Doing the dishes is not like free­dom. Freedom is wha­te­ver we notice because it isn’t like doing the dishes. The ordi­na­ry is ordi­na­ry because it ordi­na­ri­ly repeats : taking care lacks freedom’s enter­tain­ments and its exceptions.
For any author of doing the dishes, the best part of the sto­ry would be the sto­ry of mis­sing out on eve­ry­thing else while the dishes are being done. Or a per­son could be a moder­nist of the dishes and make a stream of conscious­ness account of an attempt to flee dish-sink rea­li­ty. But it would be easy for any of those accounts of doing the dishes to miss what is impor­tant about doing the dishes, which is that it is not inter­es­ting or remar­kable work in itself, but that it is the work on which eve­ry­thing else depends.
An ongoing neces­si­ty like dir­ty dishes nee­ding to be done doesn’t pro­duce nar­ra­tive. It pro­duces quan­ti­ties, like how many dishes were washed. It pro­duces tem­po­ral mea­su­re­ments, like how much time was spent washing them and when. Narratives end. Quantities, hours, and dishes don’t. Maybe dishes pro­duce cate­go­ries and distinctions.
Maybe one kind of dish is washed but not the other, one kind of tech­nique used and not ano­ther. To stu­dy the dishes could result in an account of spaces, of tech­no­lo­gies, of tools and ins­tru­ments, or infra­struc­tures, eco­no­mics. A work like that could demons­trate the cri­sis that occurs in its absence : the dishes have piled up, the smells and cockroaches have come. Or it could result in an account of class, race, and gender—who, in the cur­rent arran­ge­ment of the world, does the dishes and who does not.
Doing the dishes falls inside a lar­ger set of rela­tions made up of neces­si­ty. We have phy­si­cal bodies. These exist inside and among the lar­ger bodies of the world. All of these bodies—ours and eve­ry­thing else’s—are adhe­red to decay, are always rui­ning or on the verge of it, never evade entro­py or col­lapse. The ordi­na­ry ongoin­gness of our exis­tence, like eve­ry time we do the dishes, is eve­ry time we try to block ruin’s path.
There is the work of making the world, which is the world that’s good to look at, and there is the quie­ter work of kee­ping the world okay once it is here. Making the world is a concrete plea­sure, but the nature of the rest of it has yet to be deter­mi­ned. It’s hard to make a judg­ment of the senses regar­ding the some­times invi­sible and neces­sa­ry efforts we exchange bet­ween us. It is hard to read, for beau­ty, the eve­ryw­here space we are always making around the always mani­fes­ting world of the world.

Man consists of more pieces, more parts, than the world ; than the world doth, nay than the world is. And if those pieces were exten­ded, and stret­ched out in man as they are in the world, man would be the giant, and the world the dwarf ; the world but the map, and the man the world. If all the veins in our bodies were exten­ded to rivers, and all the sinews to veins of mines, and all the muscles that lie upon one ano­ther, to hil­ls, and all the bones to quar­ries of stones, and all the other pieces to the pro­por­tion of those which cor­res­pond to them in the world, the air would be too lit­tle for this orb of man to move in, the fir­ma­ment would be but enough for this star ; for, as the whole world hath nothing, to which some­thing in man doth not ans­wer, so hath man many pieces of which the whole world hath no representation.

,
« Devotions upon Emergent Occasions »
,
p. 1624

Every movie I watch now is a movie about an entire cast of people who seem to not have can­cer, or at least this is, to me, its plot. Any crowd not in the cli­nic is a crowd that feels cura­ted by alie­na­tion, all the people eve­ryw­here loo­king robust and eye­la­shed and as if they have appe­tites for din­ner and solid plans for reti­re­ment. I am mar­ked by can­cer, and I can’t quite remem­ber what the mar­kers are that mark us as who we are when we are not being mar­ked by some­thing else.

At the ful­lest expres­sion of its treat­ment, breast can­cer is near total strike : stri­king hair, stri­king eye­lashes, stri­king eye­brows, stri­king skin, stri­king thought, stri­king lan­guage, stri­king fee­ling, stri­king vigor, stri­king appe­tite, stri­king eros, stri­king mater­ni­ty, stri­king pro­duc­ti­vi­ty, stri­king immune sys­tem, nega­ted fer­ti­li­ty, nega­ted breasts.
Self-manage, the boss that is eve­ryone says : work har­der, stay posi­tive, draw on eye­brows, cover your head with a wig or color­ful scarf, insert tear­drop- or half-a-globe-sha­ped sili­cone under your scar­red skin and graft on pros­the­tic nipples or tat­too trompe‑l’œil ones in pubes­cent pink or have flaps of fat remo­ved from your back or bel­ly and joi­ned to your chest, exer­cise when tired, eat when repul­sed by food, go to yoga, do not men­tion death, take an Ativan, behave nor­mal­ly, think of the future, coope­rate with the doc­tors, attend “look good feel bet­ter” for your free high-qua­li­ty makeup kit, 8 run a 5K, whe­ther-or-not-to-wear-a-wig-during-sex is a ques­tion the book says to ask your hus­band, “one fami­ly mem­ber at a time” says the sign on the way to the infu­sion room, the pink rib­bon on the for-sale sign of the mansion.

