Comments on: Perfume books ~ Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell by Constance Classen, David Howes & Anthony Synnott http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/ a blog about perfume Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:40:17 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11250 Anonymous Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:22:34 +0000 http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11250 V, there are indeed no such models in this book! :-) Section II has many, sometimes rather amusing cross-cultural comparisons in olfactory symbolism. In all fairness, there's much more to the book than I could squeeze into my review. V, there are indeed no such models in this book! :-) Section II has many, sometimes rather amusing cross-cultural comparisons in olfactory symbolism.

In all fairness, there's much more to the book than I could squeeze into my review.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11248 Anonymous Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:17:51 +0000 http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11248 thanks for your input, pyramus! thanks for your input, pyramus!

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11246 Anonymous Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:16:13 +0000 http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11246 hi Tania, although the next poster already gave you some really good answers, I'll add my thoughts here too. The authors single out the Enlightenment as a negative turning point in the "career" of smell culture, but in fact the process of "discreditation" had started much earlier (albeit in a smaller circle of people). Major scientific discoveries (many go back to the Renaissance) were strongly connected to the visual realm: think of the importance of microscopes in biology, and of telescopes in astronomy. Experiments in physics were highly visual; in most cases, they checked their facts by looking (sound became important a little later). And let's not forget the importance of visual representations in geometry. Anyway, with these ongoing developments in science, sight had quickly become the sense of empiricism and rationality. Like the next poster said, it became part of the language of intellectualism. Smell, on the other hand, was still connected to the world of magic and rituals (things that were considered "irrational" and "illogical" in the academic world). During the Enlightenment, phenomena related to smell were still too far removed from empirical science, and therefore unworthy of serious consideration. Remember how for a long time, people thought that pestilence was related to malodors? When it became clear that illnesses were caused by bacteria, people's opinions on smell rapidly changed. The discovery had far-reaching cultural repercussions. (I promise I'll review Alain Corbin's The Foul and the Fragrant soon, to get deeper into that.) Anyway, what remained was the seductive power of smell; this was found everywhere in the animal kingdom, and it scared moralists all over the world. People who saw themselves as civilised human beings tried their very best to distinguish themselves from "savages", by distancing themselves from anything reminiscent of their "animalic heritage". Smell was a painful reminder of all things "uncivilised" and "morally corrupt". That's my version in a nutshell. I hope you forgive my late reply, I had an astronomy class tonight. :-) hi Tania,

although the next poster already gave you some really good answers, I'll add my thoughts here too.

The authors single out the Enlightenment as a negative turning point in the “career” of smell culture, but in fact the process of “discreditation” had started much earlier (albeit in a smaller circle of people). Major scientific discoveries (many go back to the Renaissance) were strongly connected to the visual realm: think of the importance of microscopes in biology, and of telescopes in astronomy. Experiments in physics were highly visual; in most cases, they checked their facts by looking (sound became important a little later). And let's not forget the importance of visual representations in geometry. Anyway, with these ongoing developments in science, sight had quickly become the sense of empiricism and rationality. Like the next poster said, it became part of the language of intellectualism. Smell, on the other hand, was still connected to the world of magic and rituals (things that were considered “irrational” and “illogical” in the academic world). During the Enlightenment, phenomena related to smell were still too far removed from empirical science, and therefore unworthy of serious consideration. Remember how for a long time, people thought that pestilence was related to malodors? When it became clear that illnesses were caused by bacteria, people's opinions on smell rapidly changed. The discovery had far-reaching cultural repercussions. (I promise I'll review Alain Corbin's The Foul and the Fragrant soon, to get deeper into that.) Anyway, what remained was the seductive power of smell; this was found everywhere in the animal kingdom, and it scared moralists all over the world. People who saw themselves as civilised human beings tried their very best to distinguish themselves from “savages”, by distancing themselves from anything reminiscent of their “animalic heritage”. Smell was a painful reminder of all things “uncivilised” and “morally corrupt”.

That's my version in a nutshell. I hope you forgive my late reply, I had an astronomy class tonight. :-)

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11249 Anonymous Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:02:26 +0000 http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11249 I was curious about this book ever since you mentioned it in the context of one of your other reviews (or perhaps, it was a comment here). Sounds like something I should definitely read. It is nice to read something in social sciences that does not involve a structural equation model. I was curious about this book ever since you mentioned it in the context of one of your other reviews (or perhaps, it was a comment here). Sounds like something I should definitely read. It is nice to read something in social sciences that does not involve a structural equation model.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11247 Anonymous Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:22:20 +0000 http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11247 I bought this book when it first came out, and if I remember correctly, the argument is that the Enlightenment was a time of intense intellectualism: everything had to be experienced using the senses and then thoroughly analyzed. The trouble with the sense of smell was that it was considered brutish: dogs smelled one another by way of greeting, for heaven's sake! For humans, on the other hand, the sense of sight was considered the king of the senses--"Yes, I see!", after all, means, "Yes, I understand!" And so the sense of smell was relegated to animals, women (who liked to perfume themselves, silly creatures), and savages (who didn't know any better): real people--white men, that is--got their information through their eyes. Aren't you glad we're well past that? I bought this book when it first came out, and if I remember correctly, the argument is that the Enlightenment was a time of intense intellectualism: everything had to be experienced using the senses and then thoroughly analyzed. The trouble with the sense of smell was that it was considered brutish: dogs smelled one another by way of greeting, for heaven's sake! For humans, on the other hand, the sense of sight was considered the king of the senses–”Yes, I see!”, after all, means, “Yes, I understand!” And so the sense of smell was relegated to animals, women (who liked to perfume themselves, silly creatures), and savages (who didn't know any better): real people–white men, that is–got their information through their eyes.

Aren't you glad we're well past that?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11245 Anonymous Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:52:46 +0000 http://www.nstperfume.com/2006/02/21/perfume-books-aroma-the-cultural-history-of-smell-by-constance-classen-david-howes-anthony-synnott/#comment-11245 Fascinating! I'm especially curious about this idea that the Enlightenment discredited the sense of smell. What exactly does that mean? And how did it happen? Fascinating! I'm especially curious about this idea that the Enlightenment discredited the sense of smell. What exactly does that mean? And how did it happen?

]]>