To Touch, To Feel, To Experience
- imaccolour
- Jun 20, 2017
- 30 min read
Updated: Mar 9
8,116 words
Freedom is vital. The freedom to experience the everyday sensory minefield of taste,
sound, smell, sight and touch, both physically, emotionally and socially, is paramount. While
difficult to isolate one sense due to the intricate sensory network enabling us to understand and connect to our environment, this text is interested in the restriction and loss of a particular sense, touch.
Touch is one of the most important senses in human development, an integral medium of
communication, expression, health and growth. Despite substantial research from philosophers and scientists championing this senses’ attributes, we are thrust against a highly visual culture, with touch represented in a variety of ways enabling us to feel without physically touching. Arguably, the inability to physically fulfil this heightened appeal of touch in contemporary society leading to a sense of isolation and alienation from our relationships with others.
In highlighting touch, this in no way diminishes the importance and influence of the other
senses but in doing so will try to uncover whether touch, the more intimate sense, has been
stigmatised in contemporary Western society. Why has such importance been placed on the
distant senses of sight, sound and smell? Has this favouritism enabled the control and restriction of touch? Training society to touch without actuation.
Contemporary regulations on touch, most notably in museums and public spaces,
coupled with technological advancements, such as Virtual Reality, which heighten all the senses, all contribute to the restriction and subsequent loss of physical touch. Specifically, the right to touch and be touched. It needs to be noted that discipline in regards to physical touch, for instance keeping hands off one’s own and another’s body in public, is crucial for maintaining an orderly society, protecting people’s vulnerabilities and consequently reducing anxiety. Clarifying the different kinds of touch and how they are regulated and accepted, or not, is integral to this thesis.
Due to the complexity of touch, explored further in subsequent chapters, it is near impossible to determine how touch is controlled and regulated due to the myriad of variable
situations, emotions and individual reactions. The general understanding of touching, in the
Western world, is to refrain from touching until told otherwise, even when no such regulation is imposed. As a result, touch has been heavily stigmatised and created a culture more reliant on the other senses. Therefore, losing the inquisitive nature embedded in human interaction. It is this line of research that will form the core of this thesis. Conversely, an investigation into whether touch parameters benefit society, a universal rule that maintains the established and accepted traditions of contemporary culture. Or that touch has taken on a new role through vision, have we learnt to experience touch through sight?
Part ONE - Noli Me Tangere
Figure 1 is a painting by Tiziano Vecelli created between c.1211-15, depicting
Mary Magdalene trying to touch Jesus after his resurrection. What is pertinent is how relevant this image and the accompanying title is when referring to 21st Century attitudes towards touch.
The painting, though not overtly, addresses some of the key aspects of touch, hierarchy
and hesitation. Mary’s kneeling position not only signifies her status in relation to Jesus, but could serve as a reminder that touch was considered primitive and earthbound. Additionally, her hand placement and facial expression express a desire and need to touch yet it remains unfulfilled. This, highlights inherent caution, unsure of whether touch is allowed and accepted.
The title, Noli Me Tangere - ‘Do Not Touch Me’, is a warning. Yet it also produces the same
desire in viewers as Mary Magdalene shows, the need to believe through physical contact. ‘A
phrase that touches and cannot touch, even when isolated from every context’ (Nancy, p.13). Noli Me Tangere alludes to the emotional feeling of touch through language and it is through this capacity to transcend multiple interactions while remain virtually scarce and retain its influential power that will be analysed.
Ch.1: The Complexity of Touch
The notion of senses, historically, were understood in relation to the different body parts: sight (eyes), sound (ears), the higher senses according to Aristotle (Taylor, 2013, p.10), with taste (tongue) , smell (nose) and touch (skin) being hierarchically lower. Together, these senses are able to break down, measure (Rivlin and Gravelle, 1984, p.11) and process sensory information, allowing us to coherently understand the complexity of reality. While touch was labelled as the lowest sense due to its intrinsic connection with manual labour (Synott, 1993, p.131), it is this very nature of visceral contact that makes touch one of, if not, the most important sense. Touch confirms not only the information we receive from sight, smell, taste or sound but is unique in that it enables both a physical and emotional connection through sheer proximity.
