Alright, let’s tie this up in a nice little bow. I genuinely did not know what to expect coming into this class. The extent of my knowledge of the senses comes from elementary school when we had to make it a little song to get the information through our tiny heads. Beyond that, everything seemed pretty cut and dry. We have five senses. We need to use all of them to survive. It’s as simple as that. I did not know how there was enough to talk about the senses to fill an entire college course, especially one specifically regarding the relationship between the senses and religion. But the fact that we were barely able to fit all the content in before the semester ended proves just how wrong I was. Let’s talk about why that is and what some of the things I learned were. First off, even the most basic assumption about the senses, that there are five of them, was questioned immediately. The sixth sense may not have been as clearly defined as the other senses, but there was certainly a lot to
“Animal Skins”, chapter five of Constance Classen’s book, The Deepest Sense: A Cultural History of Touch really resonates with me because I’m currently taking Barbara Darling’s Religion and Animals course. In addition to visual, auditory, and chemical methods of communication, tactile communication is “the common medium of communication for all inhabitants of the Earth” (69). Human beings shake hands, hug, or kiss as a sign of respect or endearment- the same can be applied for non-human animals. Elephants will intertwine their trunks to show acceptance and affection, cats will lick and nuzzle their young, sea otters will rub their nose and faces on each other to establish social bonds, etc. Animals will communicate with animals outside their species through touch. My cat will know when I’m feeling down, and he will nuzzle up against me and provide me with a sense of reassurance. When my dog was extremely sick, my sisters and I would take turns petting him as a way of comforting him through the pain he was experiencing. Touch is more than just the simple act of coming into contact with something- it heals, creates bonds, a medium for conveying messages, etc. 
Another quote that caught my eye in Classen’s text is “It was through their hands that humans were able to transform the world around them, whereas “handless” animals, it was believed, must live with the world more or less as they found it” (104). Here, Classen talks about how animals are perceived in the Christian world, which is a religion that is oftentimes viewed as being anthropocentric. I think it’s interesting that there’s a negative tone at the mention of animals not being able to transform the world as a result of having paws/hooves when human hands are the ones destroying it. 
Great connections and observations, especially your last one about paws/hooves vs.hands!
ReplyDelete