Reading Sontag's Work on Illness and Metaphor
Susan Sontag published "Illness As Metaphor" in 1978 and followed it up with "AIDS and Its Metaphors" twenty years later. The core argument is straightforward: we treat diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis as moral failings or punishment, and when HIV/AIDS arrived, that pattern accelerated into something much more dangerous. People don't just get sick. They absorb a whole mythology about the disease, and the mythology ends up doing more damage than the illness itself. The basic mechanism Sontag describes is this. A disease gets conflated with the personality of the person who has it. Tuberculosis in the nineteenth century was associated with artistic sensitivity and weakness. Cancer became linked to repression and emotional rigidity. When AIDS emerged, it was immediately framed as divine punishment, a predator's disease, a marker of moral decay. Sontag's point isn't that diseases have zero psychological components. It's that metaphorical thinking around illness tends to amplify stigma, delay treatment, and punish people twice — once for being sick and once for whatever story the culture tells about why they're sick. I spent a few years working in clinical psychology, and I saw this play out constantly in how patients talked to their doctors. A cancer diagnosis carried this heavy silence in the room. Not because cancer is untreatable, but because everyone in the building assumed the patient had somehow invited it through bad choices or suppressed emotions. I had a patient who delayed seeking care for months because she genuinely believed her tumor was evidence of some personal failure. The tumor wasn't caused by her stress. But the metaphor she'd absorbed made her feel ashamed of the very thing that should have motivated her to come in sooner.
The workaround I learned was to separate the medical facts from the cultural story as early as possible. Not in a dismissive way. Just explicitly stating, "What you're feeling about what this disease says about you is real, but it's not the same as what the disease is." That distinction mattered. It didn't cure anything, but it removed one layer of suffering that wasn't necessary. There's a counter-intuitive piece here that people miss. Sontag isn't arguing against finding meaning in illness. She's arguing against imposed, culturally supplied metaphors that do more harm than good. Personal meaning-making is different. Patients can absolutely find their own significance in what they're going through. The problem arises when doctors, media, and society hand them a pre-packaged narrative that carries shame, blame, or supernatural weight. The difference matters more than it initially appears. Another nuance that doesn't get enough attention is timing. "Illness As Metaphor" targeted tuberculosis and cancer. "AIDS and Its Metaphors" targeted the specific panic around HIV. The second book is actually sharper and more urgently relevant, partly because the metaphors around AIDS were weaponized so directly in policy. The Reagan administration's silence wasn't neutral. It was sustained by the cultural understanding that AIDS victims had it coming. That's not conspiracy language. That's documented. Sontag makes that case with sources and dates.
One limitation of Sontag's approach that you should be aware of: the books are more cultural critique than clinical guide. If you're looking for practical tools on how to talk to patients about illness narratives, you'll need to supplement her work. The books diagnose the problem beautifully. They don't give you a therapeutic protocol. I found that combining her framework with narrative medicine approaches — specifically Rita Charon's work on parallel charting and reflective writing — filled in the gaps. Charon gives you the method. Sontag gives you the warning about why the method matters in the first place. The books are available through most major retailers and often as affordable paperbacks. University presses typically carry them. If you're reading this for academic purposes, the 1990 edition of "AIDS and Its Metaphors" includes a substantial afterword where Sontag reflects on the twenty-year gap between the two books and how the metaphor machinery around disease hadn't really changed, just shifted targets. That afterword alone is worth the price of admission. My sense is that these books will keep becoming more relevant rather than less. Every time a new disease emerges — SARS, MERS, Ebola, COVID — the metaphor engine kicks into gear within weeks. People assign morality to infections. They construct hierarchies of who deserves sympathy and who doesn't. Sontag mapped this pattern decades ago. Reading her now feels less like literary criticism and more like a field manual for something we still haven't figured out how to stop doing.
Get the Full Details