‘Our environments, whether natural or built, tattoo our skin with tactile impressions. As individuals and as members of societies with particular sensory paradigms, we learn how to value these impressions and how to use them to make sense of ourselves and the world’ (Howes, 2005, p.28) |
Howes’ observation, though a view shared by many, highlights that we have a symbiotic relationship with our environment, we influence and are influenced by it just through our presence. However, Howes refers to touch as a tactile sense in relation to the skin. While an apt and accurate description of the physical touch, it negates the myriad of other touch denotations. By touching, we are not only defining our world through tactile sensations, such as rough, smooth, wet, dry, but it also as a form of communication and body awareness, forging a greater sense of intimacy with people, objects and ourselves.
There appear to be four overriding views on touch, which is by no means a resolute list, to lose touch, to personally touch, to feel touched by and to stay in touch. While not isolated from each other, it highlights key differences in how touch is communicated and controlled.
To Lose Touch
When referring to touch, many imagine tactile impression in relation to the skin. Field
defines this touch as ‘the stimulation of the skin by thermal, mechanical, chemical or electrical stimuli’ (Field, p.75), all of which create sensations of ‘pressure, warmth, and vibration’ (Howes, 2005, p.28). This not only highlights the skin as both a sensory organ (Synott, 1993, p.157) and a protective canvas between us and the elements (Ackerman, 1990, p.68), but also the confirmation of the boundary between us and the other (Synott, 1993, p.157). The skin sensation allows us to determine tangible properties, such as surface texture, weight, and temperature (Gibson, 1966, p.123) and whether it causes us harm or pleasure. This tactile communication allows us to learn and remember what, how and when to touch through experience (Malnar and Vodvarka, 2004, p.103). It becomes an ever evolving library of sensation, continually receiving and sending information for everyday life (Gallace and Spence, 2014, p.111). The clearer the world is, the safer and less cautious we are to experience it (Tuan, 2005, p.76).
However, there persists a xenophobia and taboo with certain objects or surfaces deemed unacceptable to touch, from unknown surfaces to other peoples possessions we have no permission to touch. While there are no lawful restrictions in Western society, its association with disease, illness and contamination has partially disparaged touch (Smith, 2007, p.100). Historically, touch was intrinsic to daily life, particularly in the medieval period where touch shaped the cultural, social and political values (Smith, 2007, p.100). Eating with your hands was considered respectful and communal (Classen, 2005, p.260). Controlling what you owned, a master claiming his slave (Smith, 2007, p.16); aiding medicinal practices where touch was indispensable in temperature and pulse measuring (Smith, 2007, p.16) and in religion where holy kissing, baptising and laying hands on saints/ bibles/ religious statues signified a direct and powerful
connection to the sacred (Chidester, 2005, p.50). The Renaissance and Enlightenment marked a shift in sensory focus, from touch to sight. As Smith states, vision served ‘as authenticator of truth, courier of reason, and custodian of intellect’ (Smith, 2007, p.9). As a result, touch became sidelined, controlled and restricted leading to more cautious adults unable to fully and adequately express themselves with all the senses.
To Personally Touch
The idea of five senses is well-established, but further research shows that touch also
encompasses those inside the body. Proprioception (the awareness of the body though the muscles and tendonsPaterson, 2007, p.4), kinaesthesia (general movement of the body), vestibular sense (sense of balance (Lader, 2005,p.335)), involuntary movements of breathing and blinking28, pain and temperature. Together, while there is some discrepancy among numerous academics concerning the collective noun, this has frequently been referred to as haptic.
‘The haptic system, unlike the other perceptual systems, includes the whole body, most of its parts, and all of its surface. The extremities are exploratory sense organs, but they are also performatory motor organs; that is to say, the equipment for feeling is anatomically the same as the equipment for doing’ (Gibson, 1966, p.99). |
Due to the immediacy and complexity of sensory feedback collected from both the
‘exploratory’ (external) and ‘performatory equipment’ (internal) it is no wonder that touch influences and protects everything we feel and do. As Gibson elaborates, ‘this diversity of anatomy makes it hard to understand the unity and function that nevertheless exists’ (Gibson, 1966, p.99). Its uncontrolled, continuous, interchanging relationship, as well as our unconscious awareness (Macefield, 1998, p.90) with it, changes how touch is perceived, especially when in contact with others.
To Feel Touched By
The action of touching objects is undeniably important yet crucially it is the receptivity of touch that humans require. Bodily touch provides the foundation for our sense perceptions, the information gathered provides invaluable, immediate sensory feedback on whether touch was needed or wanted (Jones, 1994, p.19). It is the relationship between active exploration, passive acknowledgment and intention (Paterson, 2007, p.30) that simultaneously creates a foundation for what is permissible, helping distinguish the immeasurable qualities of touch.
