Smells and Bells

It’s interesting how although touch was, and still is sometimes, seen as a “female sense,” it is also used in a religious context to “provide an infusion of divine virtue” (130) and to be closer to God. Especially considering that Christianity has been a male-dominated religion, it seems contradictory that touch is seen as both feminine and an authentic way to connect with God, a practice that historically prioritizes men over women. This stood out to me as I was reading Constance Classen’s The Deepest Sense, most likely because of her focus on Medieval European culture and religion. Can only women engage in the connecting sense of touch? Certainly, this isn’t practically true, but in terms of a conceptual patriarchy, I think women and touch are associated in order to exaggerate a separation between them and the wholly different intellectual men. Again, the prioritizing of reason, sight, literacy are Western norms, and not necessarily the standard in other cultures and religions. ...

 When I began the course, thinking about the senses and which one I thought took precedence, Touch was definitely not at the top of that list. Reading this in many ways reiterated just how deeply the sense of touch can affect, and has been affecting our lives. The way that the book explores significance of touch to an ailing individual was eye opening for me. It was also really interesting to see how during periods where leprosy was rampant, the lack of touch meant so much more than just 'no touching'. Not only were suffering individuals deprived of touch, but it also led to social isolation, which I believe is also a loss of touch in a more intangible manner, where they lost touch with their environments and the social scene of that time.  Reading about that made me reflect on what is going on in the world right now, as it related to COVID. We, as a society also recently went through a phase where we had to deprive ourselves fro touch in various ways. For me personally, the l...

 It struck me as funny, just how much Classen talks about how misogynistic the Church is during the Middle Ages. The way the Church said "if ... 'men could see beneath [women's skin]' then they would be safe from the temptations of touch, since 'how can we desire to embrace such a sack of dung'" (76) is hilarious. They get points from me for creativity, at least.  A centuries-long history of homophobia within the Catholic Church seems almost ironic amidst these claims of how horrible women are--a disclaimer here is that I am a lesbian and grew up Catholic, though I no longer am. I sort of jokingly thought while reading a good majority of Classen's 'A Woman's Touch' chapter, "If they hate women that badly, why didn't think they think being gay is okay?" You know, women are "sack[s] of dung" (76) on the inside, so... just stop encouraging heterosexual marriage. Of course, I'm not serious about that, it's just s...

Another aspect of Classen and touch that I want to “touch” upon besides what I mentioned in our group presentation (the necessity of touch through Harlow’s monkey experiment and how fun games are when we include touch and not sight) is the noticeable omission of tactile experiences in museums. Exploring history through touch makes the past come alive. While reading, I was reminded of when my family visited Graceland and went to the Elvis Presley museum. Part of the VIP tour included holding Elvis’ microphone, jewelry, etc., and this is so important, not only for die-hard Elvis fans, but for everyone to experience because “when we allow historical figures to be of flesh and blood, we make it possible to relate to them as fellow beings and, therefore, to make meaningful comparisons between their lives and situations and our own.” I believe touch is one of the best ways that we can understand the past, and it should be implemented in history lessons more. (Pictured here is my sister about...