13 Senses
Simmel, Excursus on the sociology of the senses, in Sociology (or. ed. 1908)
In GERMAN:
In ENGLISH
In ITALIAN
Gale Peter Largey and David Rodney Watson The Sociology of Odors, American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 77, No. 6 (May, 1972), pp. 1021-1034
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776218
Rotter 2011 Empires of the Senses - How Seeing, Hearing, Smelling, Tasting, and Touching Shaped Imperial Encounters
In ITALIAN
Gale Peter Largey and David Rodney Watson The Sociology of Odors, American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 77, No. 6 (May, 1972), pp. 1021-1034
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776218
Rotter 2011 Empires of the Senses - How Seeing, Hearing, Smelling, Tasting, and Touching Shaped Imperial Encounters
Simmel - Excursus on the sociology of the senses
RispondiEliminaSimmel, in this passage, focuses on the analysis of sensory perception of the other in the relationship between individuals. The first and most direct relationship between two people is constituted by the look , "the eye reveals another soul who tries to reveal it". The face as a whole contains information to understand who is in front of him , even if only in a superficial way. The face is so "the essential object of seeing inter-individual".
- modern traffic in the city is an environment that has contributed to entrust to view most of the sensitive relations between man and man;
- Distinction between eye and ear: the first allows you to store more easily, the second contributes to the understanding of the other in momentary terms and not lasting . Under the sociological profile, moreover, the ear lack of reciprocity typical, instead, of the eye, of the gaze. By its very nature the eye cannot give without receiving at the same time . So it is rather to the ear. Another distinction : what you can see you can somehow have got , the harder it instead possess what you listen to , because of its temporary nature . " The different ratios of the eye and ear with their objects [...] based sociologically very different relationships between individuals ."
With the refinement of civilization sense perception decreases, while it increases the feeling of pleasure and displeasure. The trend towards more and more typical of modern man is also explained in these terms. Especially in relation to the nose : if the other senses unite, smell separates.
Excursus sulla sociologia dei sensi – Georg Simmel
RispondiEliminaSimmel finds that all the sense impressions develop in two ways: on the one hand lead into the subject revealing the mood of it, on the other hand these lead out to the object by bringing us to the knowledge of it. We can see that in the case of non-human objects these two streets run parallel, they never clash. For example, in the case of a rose we can perceive its smell, or we want to identify itself. It is different in the relationships that we have with a man: here our sensitive impressions work together intertwined with each other.
For example we can see that through the sensory organ of the eye we can create a connection between two individuals formed by the interplay of looking at each other. When two people look at each other, there is a reciprocal exchange when the "eye unveils to the other the soul that seeks to unveil the other".
The importance of the eye, however, depends very much from the expressive meaning of face, because in it is contained the whole course of human life. The face is the essential object of seeing inter-individual. But if through the eyes we can see the lasting appearance of man’s essence, we are not allowed to make it through another sensory organ: the ear. This is a merely manifestation of individuals, that is limited to the temporal form. Another difference lies in the fact that the ear does not allow the exchange relationship that you have with the eye, but is an organ "selfish" that takes without giving. To achieve this level of reciprocity, the ear must join the mouth. So through the language becomes possible an exchange, even if limited to the alternation between the two individuals. Another sense that Simmel considers is the smell. Contrary to sight and sound, which are an object by itself, the sense of smell is closed in the subject: just think on the fact that in order to express a smell we do not use direct expressions. However, the experience that we have smelling, is very close to us: through the breath we are able to assimilate an object. We can reach this experience only through an another way: the taste. Anyway, to smell someone implies that we are very close to him and we have been able to reach his most intimate perception. Finally, we can attribute to the smell a phenomenon of stylization.
About the sense of smell, the movie: "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer", by Tom Tykwer, 2006
EliminaSimmel, through his passage "Excursus on the Sociology of Sense Impression", highlights the meaning of glances. He distinguishes it: into "a mutual glance" and a simple observation from one person to another. At the same time, he states that the "mutual glance" is the most direct and purest reciprocity that exists anywhere". Each person contributes equally to the encounter.
RispondiEliminaPeople are first known of their countenance, not their acts. In fact, the human face serves no practical purpose but to tell us about the state of mind of its possessor.
According to the author, the eye has the "uniquely sociological function" of constituting society without the aid of objectified forms which are primarily rooted in language and, therefore, in the sense of sound.
The most important feature for Simmel of the mutual glance is its reciprocity. He notes that in the very act of seeking to perceive alter, ego is opened to being perceived by alter: "By the glance which reveals the other, one discloses himself. By the same act in which the observer seeks to know the observed, he surrenders himself to be understood by the observed." In mutual glancing, then, neither partner can maintain reserve and each one is entrusted to the other.
The social knowledge gained immediately in the glance is fully participative because it is only possible through self-deliverance or active transcendence of the self into the other's vision. Such participating knowledge cannot be gained through observation, but only by offering oneself as a gift to the other: the "direct mutual glance" sets up an emergent relation which cannot be analyzed into components although it is made possible by the initiatives of individuals who need not have been related to one another previously in any other way.