To feel touched by is generally associated with positive affirmation. There is an unlimited glossary of touch impressions: a pat on the back, a push, an arm around shoulder, a hit, a kiss or a kick. This selection, as well as many others contain multitudes of meanings, a playful or violent hit, an intimate or forced kiss, juxtapositions that are highly dependent on the relationship, forcefulness and the level of control of the giver and receiver.
It is important to note that these actions are not universal across cultures. For instance, a handshake is regarded in the West as a greeting, congratulatory offering, meeting or a show of sportsmanship but in Asian cultures a bow is considered more polite than in Western practice. Yet, if the bow or handshake weren't performed correctly, whether it was too aggressive, weak or uncomfortable, a negative impression begins to form on how others see and feel about you and vice versa. An important parameter to discover whether that person is a potential ally or threat.
On such instance is the politicians’ touch. Politicians’ body language, in particular the
handshake, has been extensively analysed by behavioural experts. In doing so it provides a clear overview of the initial reactions of both parties alongside suggesting their working compatibility. This in depth analysis from a quick interaction highlights the importance of handshake in establishing close relations, and the need to control the type of touch to convey a certain message. Recently, President Donald Trump has had extensive media coverage on his handshake technique. Figure 2 is one example showing Donald Trump, on the right, shaking hands with Neil Gorsuch, US Supreme Court nominee in 2017. There are two key aspects to this handshake, one being their proximity and the other the handshake itself.
The distance between the two figures and the handshake being proximally closer to Trump than Gorsuch could have several meanings. On the one hand the distance created is an empowering respectful gesture and the marked closeness of the handshake to Trump could be a welcoming, trusting move into his sphere. On the other hand, it could be duplicitous, a boundary between Trump and Gorsuch neither want to enter. Alongside this insincerity, footage of the handshake in question shows the forcefulness of the handshake, a grab and pull of Gorsuch’s hand towards Trump. This move has been described as the “yank and pull” (Kearney, 2014), used by politicians as a power play to assert dominance, highlighting how touch can be used as a tool for manipulation.
Secondly, Trump simultaneously pat’s Gorsuch’s hand, which is concurrently a show of
kindness, reassurance and fellowship, but in conjunction with the previous analysis it is an assertion of Trump’s dominance. This attempt to appear ‘alpha’ and influence other people, is commonplace, and highlights how effective this intimate and intrusive touch can be used. ‘In the “bubble” of privacy that people maintain around themselves, touch perhaps represents the most direct invasion. It is scarcely surprising that its practice is regulated’ (Finnegan, 2005, p.18). Through regulation, individuals simultaneously understand the social norms of society yet become increasingly fearful when someone doesn’t conform to pre-determined ideas. Anxiety and worry on whether a touch is needed or wanted and whether it will be interpreted as positive or negative, has led to many being visibly out of touch.
The myriad of human interactions, in the West alone, has the unique ability to
determine not only whether touch will be received in a positive or negative light but also allow those to control. This sense perception depends heavily on the relationship between the toucher and the one being touched, the forcefulness and the intimacy. It can be therapeutic (Field, 2001, p.ix) or a reassurance of union or boundary (Finnegan, 2005, p.18). Cultures and societies set their own rituals, and while they change over time, what is consistent is the unconscious regulation of touch. A carefully guarded sense (Finnegan, 2005, p.18) that hinders unwanted touch but also in some cases creates a stigma against wanting to touch and wanting to be touched, leading to an emphasis on language to express feeling.
To Stay in Touch
‘Touch can cement an emphatic or affective bond, opening an entirely new channel of
communication. Rather than immediate and embodied, this touch shifts toward the metaphorical, the alternative emotional connotation of ‘touching’’39. As Paterson states, touch, while still deeply embedded in the tactile world, has been used in the spoken and written word. This is not to say that it has only just done so, if anything it started simultaneously with physical touch. But what is important is the increased use of the emotional touch. Language is littered with touch; to keep in touch, to stay in touch, to be in or out of touch, our emotions are our feelings (Ackerman, 1990, p.70).