Quelques minutes plus tard, elle fai­sait son entrée en scène : au sor­tir de sa pen­de­rie, la lumière du jour la fait recu­ler, elle secoue sa robe qui traîne par terre comme un per­ro­quet fai­sant gon­fler ses plumes.

, ,
trad.  Lucie Albertini
, , ,
p. 177

There are people who feel bad in their bodies and do nothing about it, and there are people who feel bad in their bodies and sub­mit their symp­toms to search engines and stop there. Then there are people who can afford to cir­cu­late what hurts bet­ween pro­fes­sio­nals who will offer them com­pe­ting diag­nos­tic bids. This group of people fol­low a set of symp­toms toward a pro­mise, ask for tests, ques­tion ans­wers, tra­vel long dis­tances to visit spe­cia­lists who might be able to reco­gnize what’s wrong.

If symp­toms are cir­cu­la­ted long enough, a set of dis­com­forts might be allo­wed the mer­cy of a name : a disease, a syn­drome, a sen­si­ti­vi­ty, a search term. Sometimes that is cure enough—as if to appel­late is to make okay. Sometimes to give a per­son a word to call their suf­fe­ring is the only treat­ment for it.

In a world where so many people feel so bad, there’s a com­mon unmar­ked and inde­fi­nite state of fee­ling ill that pro­vides, at least, mem­ber­ship in a com­mu­ni­ty of the uns­pe­ci­fied. Discomfort in need of diag­no­sis forms a fee­ling-scape of curious pains and cor­po­real erup­tions, all unta­med by the cate­go­ry disease. The kind of ill­ness that has no name is the kind that is held in sus­pense or held in com­mon or shuf­fled into the adja­cen­cy of psychiatry.

A body in mys­te­rious dis­com­fort exposes itself to medi­cine hoping to meet a voca­bu­la­ry with which to speak of suf­fe­ring in return. If that suf­fe­ring does not meet suf­fi­cient lan­guage, those who endure that suf­fe­ring must come toge­ther to invent it. The sick but undiag­no­sed have deve­lo­ped a lite­ra­ture of unna­med ill­ness, a poe­try of it, too, and a nar­ra­tive of their search for ans­wers. They finesse diets in res­ponse to what medi­cine fails, assay life­style res­tric­tions, and in the mix of refi­ned inges­tion and cor­rec­tive pro­tec­tions and rota­ting pro­fes­sio­nal ins­pec­tions, health or ill health wan­ders from the bounds of medi­cine, resists both disease and cure.

Cancer’s cus­tom, on the other hand, is to rare­ly show up unan­noun­ced. Cancer comes in a wave of experts and expert tech­no­lo­gies. It arrives via sur­veillance and pro­fes­sio­nal decla­ra­tion. Our senses tell us almost nothing about our ill­ness, but the doc­tors ask us to believe that what we can­not see or feel might kill us, and so we do.

They tell me,” said an old man to me in the che­mo­the­ra­py infu­sion room, “I have can­cer, but,” he whis­pe­red, “I have my doubts.”

To be decla­red with cer­tain­ty ill while fee­ling with cer­tain­ty fine is to fall on the hard­ness of lan­guage without being given even an hour of soft uncer­tain­ty in which to stea­dy one­self with preemp­tive wor­ry, aka now you don’t have a solu­tion to a pro­blem, now you have a spe­ci­fic name for a life brea­king in two. Illness that never bothe­red to announce itself to the senses radiates in screen life, as light is sound and is infor­ma­tion encryp­ted, unen­cryp­ted, cir­cu­la­ted, ana­ly­zed, rated, stu­died, and sold. In the ser­vers, our health degrades or improves. Once we were sick in our bodies. Now we are sick in a body of light.

Welcome to the detec­tors with names made of let­ters : MRI, CT, PET. Earmuffs on, gown on, gown remo­ved, arms up, arms down, breathe in, breathe out, blood drawn, dye injec­ted, wand in, wand on, moving or being moved—radiology turns a per­son made of fee­lings and flesh into a patient made of light and sha­dows. There are quiet tech­ni­cians, loud clat­ters, war­med blan­kets, cine­ma­tic beeps.

An image in a cli­nic isn’t : it is ima­ging. We who become patients through the waves and stop­ped waves of sono­grams, of light tricks and expo­sures, of brilliant injec­table dyes, are by the power ves­ted in me by having-a-body’s uni­ver­sal law now to be cal­led the ima­ge­lings. “Come in with a full blad­der,” the tech­ni­cians say on the phone to the ima­ge­lings, wan­ting to look into our inter­es­ting inter­iors. The sono­gram that can find a new life in a person’s womb can also find an embryo­nic death there.

