From: Patsloane-AT-aol.com Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:04:07 EDT Subject: Re: PLC: Fairness to Faulner In a message dated 8/16/00 9:16:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gtrail-AT-uh.edu writes: > > > People who _eat the same food_, sweat as much as others, and bathe as > > > frequently as the others will smell alike. People. Makes no difference, > > > black or white or whatever. > > As a practical matter, it would be hard to find two people who ate exactly the same food, or bathed at exactly the same times. And it's common knowledge that under similar circumstances some people sweat more than others. People who tell me they sweat more than usual usually follow up by saying they also bathe more than usual. But it's hard to generalize: we can't be sure whether, if two people eat the same amount of garlic, each will smell of garlic to exactly the same extent. Climate is certainly a factor to be considered. The pharaonic Egyptians bathed twice a day, perhaps less because they ate a certain diet than because it was hot. Corpses, especially if unembalmed, smell pretty awful, irrespective of the worthiness of the person who died. But I'm glad you're not eliminating human odor, which after all fuels all those sales of deoderants. One could say it isn't dispositive that many people seem to "think" they smell. But we can't categorize human odor as a mass delusion either. It's often a primary cue to take another shower, even if one has already had one. It would be interesting to have a study of all the little day-to-day bathing rituals, which mainly turn on not offending other people. Bathe before going to the doctor or dentist. Wash your feet before trying on shoes. I wash my hair before going to the hairdresser, even though the hairdresser will wash it again, and it doesn't actually need to be washed twice in a short period of time. Dogs are supposed to have a sense of smell a million times more powerful than human beings. They're used to find particular individuals, which at least some dogs can do after being allowed to smell items that belong to that individual. I conclude each of us has an individual smell, which isn't surprising if it's true that each of us is physiologically unique. My dog gets very excited if a person she likes comes to visit, and knows the person is in the vicinity long before the doorbell is rung. It looks to me as if she's aware of that person's smell when the person is as far as a block or more from the house...and can pick them out--I guess by an individual smell--from a street crowded with other people. Dogs do an awful lot of sniffing when they meet strangers, and in some cases embarrass their owners by sniffing especially at the visitor's crotch. If each of us has an individual smell (and a given person might smell differently at different times), then a certain smell isn't an attribute of groups. One doesn't get "the same" smell from everyone who works for IBM, or was born in Ohio, or is a member of a certain "race." You're calling it "racism" to assert otherwise. But it's also faulty as an overgeneralization. If one wanted to teach people not to do it, it might be easier to teach that one shouldn't overgeneralize or think in stereotypes. What bothers me about bringing in accusatory words like "racist" is that they have a strong emotional charge that makes them counterproductive for many circumstances. Nobody wants to be "denounced as a racist," and the target person is mortified, scared to death. Maybe even afraid to ask exactly what they said which so offended, and why. So a certain number of targets play it safe by deciding never to mention odors at all, or in extreme cases even deny that human beings have odors. I don't think that's the intended effect, and I think this kind of overkill often does more harm than good. I'm not, of course, recommending that one tone down the message--just that one present it in a less ad hominem manner. Perfectly legitimate to say, "What you've said is both untrue and disparaging to (whatever group), although you may not realize it." Here at least one is dealing with ideas. When one switches to the ad hominem ("you're a racist, antisemite, or whatever"), the playing field changes in a way that actually makes the person less receptive to what one is trying to communicate. I can't think of many other areas where, if one wanted to persuade a person to change his/her thinking, one would begin by insulting and attacking the person. It doesn't work generally, and I don't think it works here. pat --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005