These references are used extensively in the English language yet, according to Classen, tactile communication fails to truly capture true meaning, ‘a kiss is worth a thousand words’ (Classen, 2005, p.13). However what isn't taken into account is why this avenue has gained such traction. Touch encompasses the tactile, the kinaesthetic, and the emotional all of which are difficult to control, which has arguably contributed to the lack of tactile opportunities in contemporary society. But language is unique, it is safe in that there is no physical touch which can be misconstrued and therefore becomes the nearest substitute of touch.
Touch is one of, if not, the most complicated senses. It is its own language, we learn to
speak and listen with our bodies through outward intention in order to understand pain, relieve pressure and experience pleasure. It invites and inhibits the formation of relationships and can evoke feelings through language without the need to ever touch. However, while specific to culture, touch is universally regulated despite its intrinsic meaning to effectively connect, define our world, making us more operational as social beings (Cranny-Francis, 2013, p.35), it is the innumerable information and immeasurable complexity of touch which arguably makes a strong case for controlling touch but not for the demonstrable effect this has on our relationships.
Ch.2: How is the sensorial touch being played, displayed and performed in museums, galleries and exhibitions?
The ability to touch objects has consistently been shown to be integral in the
psychological development by improving cognitive function. Despite this touch is restricted, none more so than in public institutions such as museums. The heritage items, such as artefacts, paintings, and other historical relics are deemed too fragile, old or important for members of the public to handle; even curators and archivists wear white gloves. Therefore, 21st century visitors rely on their sight and intuition in order to gauge how the object would feel, which is in stark contrast to the eighteenth century where touch was rife. While there has been a substantial rise in museums commissioning works and events that enable touch, these are only temporary installations with the vast majority retaining their restriction of this sense.
There has been substantial research into the origins of museums, in particular the role
visitors played within the museum itself. Historically, touch was commonplace, especially during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, arguably the height of the touched experience. Both the gentry and lower classes could touch the historical artefacts hung on the walls and in draws, with precious objects kept under glass. Employing touch was considered integral in understanding and connecting to history, an educational and civilising tool. ‘Touch, for visitors, allowed them to engage in an imaginary conversation with the past, the tactile engagement firing their historical fantasises’ (Smith, 2007, p.115). Through this engagement, not only were visitors able to verify the nature of the object (Classen, 2005, p.277) but connect to the original make. Touch being an instigator for intimate exchange, a sense of being the creator and owner (Classen, 2005, p.277) through the simple use of hands.
This sense was also indispensable to connoisseurs, commonly to referred to as archivists today whose role was, and continues to be, the acquirement and care of museum artefacts. Experts have retained the right to touch. ‘Handling an object… allowed connoisseurs to scrutinise an objects more carefully, to detect details, fracture and flaws. Handling also helped to detect copies and forgeries’ (Candlin, 2010, p.95).While this is still very much the case, this line of work focuses on conservation, cataloging and research. The intrinsic link between handling and knowledge is not as explicit (Candlin, 2010, p.110) as it once was, a shift mirroring the significant displacement of touch with sight in the nineteenth century.
This is a consequence of multiple factors, one prevalent explanation was the rise in elitist attitudes. This is supported by detailed records of upper classes’ experiences exemplified in one reference from Anna Jameson in 1841, a renowned art writer, writing of her distaste of the less privileged. ‘People who instead of moving around among the wonders and beauties… with reverence and gratitude, strutted about as if they had a right to be there’ (Classen, 2010, p.77). While a disparaging perspective in comparison to the 21st century, this feeling was rife, especially when considering
that many of the objects were kept within private collections. In making them public, owners could not control who, how and when people could touch49. An attitude which came to fruition when museums increased the number of visitors permitted, threatening not only the security of objects but the civility of the museum. A greater diversity of visitor meant varying degrees of education, therefore sensory restrictions were put in place.
‘In order for the taboo on touch in the museum to be effective and accepted, visitors had to internalise a number of notions. First of all, that they were less important than the exhibits on display and thus must behave deferentially towards them. Secondly, that to touch museum pieces was disrespectful, dirty and damaging. Thirdly, that touch had no cognitive or aesthetic benefits were to be sought’ (Classen, 2010, p.77) |
Visitors learnt to control their tactile impulses, this was not only in the museum setting but also in public. The emphasis on vision as the primary sense of knowledge also corresponded to the heightened visual culture in society, with the rise in department stores. Lavish displays representing touch emphasised the role as spectator resulting in self-regulating behaviour. This brought a new etiquette, value from a distance. Together, the cultural and social significance of touch gradually declined making it easier to control who and what was deemed unworthy to touch.
