectomy women that breast reconstruction surgery is necessary to look good in clothes and have a good sex life again. In another section of the website, there is a link to another part of the website which is titled “Prosthetic: An Alternative to Reconstruction”. This further gives women who are breast cancer survivors the idea that their sensible options are limited, as not choosing breast reconstruction surgery or a prosthetic is not an option greatly explored. Interestingly, there is also a “Going Flat: Choosing No Reconstruction” link on the breastcancer.org website. However, the rhetoric in this section of the website is also significant in impacting the way women view their breasts in much of the same way that the section on breast reconstruction surgery had. Part of the section’s introduction stated “If you've had one breast removed and feel self-conscious about looking lopsided, try going without a breast form at home. Then try running an errand or going out for coffee without your prosthesis. You’ll probably find that people don’t notice the difference, or if they do, it’s not a big deal.” (breastcancer.org). Although the website stated “…it’s not a big deal”, the statement was constructed in a way which highlights the importance of people noticing how “normal” a breast cancer survivor’s breasts are. Through this statement, it obviously is a big deal.

            This kind of rhetoric which helps establish what is valuable for women are restricting for breast cancer survivors. Other organizations such as Keep A Breast which produces the I Heart Boobies merchandise continue to bring the focus of breast cancer research and breast cancer survivors to solely their breasts. This kind of publicity, marketing, and rhetoric seems to separate the actual women from their pain by highlighting the appearance of breasts. This is most starkly portrayed by porn website Pornhub’s take on breast-cancer awareness, as it stated in a NYTimes article that Pornhub “…would donate a penny to a breast-cancer charity for every 30 views of its “big-” or “small-breast” videos.” (NYtimes.com). For women who are breast cancer survivors to feel that they are not limited in options due to the value of the appearance of their breasts, rhetoric and tactics used by (probably) well-meaning organizations must be reflected on and changed to stray away from objectifying women.