Six Questions — October 1, 2014, 8:00 am

Discussing On Immunity: An Inoculation with Eula Biss

Eula Biss discusses vaccinations, motherhood, and metaphors

Biss, EulaIn her latest book, On Immunity: An Inoculation, Eula Biss examines the myth of Achilles, the otherness of vampires, and early vaccination methods involving pus from cow blisters—investigations all undertaken to show how and why we are obliged to protect each other as human beings. (A portion of the book appeared in our January 2013 issue as “Sentimental Medicine.”) Herself a new mother, Biss struggles with newfound fears of the world around her, while determining how best to protect her infant son from dangers, internal as well as external. What she finds, often, is a surprisingly porous boundary between science, politics, and the very big business of public health. With the same sort of intellectual shrewdness and precision that characterized her National Book Critics Circle Award-winning Notes from No Man’s Land (2009), Biss persuades us that our fates are more mutually dependent than we had ever imagined. I asked her six questions about the book via email.

1. What contribution did you want this book to make to the debate in America over vaccination?

Working on this book was an opportunity for me to explore why I was vulnerable to certain fears around vaccination, and why I found some of the misinformation about vaccination seductive. I do hope that it will offer insight into why we are so ready to be suspicious of this technology. I also hope that On Immunity might shift the tone of the debate, which can be quite vitriolic. At times the conversation seems to be dominated by mean-spirited trolls. This is alienating to those of us who dislike trolls, but also damaging in other ways. When I first began spending my evenings reading articles about vaccination in popular publications, I was disturbed by the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) notes of misogyny I was hearing there. The message sometimes seemed to be something along the lines of, “If mothers weren’t so stupid and bad at science, they’d understand that they should just vaccinate their children.” My book is addressed directly to mothers, with the assumption that they are intelligent and thoughtful, in part to contradict that offensive message.

2. Much of the book revolves around your decision to immunize your son, which you relate to larger fears inherent to parenting. How did your relationship to public-health issues change with the birth of your child?

When my son was born, I still thought that many of the decisions I was making were solely relevant to his health. But the degree to which my newborn’s health depended on my health, and mine on his, challenged me to begin thinking a little differently. That was one of the great lessons of infancy. By the time my son was a few months old, I was thinking not only about how his health might affect mine, but also how it might affect our community. I was reading about hepatitis B at the time, and was fascinated by the important role that the vaccination of newborn infants plays in keeping rates of hep B low across the population at large. Targeting only “high risk” groups, which was the original public health policy for hep B, did not accomplish what the mass vaccination of newborns has accomplished. Was it my newborn son’s duty, as a person born into this society, to participate in maintaining the health of the people around him—I began to think it was.

On Immunity3. In On Immunity you attribute at least some degree of anti-vaccination sentiment to capitalism’s self-serving influence. Where else do you see this influence at work?

Yes, we may be consumers, of health care as well as many other things, but that doesn’t mean that it always serves us best to think like consumers. Health care is one of those areas, like art-making or community-building or education, where the consumerist approach of trying to get as much as you can for as little as possible can be counterproductive. As a teacher, I’ve had ample opportunity to observe what consumerism does to education. Students who approach their education as consumers may be passive, may want a product not a process, and may expect learning to feel like entertainment. Learning tends to hurt more than entertainment, and the inevitable disappointment felt by the consumerist learner is often interpreted as a defect in the product. The loss there is twofold—the learner loses the opportunity to learn, but also loses the awareness that she is responsible for that loss. This is not to say that we shouldn’t be looking hard at the high cost of education, and the low returns some students get for that cost. We should absolutely interrogate the economy of education and its corruptions, just as we should interrogate the economy of health care and its corruptions. But we aren’t served any better, within these troubled systems, by failing to understand our personal role and responsibilities.

4. The essays in your last book, Notes from No Man’s Land, often employ unconventional forms—one, for instance, juxtaposes aphoristic statements. In many ways, On Immunity explores its arguments more traditionally. Do you see this difference as an evolution in your writing style, or is it something you felt the subject demanded?