This highly regulated institution and its restrained visitors have become common place. Many museums across the world still continue this practice of controlling touch through a multiple means, whether through guards, glass cases, designated pathways, barriers, plinths and signage, see Figure 3. It is to be noted that through distance comes clarity (Classen, 2005, p.277), controlling overcrowding also improves visibility. Yet, these measures not only blur texture and dull colour of artwork but they limit the wealth of sensory, educational knowledge that could be provided by the other senses, ‘[Sight] can only become meaningful on the basis of what it has felt and what it has heard’ (Montagu, 1971, p.236). A statement reflecting the gradual significant opportunities to handle objects. One of which are children’s museums and the other being exhibitions that promote touch, both of which cater to multi-sensory investigation.
The Science Museum in London, is a prime example. Visitors of all ages are able to touch historical objects, although many are replicas, and educate themselves through fun interactive displays. The Wonderlab, Figure 4, is a designated area in the museum that features a plethora of over 50 different displays, a playground of educational insights ranging from how light, sound, electricity and friction work. What Wonderlab, and to a greater extent the museum, has not only achieved is the creation of a space whereby the impingement on tactile exploration is lifted, allowing children and adults to freely and fully engage in the sensorial wonder of the displays which is an acknowledgement on the integrity of touch in comprehending the nature and function (Classen, 2005, p.277).
Despite this, a pervasive attitude persists. For one the uncontrollable behaviour of children can be likened to the 19th century general public, infantile behaviour that brings associations of elitism and lack of seriousness. Therefore, one could argue that in creating a sanctuary where touch is allowed and uncontrolled creates an uneasiness from the discrepancy between museum establishments. A weariness can be seen with adults, a fear losing the illusion of security in their knowledge from sight, a notion ingrained in museums.
A perspective similar with the resurgence in sensory exhibits aimed towards those with visual impairment. There have been numerous international museum exhibitions that have allowed those with and without disabilities to use their hands; Take Me (I’m Yours) (Monnaie de Paris, France), Please Touch! (Museum für Gestaltung, Zürich) and Please Touch the Art (UNO Art Gallery, Omaha, US). While there are only a handful mentioned, the growing concern over the lack of touch provided by museums, highlights the integral relationship between touch and knowledge for everyone, not just the partially sighted. Jeremy Johnson, Professor of Art Education, stated, ‘two different communities coming together… one was used to interacting with art but only in a visual way… and then there are the visually impaired who have never had the opportunity… to access or experience art’ (Tess, 2016). The undeniable benefits of these exhibits are clear, yet, much like the Wonderlab, these exhibitions are seen to be mainly aimed at a particular visitor, and while there are no overt signs suggesting otherwise, there is a sense that touch is there primarily for the disabled and children. This inherent condition keeps touch prohibited and in turn normalises this invisible feeling. The multitude of different museums and exhibitions offering and hindering touch demonstrates how differentiated touch still is in public institutions making sensory practice increasingly difficult to define and effectuate effectively to benefit all.
What is striking is the ease in which touch was displaced in museums. It transgressed from being unquestionable to touch abhorrent to think about touching. Analysing museum formats from the eighteenth century onwards, has shown that touch has, and continues to be valued but heavily stigmatised. A threat to the artefacts worth and to the civility of the museum atmosphere. While this thought still pervades, the growing number of institutional spaces like the Science Museum, provides an important avenue to both those who are visually impaired and tactually malnourished to actively touch. One could argue that this has become a novelty in museums but in re-establishing touch and relinquishing their stronghold promotes the desire to learn, just as curators continue to do.
Part TWO - Priere de Toucher
Figure 5 is an textile artwork representing a breast, entitled Priere de Toucher by
Marcel Duchamp and created in 1977 for a surrealist exhibition. The prevalence of touch in this object from the title to its representation of the body and the soft tactile material tantalises the mind, encompassing the increasing development of touch in contemporary society.
The object is a realistic representation of a woman’s breast, made from foam and mounted on velvet (Crighton, 2014, p.96-7). The materials used are undeniably evocative of touch, foam being soft and malleable and velvet being smooth and a nod to luxury. Arguably an ironic use of materials as the artwork was shown on a plinth under some glass. While it could be read as a comment on the intangible nature of art in a museum setting, it emphasises the heightened visual appeal of touch and the need to carry out that touch.
