The Insult Is in the FAQ

There is a buzzing insurgence of interest in medical humanities, narrative medicine, and related arts-based programming aimed at ameliorating some of the tragic failings of our contemporary medical complex and the capitalistic grip it struggles within. This paper examines popular questions posed at the intersections of medicine and arts/humanities* to reveal underlying relationships of power, economy, and malappropriated™ imaginative labor in medical education and clinical settings. To do so, the author presents responses to three exemplary FAQs in unabashedly subjective manifestations of language including sarcasm, lyric, lament, defiance, and poetic wit, then organizes this data into four separate categories: Reframing Retorts, Analogies, Stage Whispers, and Apologetics.This method was not informed by a desire to forge a common language (we can each keep our own TYVM), but rather to place meaning halfway between these systems of knowledge production as a temporary compromise both enterprises can learn from; a sort of consensual linguistic drag, if you will. The results of this probe and analysis are presented in easy-to-skim charts for those even marginally interested in uncovering what is at stake in these imperfect, albeit inspiring, unions.Finally, the author proposes a new form of validating instrument to collect further data and seeks to transmit generalizable knowledge that can deepen our relationships to those around us at these intersections and beyond. A question emerges: is the way humanists and artists are treated in medical institutions analogous to the ways the internal lives of physicians are treated?*Can one really conflate art = humanities? Are they really in the same boat? The author acknowledges this uneasy melding, and asserts that the balance of similarities vs. differences is "context dependent." Read on.**Nota bene, the author is a poet and her biases towards, and knowledge of, poetics are disproportionately represented in her discussion of "the humanities."