“Oh, yeah,” she said, vaguely, when questioned about it. “It’s for breast cancer.”
via www.nytimes.com
If you are involved with a cause or cause marketing campaign, check out Peggy Orenstein's story in today's The New York Times Magazine, linked above, on pink, the slogans and products we see annually in October, and what this means from the perspective of someone who actually experienced breast cancer.
I recently had a conversation with a woman who, like Orenstein, had experienced the disease. We talked about pink, ribbons, breast cancer, awareness and sponsorship. She told me that she disliked the annual reminder and being called a "survivor." Her feelings about the issue were moving and humbling.
Orenstein provides a broader cultural view. In the process of destigmatizing the cause – a topic I just wrote about for another cause – Orenstein and others she references argue that we've gone too far:
- In terms of educating about a self-exam, she says "there is little evidence of its efficacy," and one group "erroneously tout[s] mammography as 'prevention.'"
- "Fetishizing of breasts" through certain irreverent and brazen campaigns disconnect the body parts from the body, mind and spirits of the individuals;
- Worse, they don't actually provide catharsis or meaningful space for discussion by those who have suffered breast cancer. Orenstein says: "Rather than being playful, which is what these campaigns are after, sexy cancer suppresses discussion of real cancer, rendering its sufferers – the ones whom all this is supposed to be for – invisible."
So perhaps the pink campaigns are really serving people who don't have breast cancer. As humans, it's natural for us to want to have control over our lives. But, let's face it, there is much we have no control over. Perhaps celebrating pink in ever more outlandish ways is a form of hubris.
What do you think?
Comments