The research sounds more interesting than its premises. I, like you, enjoy a Talisker, a Laphroaig, or a Bunahabhain, given the chance (and, coincidentally, am an old metal head). I like my whisky to smell peaty. But one might hesitate before approaching a person who smells the same, for reasons that are not entirely socially conditioned. Having spent quite some time with homeless people, I can say that some let off smells to which one would never wish to grow accustomed. I don't think even the most hardened Rousseauvian or blank-slate Maoist would imagine that one could raise a child to enjoy the smell of stale urine, dirty hair, dried up vomit or cheap liquor.
We gag as a reflex against poison. In most cases, when things smell bad, it is because they are bad for us. The exceptions do not, as the "queer theorists" suppose, undermine the rule. Or is my morning breath not bad, but just "different"?
It's something I've thought about. This isn't exactly my field (I haven't even officially started this whisky Ph.D. yet) but, I think there are probably a few things that aren't socially conditioned, even if most things are.
Incidentally, I think there's huge opportunity for theological research here. St Paul (2 Corinthins 2:15) mentions that we are the "pleasant aroma" of Christ. One of the Church Fathers (unfortunately I can't remember which one) reminds us of our charitable duties and insists that the smell of the poor and homeless is the "smell of Christ".
Ah, very good. If the smell drives one to acts of charity, then in a way it is "pleasing," because it draws one to the Good. But that is not what I think the author of the abstract above is getting at with the notion of "queerness" and "perversion:" isn't that project about overthrowing what are understood as merely social constructs (including the construct of nature) in order to destigmatise and legitimise desire?
As a project in religious studies, one might find more correspondence with certain taboo-confronting tantric practices in the more exotic reaches of Buddhism, I suppose. Christian theological dispute on this matter might centre on the relationship between grace and nature, and the extent to which these are analogous. The overlap between radical Protestantism and critical theory isn't coincidental: both rely on the dualistic notion of the physical as an autonomous sphere in opposition to the spiritual. There is nothing inherently good in the material order. It communicates nothing except what humans choose to communicate through it. Our bodily instincts therefore exist only to be overcome, redefined by the mind, whether individual or collective. The question between the queer theorist and the radical Protestant is, which instincts do we choose to overcome? Revulsion or lust?
Needless to say, this is not my position. Our desires and instinctive revulsions are not to be oppressed, but to be sublimated by the grace of God in accordance with His will. St Francis could channel his revulsion at the leper into loving service of God without turning that revulsion into some kind of kink; his desire was still to cleanse and to heal, and restore creation to the sweeter savour of heaven. If we enter the sewers, it is to clean them, not to drink their water.
This is all very interesting, and I don't have any clear answers for any of this. I wonder if John Paul II's theology of the body has anything about smell; I'll need to dig out my old copy.
Could there not be an overlap between critical theory and Christianity here? IF (I emphasise this is only an "if") our revulsion to certain smells is in fact contingent and prevents us from seeing someone else as fully human and made in the image of God, then wouldn't it be a good thing to try to overcome this revulsion? Let's not forget that Christ conquered Hades and I imagine it smelled pretty bad there.
Yes, certainly - but overcoming revulsion at a person and seeing them as fully human does not mean that I am obliged to or should even want to find the aspects I considered repulsive (such as smell) attractive, sexually or otherwise.
Have you read John D Burns? I think you’d enjoy 😏
I haven't, but I've just looked him up and you're right -- I think I'd like his stuff. Thank you for the recommendation!
The research sounds more interesting than its premises. I, like you, enjoy a Talisker, a Laphroaig, or a Bunahabhain, given the chance (and, coincidentally, am an old metal head). I like my whisky to smell peaty. But one might hesitate before approaching a person who smells the same, for reasons that are not entirely socially conditioned. Having spent quite some time with homeless people, I can say that some let off smells to which one would never wish to grow accustomed. I don't think even the most hardened Rousseauvian or blank-slate Maoist would imagine that one could raise a child to enjoy the smell of stale urine, dirty hair, dried up vomit or cheap liquor.
We gag as a reflex against poison. In most cases, when things smell bad, it is because they are bad for us. The exceptions do not, as the "queer theorists" suppose, undermine the rule. Or is my morning breath not bad, but just "different"?
It's something I've thought about. This isn't exactly my field (I haven't even officially started this whisky Ph.D. yet) but, I think there are probably a few things that aren't socially conditioned, even if most things are.
Incidentally, I think there's huge opportunity for theological research here. St Paul (2 Corinthins 2:15) mentions that we are the "pleasant aroma" of Christ. One of the Church Fathers (unfortunately I can't remember which one) reminds us of our charitable duties and insists that the smell of the poor and homeless is the "smell of Christ".
Ah, very good. If the smell drives one to acts of charity, then in a way it is "pleasing," because it draws one to the Good. But that is not what I think the author of the abstract above is getting at with the notion of "queerness" and "perversion:" isn't that project about overthrowing what are understood as merely social constructs (including the construct of nature) in order to destigmatise and legitimise desire?
As a project in religious studies, one might find more correspondence with certain taboo-confronting tantric practices in the more exotic reaches of Buddhism, I suppose. Christian theological dispute on this matter might centre on the relationship between grace and nature, and the extent to which these are analogous. The overlap between radical Protestantism and critical theory isn't coincidental: both rely on the dualistic notion of the physical as an autonomous sphere in opposition to the spiritual. There is nothing inherently good in the material order. It communicates nothing except what humans choose to communicate through it. Our bodily instincts therefore exist only to be overcome, redefined by the mind, whether individual or collective. The question between the queer theorist and the radical Protestant is, which instincts do we choose to overcome? Revulsion or lust?
Needless to say, this is not my position. Our desires and instinctive revulsions are not to be oppressed, but to be sublimated by the grace of God in accordance with His will. St Francis could channel his revulsion at the leper into loving service of God without turning that revulsion into some kind of kink; his desire was still to cleanse and to heal, and restore creation to the sweeter savour of heaven. If we enter the sewers, it is to clean them, not to drink their water.
This is all very interesting, and I don't have any clear answers for any of this. I wonder if John Paul II's theology of the body has anything about smell; I'll need to dig out my old copy.
Could there not be an overlap between critical theory and Christianity here? IF (I emphasise this is only an "if") our revulsion to certain smells is in fact contingent and prevents us from seeing someone else as fully human and made in the image of God, then wouldn't it be a good thing to try to overcome this revulsion? Let's not forget that Christ conquered Hades and I imagine it smelled pretty bad there.
Yes, certainly - but overcoming revulsion at a person and seeing them as fully human does not mean that I am obliged to or should even want to find the aspects I considered repulsive (such as smell) attractive, sexually or otherwise.
Not at all! I don’t think the point is to make you like certain things, only to avoid (as much as possible) arbitrary exclusion.