File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_2000/phillitcrit.0008, message 157


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005