Classifying Scent: Positive or Negative?
When reading Diane Ackerman's A Natural History of the Senses, I personally found smell to be the most intriguing sense that we possess. Words escape the experience of a scent, and time does not wear down our ability to smell, unlike hearing and vision, which can fade with age. Naturally, I was looking forward to doing more reading on olfaction, but once again it left me wishing I could attach some sort of "scent clip" to this blog post (hey, maybe someday). Although Deborah Green notes that calling to mind an orange does not enable us to experience the scent of one, smell as a sense is so closely tied to memory that the reverse can, and often does, occur.
Even as a psychology major, the tendency of professionals in the field to pathologize what could, in many cases, be considered normal frustrates me to no end. Thus, Deborah Green's discussion on Freud in The Aroma of Righteousness made me a little angry. Freud was wildly popular in his day and his views, while radical, were wildly accepted among the general population and fellow professionals alike. On page 11, Green explains that Freud proposed that as a man grew up, he sought to repress his desires, which were triggered particularly by the scent of women. The ability of humans to walk upright, Freud stated, evolved from man being "freed" (or at least farther away) from the scent of female genitalia. Although Ackerman does note that animals whose noses are closer to the ground have a keener sense of smell than humans, Freud used his notions to turn strong olfaction into something to be corrected. Smell has always been linked to sensuality and desire, but Freud seemed to take this idea to a whole new level, equating smell with being animalistic rather than a natural product of our evolution. With a generation following in Freud's footsteps, smell was pathologized and focused on only in terms of "sexual dysfunction, disease, and mental illness" (11). While Freud's claims about smell being tied to desire and sensuality did not appear in society for the first time with him, his influence led us to see smell as something that we needed to repress, a sense that was an unnecessary byproduct of evolution that humans had no need to hang onto any longer.
Even as a psychology major, the tendency of professionals in the field to pathologize what could, in many cases, be considered normal frustrates me to no end. Thus, Deborah Green's discussion on Freud in The Aroma of Righteousness made me a little angry. Freud was wildly popular in his day and his views, while radical, were wildly accepted among the general population and fellow professionals alike. On page 11, Green explains that Freud proposed that as a man grew up, he sought to repress his desires, which were triggered particularly by the scent of women. The ability of humans to walk upright, Freud stated, evolved from man being "freed" (or at least farther away) from the scent of female genitalia. Although Ackerman does note that animals whose noses are closer to the ground have a keener sense of smell than humans, Freud used his notions to turn strong olfaction into something to be corrected. Smell has always been linked to sensuality and desire, but Freud seemed to take this idea to a whole new level, equating smell with being animalistic rather than a natural product of our evolution. With a generation following in Freud's footsteps, smell was pathologized and focused on only in terms of "sexual dysfunction, disease, and mental illness" (11). While Freud's claims about smell being tied to desire and sensuality did not appear in society for the first time with him, his influence led us to see smell as something that we needed to repress, a sense that was an unnecessary byproduct of evolution that humans had no need to hang onto any longer.
However, I personally don't think that view is true. Smell is so closely related to memory; I can catch a whiff of a certain candle scent or something baking and be transformed back to my childhood home. Arguably, this is not a necessary function to ensure the survival of humans, but it is something that I enjoy each time it happens. Our sense of smell can also alert us to danger, when we smell smoke or a gas leak of sorts. If our sense of smell in those instances could save our lives, does it matter that it might be more animalistic than our "higher senses"?
Even more than simply functionality, Green exhibits that smell has played and continues to play an important role in religion, faith, and rituals. "Important references [to aroma], both literal and metaphorical, appear in all three sections of the Scripture (the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings)" (64). The Hebrew Bible finds an important connection between humans and deities in the form of sacrifice, in which God accepts it only after examining the sacrificial item by smelling it. Incense and perfumes were often used by priests, and the spiritual importance of such scents can be seen across religions, when considering the gifts of frankincense and myrrh to the baby Jesus.
Some of the most interesting references to smell in rabbinic Judaism appear in the Song of Songs, and are more secular than other mentions of smell. Describing scent by means of comparison is common here, and Green suggests that "the storage facility itself, the limbic system, may account for the strong links among scent, emotion, and memory in humans" (84). Although women are portrayed in a highly negative light here, the imagery itself is mainly positive (or at least neutral). And while it does lend itself to the erotic and sensual (something Freud would have detested), the imagery surrounding scent itself is not pathologized or seen as something to avoid. Is it only the divide between science and faith that brings about these differing views, or is the time between the opinions also a factor? Is it something else entirely or a multitude of things that make up our opinions of this "lower sense", as it is called? It is hard to tell. Regardless, examining smell through a religious lens allows us to get an understanding of its importance in a new way.
Very thoughtful and perceptive response. I agree with you about Freud on smell, and am glad that Deborah Green has challenged his disparagement of of olfaction. The Hebrew Biblical texts Green discusses generally have a much more favorable view of olfaction (i.e. sending up aromas as a way of worshipping God!), though they're more ambivalent when smell is associated with women. Song of Songs basically encourages delight in the aromas associated with sex and food, though as some feminist commentators have noted, it's a little one-sided - it's the female speaker who's usually consumed (tasted, smelled, enjoyed) metaphorically by the male, rarely vice versa. Still, Song of Songs basically affirms that the pleasures of smell, taste, touch, vision, and sound are good and desirable. But in Proverbs, women's charming smells are suspect, deceptive, liable to lead male Israelites astray. And in the Prophets, the Israelites metaphorically represented as God's adulterous wife, or as whores, when they go after other gods, are said to "stink." Still, all of this is a far cry from Freud's wish for us to suppress what our sense of smell arouses.
ReplyDelete