Additionally, the physical representation of a woman’s breast is very suggestive of many things, from feminism, fertility to, unsurprisingly, sex. It was withdrawn temporarily, alongside another piece, due to its exploitative nature, illustrating the taboo of having an object evoke the feelings associated with touching. ‘It illustrated the director’s and council’s control and censorship over the selection and presentation of art for public consumption in an increasingly permissive age’ (Crighton, 2014, p.97).
The title, Priere de Toucher - ‘Please Touch’, is ironic: an invitation to touch the object knowing full well that one cannot simply handle at will without permission. A noticeable frustration, resulting in numerous industries developing products aimed to enable touch publicly, privately and virtually, bringing touch into the fore like never before.
Ch.3: How does the lack of touch affect the significance of touch in both the private and public sphere in Western society?
The tension between the private and public self has never been more prevalent. The increasing use of social media and advertising has created a visually tactile display of products, manufacturing a culture of unsatisfied touch. A manipulation towards consumption and, subsequently, a certain lifestyle that has the power to determine the right way to act. In the Western world, self-regulating behaviour has become the unconscious marker for normalcy, yet there are unique sanctuaries whereby control is lifted, leading to an increased value of the physical touch. Touch industries, such as massage therapy and to a lesser extent commercial outlets, have exploited the simultaneous need and fear of touch for capital gain. However, in turn, they have provided private domains, for individuals to exercise and relinquish control without the pressure of conforming to societal ideals.
The continual restriction of touch has made it desirable, even more so against the backdrop of the visually stimulating world of television, social media and advertisement. Advertising, defined as presenting a particular product to a user, is not only used as tool of persuasion to buy but creates eagerness, a space of readily available sensations once the merchandise is obtained. It is a billion pound industry exploiting the touch starvation in Western society by tantalising humans need of touch through sight.
‘Given that many of the images surrounding us are advertisements, it is not surprising that a primary means of satisfying the sense of touch is through the purchase of products.’ (Classen, 2005, p.403). This is illustrated in Figure 6, an advertisement for the Mitsubishi car company. It shows eight fingers painted with squares, captioned ‘The Whole City Just a Touch Away’. The most striking aspect of this advertisement is undoubtedly the fingers, their dominance accentuating the importance in experiencing the world through touch. However, their scale simultaneously adds to the perceived detachment of touch in society, emphasised further by the graphic drawing on the fingers.
The regimented squared pattern appears to be alluding to a city scape, a reflection of a society touched by what it sees. This is further highlighted with the language of the title, The Whole City Just A Touch Away, the latter half conjuring images of fairy-tales, where touch is mythical, a long lost sense easily and quickly obtained, through purchase. This is further reinforced by the drawing, in obscuring the fingers with pattern one interpretation reflects how controlled cities are on the performatory action of hands. ‘In the contemporary West, people are generally expected to keep their hands off their own bodies when in public’ (Classen, 2005, p.259). Through the obfuscation, the advert simultaneously creates a tactually stimulating image but on a connotative level, provides a visual depiction on the regulations imposed on touch.
The endless meaning and significance touch possesses is also commercialised. An imaginary ideal exploited through visual stimuli, whether it be portrayals of intimacy, relationships, beauty or action. ‘Buying the “right” clothes, camera, car, not only gives us something to touch, it also assuages our sense of alienation by letting us feel “in touch”, connected to contemporary culture’ (Classen, 2005, p.403). The focus on the emotional qualities touch unequivocally possesses not only allow us to be ‘in touch’ but can also make us feel the opposite. Sensationalist culture has encouraged us to touch with our eyes and heart but not with our body, controlling, changing and creating a lack of physical value in contemporary culture.
There has been a substantial increase in commercialised touch; hairdressers washing and massaging the head, nail artists caressing the fingertips, pilates and yoga instructors realigning the body and physiotherapists easing pain, ache and tension. These industries, among others, not only fill a simple want but are the few that surpass the stigma of being touched in public. In these environments, individuals relinquish control over what happens to their bodies in the presence of professionals, most of whom are strangers. In outsourcing touch, whether it be societal time pressures reducing the time spent with loved one or simply through necessity, individuals experience what was traditionally effectuated in relationships, interpersonal touch.