We fall ill, and our ill­ness falls under the hard hand of science, falls onto slides under confi­dent micro­scopes, falls into pret­ty lies, falls into pity and public rela­tions, falls into new pages open on the brow­ser and new books on the shelf. Then there is this body (my body) that has no feel for uncer­tain­ty, a life that breaks open under the alien ter­mi­no­lo­gy of onco­lo­gy, then into the rift of that lan­guage, falls.

I am sick and a woman. I write my own name. I am han­ded at each appoint­ment a prin­tout from the gene­ral data­base that I am told to amend or approve. The data­bases would be emp­ty without us.

Receptionists dis­tri­bute forms, print the bra­ce­lets to be read later by scan­ners held in the hands of other women. The nur­sing assis­tants stand in a door­way from which they never quite emerge. They hold these doors open with their bodies and call out patients’ names. These women are the para­pro­fes­sio­nals in the thre­sholds, wei­ghing the bodies of patients on digi­tal scales, taking mea­su­re­ments of vital signs in the sta­ging area of a clinic’s open cran­nies. Then they lead the patient (me) to an exa­mi­ning room and log into the sys­tem. They enter the num­bers my body gene­rates when offe­red to machines : how hot or cold I am, the rate at which my heart is bea­ting. Then they ask the ques­tion : Rate your pain on a scale of one to ten ? I try to ans­wer, but the cor­rect ans­wer is always anu­me­ri­cal. Sensation is the ene­my of quan­ti­fi­ca­tion. There is no machine, yet, to which a ner­vous sys­tem can sub­mit sen­sa­tion to be trans­for­med into a suf­fi­cient­ly des­crip­tive measurement.

Contemporary medi­cine hyper-responds to the body’s unru­ly event of ill­ness by trans­mu­ting it into data. Patients become infor­ma­tion not mere­ly via the quan­ti­ties of wha­te­ver emerges from or passes through their dis­crete bodies, the bodies and sen­sa­tions of entire popu­la­tions become the math of like­li­hood (of fal­ling ill or staying well, of living or dying, of hea­ling or suf­fe­ring) upon which treat­ment is based. The bodies of all people are sub­ject to these cal­cu­la­tions, but it is women, most often, who do the pre­li­mi­na­ry work of relo­ca­ting the nebu­lous­ness and uncoun­ta­bli­ty of ill­ness into medicine’s tech­no­lo­gi­zed math.

There is no more tra­gic piece of fur­ni­ture than a bed, how it falls so qui­ck­ly from the place we make love to the place we might die in. It is tra­gic, too, for how it falls so qui­ck­ly from the place where we sleep to the place where we think our­selves mad. The bed where anyone makes love is also—and too clear­ly for anyone stuck there because of illness—the grave, as John Donne des­cri­bed it, from which they might never rise.

In ver­ti­cal life, when you are well or most­ly and wal­king around, pre­ten­ding to be, the top of your head is the space that the hea­vens touch. The total area of the top of you is pret­ty small. You are only mode­ra­te­ly airy, then, and your eyes, rather than gazing up, gaze out­ward at the active world, and it is to this you are most­ly reac­ting. And it is most­ly during the night, during dreams, that ima­gi­ning becomes tem­po­ra­ri­ly expan­sive and the cei­ling air spreads over you, or at least this was, in those days, one magic theo­ry I conju­red in bed to explain the rela­tion­ship of pos­ture to thought.

When you are sick and hori­zon­tal, the sky or skyish air of what is above you spreads all over your body, the increa­sed area of airy inter­sec­tion leads to a cri­sis of exces­sive ima­gi­ning. All that hori­zon­ta­li­ty invites a mas­sive pro­jec­ting of cog­ni­tive forms. When you are so often lying down, you are also so often loo­king up.

I think of the medie­val Islamic phi­lo­so­pher Avicenna’s floa­ting man, who, denied all sen­sa­tion, still knows, as proof of the soul, that he exists.1 I am not sure I believe him. A bet­ter ans­wer is found in the Roman poet Lucretius’s argu­ment in his epic poem, De rerum natu­ra, that we can die inch by inch. Every cell is a king­dom of both sub­stance and spi­rit, and any king­dom can be over­thrown. Our life force, like our flesh, never seems to issue away from us all at once. Anyone who has been half dead can attest to this. What we call our soul can die in small quan­ti­ties, just as our bodies can be worn, ampu­ta­ted, and poi­so­ned away, bit by bit.2 The lost parts of our souls are no more repla­ceable than the lost parts of our bodies, life incre­men­tal­ly lif­ting from life, just like that. And there we are, most­ly dead, but still requi­red to go to work.