The style of my writing is often a reflection of my style of thought, which changes from work to work. Part of the project of On Immunity was to critique a habit of thought—let’s call it loose association—that happens to be a habit of mine. When I saw a lot of loose association happening in the public discourse around vaccination, I recognized it immediately. That style of thinking has been artistically productive for me, but in this book I was forced to examine the dangers of it. I had to stand back and look at myself think and then think about what was wrong with how I was thinking. That process was uncomfortable and unsettling and, yes, resulted in writing that is stylistically quite different from much of my other work. I could not relax into my usual habits as a writer while I was examining my habits as a thinker. I think this book represents some important growth for me. But of course I’m looking forward to indulging my bad habits in whatever I write next!

5. You make frequent references to Susan Sontag throughout the book, particularly to AIDS and its Metaphors (1989). How has she influenced your work?

I’m indebted to Sontag for, more than anything else, permission to think. Thinking on the page, unprotected by characters or scene or story, can be terrifying. And I always worry that I’ll be boring if I allow myself to just think. One of the things I love about Sontag’s essays is that the thought is the drama. She thinks unapologetically, and with such vivid force! I find her thinking thrilling regardless of whether or not I agree with her. In writing On Immunity, I kept gravitating toward ideas and that gravity both excited and frightened me. I turned to Sontag as a guide in part because she seems so at ease, so at home in ideas. But some of her subject matter is also related to mine. I read Illness as Metaphor for the first time when I was in college and Sontag was the first writer I had ever seen think about metaphor, rather than through it or with it. The power of that exercise never left me, and so I am indebted to Sontag for that, too.

6. Much of On Immunity confronts a common American perception that the gravest threats to ourselves and our families exist outside our homes. You note, for example, that mosquitoes pose an astronomical threat to human life while sharks claim only a handful of victims each year—yet we’re likely to fear sharks more, because they’re unfamiliar to us. How do you think the notion of public versus private danger needs to be reassessed?

We could begin by understanding ourselves as dangerous. Dangerous to others, yes, and also dangerous to ourselves and our children. This is supported, in some ways, by statistics—women are most often murdered by a man they are living with, and children are most often kidnapped by a parent, and so on. When we understand ourselves as dangerous, the home ceases to be the highly fetishized space it has become and is revealed as just another container for mundane danger. I came to thinking about myself as dangerous through writing about whiteness in Notes from No Man’s Land. When I encountered the subject of public health with a readiness to think of myself as dangerous, primed by conversations about race and social power, I was surprised by how many well-accepted attitudes I was forced to refuse.

Share
Single Page

More from Jeffery Gleaves:

Six Questions March 28, 2014, 1:05 pm

The Empathy Exams: Essays

Leslie Jamison on empathy in craft and in life

Six Questions November 5, 2013, 1:29 pm

The Disaster Artist

Greg Sestero and Tom Bissell on life inside “The Room,” the greatest bad movie ever made

Six Questions August 8, 2013, 12:40 pm

The Faraway Nearby and Unfathomable City

Rebecca Solnit on how personal stories can fail to satisfy, the architectural space of the book, and the pleasures with which the landscapes of our lives are salted

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

October 2018

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Printed Word in Peril·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February, at an event at the 92nd Street Y’s Unterberg Poetry Center in New York, while sharing the stage with my fellow British writer Martin Amis and discussing the impact of screen-based reading and bidirectional digital media on the Republic of Letters, I threw this query out to an audience that I estimate was about three hundred strong: “Have any of you been reading anything by Norman Mailer in the past year?” After a while, one hand went up, then another tentatively semi-elevated. Frankly I was surprised it was that many. Of course, there are good reasons why Mailer in particular should suffer posthumous obscurity with such alacrity: his brand of male essentialist braggadocio is arguably extraneous in the age of Trump, Weinstein, and fourth-wave feminism. Moreover, Mailer’s brilliance, such as it was, seemed, even at the time he wrote, to be sparks struck by a steely intellect against the tortuous rocks of a particular age, even though he labored tirelessly to the very end, principally as the booster of his own reputation.

