People with diseases tend to be
surrounded by a strong stigma. The word
disease itself has such a powerful negative connotation that we're automatically repulsed by the thought of it. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a condition of the body, in
which its functions are disturbed or deranged.” In Astonishing X-Men: Gifted, a new “cure” for
the mutation “disease” is being released by Dr. Rao. This cure, she says, is able to eradicate the
disease. Some mutants are strongly
opposed, whereas others desire it. Any mutant seeking the cure may feel alienated
from his or her own sense of self, such as Dr. McCoy. He expresses to Logan that his body isn’t
what it used to be and he feels out of control of his emotions. Dr. McCoy, and perhaps many other mutants,
just want to live the lives they used to have.
However, other mutants are
opposed to the mutant cure, and rightly so.
After all, is being a mutant so horrible? Mutation can be viewed as a quality that
simply makes a person unique—it isn’t necessarily dangerous or bad. Some mutants, such as Kitty, have rather
harmless abilities. In other cases, a
mutant only needs to learn how to control their abilities. If a mutant’s regular functions are not disrupted,
then a cure isn’t needed because mutation is not a disease.
A mutant’s choice over whether or
not to “cure” themselves is not quite as troubling as Dr. Rao’s
presentation. She begins her speech by
stating that mutants and non-mutants are equals, except that mutants have a
disease. Due to the connotation of “disease,”
she indirectly infers that mutants are defective people. She further supports the stigma surrounding
people with disease (mutants in this case) by presenting Tildie, a young girl
that uncontrollably causes her nightmares to become reality. Overall, Dr. Rao highlights the possible
danger and threat of mutation and presents it as the norm.
In the third issue, we see that
Dr. Rao may be more corrupt than what we initially made her out to be is allied with Ord (remember the alien that attacked the X-Men?). She speaks with Ord after giving a cure
sample to Dr. McCoy, and it is evident that they are working together towards
some yet-to-be-determined goal. It is
even revealed that Ord’s people helped Dr. Rao produce the cure, but she is
only “a pawn…in a grand scheme” (58).
Additionally, she’s been testing the cure on someone, causing Dr. McCoy
to call her a monster. To truly know whether or
not Dr. Rao is a monster, however, we’ll just have to finish Volume 1.
References:
[Joss Whedon (w) and John Cassaday (a).] Astonishing X-Men, Vol 1. "Gifted" #1-3. (Dec. 2012). [Marvel Comics].
"disease, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2016. Web. 19 September 2016.
I really agree with a lot of these questions! I found it sad that these mutants were seen as having a disease when in reality I saw it as something that made them unique. To me, having a mutation in these x-men comics is equivalent to me having black curly hair and you have light blond wavy hair. Those traits are what make us who we are. And some how permanently straightening my hair is like trying to get rid of a mutation. It doesn't make sense because everyone should be proud of who you they are. But then again that analogy could be stretch because having these mutations could be really hard to manage in a world that is so unaccepting. But like in reality, people build self esteem and really learn to love themselves. Why can't mutants do the same with guidance on how to really embrace their powers?
ReplyDeleteSarah, you've made some really good points. It's a shame that Dr. Rao takes one extreme case and generalizes it to the rest of the population. Due to the extreme and horrific consequences that lead to her mutation, I'm confident in my assumption that Tildie would like to get rid of her mutation, but that doesn't translate to the conclusion that all mutations that need to be eliminated. What if a mutation was a part of Dr. Rao's identity? Would she feel so strongly to "cure" it then?
ReplyDeleteI think fiction is a great way of exploring ideas in a safe way, but what would happen if we applied these same ideas to the real world? For example, science has advanced enough to find a person's genetic predispositions to conditions and diseases. If technology gets to the point where we can identify an individual's predisposition to aggressive and violent behavior and provide a "cure"(assuming is can be suppressed through some chemical) to this condition, is it moral to not give the individual the cure? By not giving the "cure", the person and their peers could be in danger. Would it be moral if a violent convict with this genetic predisposition was not given the "cure" even if by doing so they could live a happier (and possibly free) non-violent life?
ReplyDelete