Excursus on the Sociology of Senses, in Sociology - Georg Simmel (1908)
RispondiEliminaAccording to Simmel, the eye is applied to a fully unique sociological accomplishment: to the bonds and patterns of interaction of individuals who are looking at each other. This emphasizes the extent to which we are visually oriented beings. The sociological significance of the eye depends in the first instance on the expressive significance of appearance, since it is offered as the first object in sight. What we consciously or instinctively recognize from the other’s being, is even such a strong determinant that it unavoidably colors our immediate as well as our long-term relationship to that person. Furthermore, Simmel states that this is the basis for the difference between knowing ('kennen') and recognition ('erkennen') as far as inter-individual relations/connections are made and moreover he stresses that this is not necessarily a conscious process. He continues to contrast the eye with the ear: the eye brings us the revelation of the person bound in temporal form, whereas the ear provides the reflection of one's past experiences which molded and shaped personal traits. If I understand this correct, the idea that the signals that are picked up by the respective senses are crucial in order to come to this hierarchy of senses as made by Simmel. The fact that the eye, in pure biological terms, picks up the reflected light, makes it less biased, since what you hear (especially from speech) is being created/spoken by someone and therefore is affected by what someone has already experienced in the past. Although the eye provides the most sociological significance, this also keeps people at a distance. You can gaze around you in a public place, looking at everybody without actually making contact.
Simmel also points to this. "Modern [...] traffic leaves people to an ever greater extent with the mere perception of the face and must thereby leave universal sociological feelings to fully altered presuppositions." Maybe this is a reason for people to feel, in a way, totally private. Something about the anonymity of public transportation invites people to share (either on the phone, or to their friend/relative next to them) very intimate stories. Other, near seated passengers can often easily overhear these conversations but this does not seem to deter people to discuss their family problems (illness, relational problems etcetera) quite extensively. This is, for me, mainly due to the absence of eye to eye contact. "In a sociological perspective, the ear is still separated from the eye through the absence of that reciprocity that sight produces between eye and eye [...]the ear is the quintessentially egoistic organ that only takes but does not give."
Simmel, Excursus on the sociology of the senses, in Sociology (or. ed. 1908)
RispondiEliminaSimmel describes the sociological importance of the senses (hearing, seeing, speaking and smelling) and the social implications of these.
While the eyes - according to him - are reciprocal, by looking one not only takes up information but eyes also give away information at the same time, while hearing only receives information and the mouth can only give away information. Smelling, the nose, is a completely different sense organ. Although it only receives information just like the ears, it is not about the collection of objective information that can easily be described like which is the case with information collected by the ears. Smelling is a subjective sense that has much to do with the way people are raised in a certain way. Simmel argues that people make distinctions based on senses and that smell is contributing a great deal to making distinctions between people. He dwells on the function and the way it is driven by culture as different classes, but also different ethnicities are constructed to smell in a different (and therefore not good) way. It seems to be about construction though, like Simmel acknowledges as well, as people influence the senses also in a positive way by using perfumes, jewelry and good looking cloths. Smell is considered a dissociating sense.
I quote Simmel: "In general, the effectiveness of the senses at a distance becomes weaker with the heightening of culture, their effectiveness stronger within close range, and we become not only near-sighted but altogether near-sensed; however, we become all the more sensitive at these shorter distances." Simmel does not easily get across what he means with that and I think it does not get completely clear what he means with 'near-sensed'. I guess it is like developing a certain specialized way or so... As he explains that people are getting more cultured, and develop 'refined senses' and are willing to express this cultural refinement. As there is no room in collective organizations to express oneself in a distinctive way, people are looking for company in which they can express their own opinion and proof their cultured senses, but as a result their networks get smaller or even isolated.
After discussing the senses, Simmel starts on sensuality and attractiveness moving towards the question of incest and he asks himself why people are not attracted and drawn towards family members in searching for a mate if familiarity (to the senses) is the standard for deciding whether someone is likeable or not. He concludes that this all has to do with strict norms that live in every society also known as the incest taboo. Yet, why incest has grown to be so condemnable and why the concept of incest is not considered the same in every region of the world he tries to answer. His answer: to what extent people are considered related to the degree that mating together is considered incest depends on how society has defined family. Some tribes consider every member a family member while others only the people living inside their houses. In some societies people live in a house together with the whole clan while in other societies only parents live together with their children. Simmel argues that it all has to do with the control one wants to have over the household. In a household where everyone could be attracted to anyone (in the hypothetical case of ignoring the incest taboo) the household is assumed by Simmel to be incontrollable, resulting in absolute chaos. I find this explanation of Simmel rather simple and seemingly based on some sort of logic, Simmel seems to lose himself in his own explanation as he starts comparing many cultural expressions of the incest taboo without really explaining how he derived his assumption which he tries to prove and which is actually contradicting the part that exclusively was written on senses alone.
The empire of senses in the process of colonization
RispondiEliminaAndrew Ratter
In this session of the senses, I was call my attention the analysis of the historian Andrew Rotter , which show that all human relationships are mediated by the senses and the social connotations that we impose for read of this. In his article, Rotter discusses the phenomenon of imperialism with a comparative study of the colonization of England in India and the United States in the Philippines , to explain that the senses were the way for understand into colonizers and colonized, and for this, demonstrate that the sense are not only biological or reactive expressions, but also social constructions.
In that sense, the imposition of the senses trough by means like education, language, clothing, hygiene, the idea of health as clean and so on. These examples make me think of the invasion of the Spanish in America and the imposition of a “must to be” form on the colonized is more effective in these process that the imposition of violence, because at the end, the colonized want to be and to do this attitudes shown as right.
However, this phenomenon occurs in two ways: the idea of the “exotic”, a new sense of what is right thought is also powerful, and for that, the colonists capture for their culture many visions or experiences with the senses by the colonized.
In conclusion, Rotter explains that imperialism is not a simple process of an immediate conquest of a territory and a population. Rather, it is a complex action that to be effective, requires negotiation interactions and behaviors imposed on the daily lives of the colonized, to change the meaning of their culture upon the senses. That is, the true colonization requires that the word "civilization" must be a synonymous of ideal and correct for the colonized in their behaviors, as well as the understanding of the meaning for the colonizers of these senses for the colonized for transgress, and adapt.