It’s also true that, as J. G. Ballard sagely remarked, for a writer, death is always a career move, and for most of us the move is a demotion, as we’re simultaneously lowered into the grave and our works into the dustbin. But having noted all of the above, it remains the case that Mailer’s death coincided with another far greater extinction: that of the literary milieu in which he’d come to prominence and been sustained for decades. It’s a milieu that I hesitate to identify entirely with what’s understood by the ringing phrase “the Republic of Letters,” even though the overlap between the two was once great indeed; and I cannot be alone in wondering what will remain of the latter once the former, which not long ago seemed so very solid, has melted into air.

What I do feel isolated in—if not entirely alone in—is my determination, as a novelist, essayist, and journalist, not to rage against the dying of literature’s light, although it’s surprising how little of this there is, but merely to examine the great technological discontinuity of our era, as we pivot from the wave to the particle, the fractal to the fungible, and the mechanical to the computable. I first began consciously responding, as a literary practitioner, to the manifold impacts of ­BDDM in the early 2000s—although, being the age I am, I have been feeling its effects throughout my working life—and I first started to write and speak publicly about it around a decade ago. Initially I had the impression I was being heard out, if reluctantly, but as the years have passed, my attempts to limn the shape of this epochal transformation have been met increasingly with outrage, and even abuse, in particular from my fellow writers.

As for my attempts to express the impact of the screen on the page, on the actual pages of literary novels, I now understand that these were altogether irrelevant to the requirement of the age that everything be easier, faster, and slicker in order to compel the attention of screen viewers. It strikes me that we’re now suffering collectively from a “tyranny of the virtual,” since we find ourselves unable to look away from the screens that mediate not just print but, increasingly, reality itself.

Photograph (detail) by Ellen Cantor from her Prior Pleasures series © The artist. Courtesy dnj Gallery, Santa Monica, California
Article
Among Britain’s Anti-Semites·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

This is the story of how the institutions of British Jewry went to war with Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn is another feather in the wind of populism and a fragmentation of the old consensus and politesse. He was elected to the leadership by the party membership in 2015, and no one was more surprised than he. Between 1997 and 2010, Corbyn voted against his own party 428 times. He existed as an ideal, a rebuke to the Blairite leadership, and the only wise man on a ship of fools. His schtick is that of a weary, kindly, socialist Father Christmas, dragged from his vegetable patch to create a utopia almost against his will. But in 2015 the ideal became, reluctantly, flesh. Satirists mock him as Jesus Christ, and this is apt. But only just. He courts sainthood, and if you are very cynical you might say that, like Christ, he shows Jews what they should be. He once sat on the floor of a crowded train, though he was offered a first-class seat, possibly as a private act of penance to those who had, at one time or another, had no seat on a train.

When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, the British media, who are used to punching socialists, crawled over his record and found much to alarm the tiny Jewish community of 260,000. Corbyn called Hez­bollah “friends” and said Hamas, also his “friends,” were devoted “to long-term peace and social justice.” (He later said he regretted using that language.) He invited the Islamist leader Raed Salah, who has accused Jews of killing Christian children to drink their blood, to Parliament, and opposed his extradition. Corbyn is also a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and a former chair of Stop the War, at whose rallies they chant, “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free.” (There is no rhyme for what will happen to the Jewish population in this paradise.) He was an early supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its global campaign to delegitimize Israel and, through the right of return for Palestinians, end its existence as a Jewish state. (His office now maintains that he does not support BDS. The official Labour Party position is for a two-state solution.) In the most recent general election, only 13 percent of British Jews intended to vote Labour.

