For instance, I know that Thomas Friedman is an engaging and often quite beautiful writer—able both to spin an anecdote so convincing as to make the concept of “actual data” obselete and to performatively challenge the very concepts of “metaphor” and “analogy” in a way that puts the last fifty years of literary theory to shame—but the title of his book is demonstrably false.

Think of this: breast cancer goes hand in glove with being female. (And isn’t femaleness a social construct?) Initial conditions are necessary but not sufficient. (Men have some mammary epithelium as well. Not all women develop breast cancer. etc.)

Anyway, there is already an established group of autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders. For example, there is a link between Strep and compulsive disorders, between lupus and behavioral changes, etc. The immune system can indirectly affect the brain in profound ways. (Also, we’re not supposed to have an autoimmune system, it’s an immune system gone haywire.)

I don’t suppose you wanted any comments on that part of your post.

Also hand in glove with particular sociological characteristics (and for that matter, economic ones). Count me unconvinced.

You could also try Giuseppe Rosato’s “Normali anomalie” (normal anomalies), in which – basically – various segments of the Italian population develop lumps.

From a recent review:

“The Berlusconi phenomenon, from a literary point of view, is a collection of Normal Anomalies. With this oxymoron the Abruzzese author Giuseppe Rosato synthesizes in his new novel’s title the double meanings of the story he tells us.”

Don’t ask me whether or not I’ve read it and recommend it though.

Regards,

DVH