Corbyn freed something. The scandals bloomed, swiftly. In 2016 Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, was suspended from the party for sharing a Facebook post that suggested Israel be relocated to the United States. She apologized publicly, was reinstated, and is now a shadow women and equalities minister. Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and a political supporter of Corbyn, appeared on the radio to defend Shah and said, “When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” For this comment, Livingstone was suspended from the party.

A protest against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in Parliament Square, London, March 26, 2018 (detail) © Yui Mok/PA Images/Getty Images
Article
Nothing but Gifts·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

If necessity is the stern but respectable mother of invention, then perhaps desperation is the derelict father of subterfuge. That was certainly the case when I moved to Seattle in 1979.

Though I’d lived there twice during the previous five years, I wasn’t prepared for the economic boom I found upon this latest arrival. Not only had rent increased sharply in all but the most destitute neighborhoods, landlords now routinely demanded first, last, and a hefty security deposit, which meant I was short by about fifty percent. Over the first week or so, I watched with mounting anxiety as food, gas, and lodging expenses reduced the meager half I did have to a severely deficient third. To make matters even more nerve-racking, I was relocating with my nine-year-old son, Ezra. More than my well-being was at stake.

A veteran of cold, solitary starts in strange cities, I knew our best hope wasn’t the classifieds, and certainly not an agency, but the serendipity of the streets—handmade for rent signs, crowded bulletin boards in laundromats and corner grocery stores, passersby on the sidewalk; I had to exploit every opportunity that might present itself, no matter how oblique or improbable. In Eastlake, at the edge of Lake Union between downtown Seattle and the University District, I spied a shabby but vacant one-story house on the corner of a block that was obviously undergoing transition—overgrown lots and foundation remnants where other houses once stood—and that had at least one permanent feature most right-minded people would find forbidding: an elevated section of Interstate 5 just across the street, attended by the incessant roar of cars and trucks. The house needed a new roof, a couple of coats of paint, and, judging by what Ezra and I could detect during a furtive inspection, major repair work inside, including replacing damaged plaster-and-lath walls with sheetrock. All of this, from my standpoint, meant that I might have found a solution to my dilemma.

The next step was locating the owner, a roundabout process that eventually required a trip to the tax assessor’s office. I called the person listed on the rolls and made an appointment. Then came the moment of truth, or, more precisely, untruth, when dire circumstance begot strategic deception. I’d never renovated so much as a closet, but that didn’t stop me from declaring confidently that I possessed both the skills and the willingness to restore the entire place to a presentable—and, therefore, rentable—state in exchange for being able to live there for free, with the length of stay to be determined as work progressed. To my immense relief, the pretense was well received. Indeed, the owner also seemed relieved, if a bit surprised, that he’d have seemingly trustworthy tenants; homeless people who camped beneath the freeway, he explained, had repeatedly broken into the house and used it for all manner of depravity. Telling myself that inspired charlatanry is superior to mundane trespassing—especially this instance of charlatanry, which would yield some actual good—I accepted the keys from my new landlord.

Photograph (detail) © Larry Towell/Magnum Photos
Article
Checkpoint Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Laura Sandoval threaded her way through idling taxis and men selling bottles of water toward the entrance of the Cordova International Bridge, which links Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas. Earlier that day, a bright Saturday in December 2012, Sandoval had crossed over to Juárez to console a friend whose wife had recently died. She had brought him a few items he had requested—eye drops, the chimichangas from Allsup’s he liked—and now that her care package had been delivered, she was in a hurry to get back to the Texas side, where she’d left her car. She had a …
Checkpoint on I-35 near Encinal, Texas (detail) © Gabriella Demczuk

Acres of crossword puzzles Americans fill in each day:

54

In Burma, a newly discovered noseless monkey was assumed to be critically endangered because—despite its efforts to keep its head tucked between its legs on rainy days—it sneezes whenever rain falls into its nasal cavity and thereby alerts hunters to its presence.

Paul Manafort accepts a plea deal; Brett Kavanaugh accused of sexual assault; Jeff Bezos gets into the kindergarten racketon the clock

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today