The lack of interpersonal touch in society appears to have manifested into a perceived connection between client and professional practitioner. ‘There is the faint but unmistakable underlying need for connection, a yearning for contact and proximity in a potentially isolating and alienating world, perhaps exacerbated by the emphasis on hollow consumerism in later capitalism’ (Paterson, 2007, p.149). It is unfortunate but unsurprising that consumerism has become the focal point with advertisements creating untouchable tactility and the subsequent self-regulating behaviour both of which reduce the well-established significance of touch.
Yet, massage therapy, the rubbing and kneading of the body to promote healing and wellbeing, appears to confront the extent of the lack of physical contact. Healing through tactility is not a new phenomenon, in the East it has been common practice for centuries. Therapists draw on tradition (Govindan, 2005, p.366), skilfully and intuitively healing the body through designated pressure points. In the West it is only recently been universally adopted as a valid and valuable addition to the health of an individual. Additionally, when carried out in a professional, respectful manner, the simplicity of touch does more than just ease physical pain but relaxes the mind, aiding in overall well-being, illustrated by the bewildering array of products advertised and marketed (Jütte, 2005, p.240).
‘[Touch] derives much of its power from its approximation of a loving touch, offering the physical comfort of being cared for and protected’ (Classen, 2005, p.351). This becomes particularly significant when considering that the majority of massages happen in the privacy of the home. While this may be a convenient development, the intrinsic cultural defiance of massage and the lack of touch regulations in the home highlight where value is re-established. Privacy is the sanctuary where there is little to no fear of negative touch. However, the supposed risks and difficult conceptualisation of touch become a key contributing factor in its regulation, even in domesticity.
The most notable example of this is sexual touching, both individually or with a partner, which, like massage, not only enables relaxation but also shows vulnerability. ‘To touch entails acknowledging the risks associated with the unknown toward whom I reach when I touch’ (Manning, 2007, p.135). While most pleasurable experiences are a result of touching (Gallace and Spence, 2014, p.277), the repressive cultural attitudes continue to thrive, potentially accounting for the tendency to sexualise, infantilise and control touch. This is particularly applicable with nudity, commonly interpreted as highly sexualised yet, also for many, embarrassing. It is able to stimulate touch sensations without ever needing to and through this increases the likelihood of purchase. Figures 8 and 9, are both print advertisements for the Italian brand Dolce & Gabbana, but represent two parallel strands of the sexualised touch.
Figure 7 is a perfume advert showing a man and a woman in an embrace, a prominent and intimate snapshot that would ordinarily be performed in private. As viewers, we automatically become voyeurs, drawn into their relationship whether consciously or not, enticed by their chemistry and also unconsciously the amount of skin on show. It is safe to assume makeup and presumably photoshop were involved, but the skin of both participants is markedly free from blemishes and positively glowing. A surface as inviting as it is unattainable. ‘The surface of the body is a thinking, feeling surface. It is a gestural, linguistic, sensing skin that protects us while opening us toward and rendering us vulnerable to an other’ (Manning, 2007, p.9). This is further emphasised by hand placements, on the torso of the male and the lingering hand on the woman. A desire to not only be loved and felt but in such a way that is uncontrollable and primal, contrasting significantly to the Western idea of appropriate affection. In presenting this taboo, individuals begin to lose ourselves and acquire the intended meaning of the images. There is an unspoken promise of irresistible relationships following the purchase of Dolce & Gabbana perfume, although not complicit, the continual cycle of promise, purchase and performance of touch.
Figure 8 portrays a different interpersonal relationship, one reminiscent of a typical family, but with the added glamour of high-end fashion. This family portrait is situated in the home, specifically in a bedroom occupied by one woman, three men and seven children. The voyeuristic styling, similar to figure 8, is supplemented by the eye contact between them and us, tactility present in the eyes of the beholder (Montagu, 1971, p.237). Overtly addressing the viewer through eye contact creates a perceived normality, unconsciously influencing audiences that this is attainable but only through the purchase and integration of the brand in your daily life.
Touch is used in the advert to full effect, all the children are touching objects and being touched by the adults. If audiences are to believe in the brand, what needs to be conveyed is the affection and connection in this family, which has been illustrated through the use of touch. ‘Touch is the first sense to develop… Infants deprived of touching, hugging, cuddling, tender loving care, wither away and die: the ‘failure to thrive’ syndrome’ (Synnott, 1993, p.156). This deprivation isn’t prevalent, with touch used to show that an openness to receive and provide touch is not only valuable but powerful in the formation of strong, happy individuals, highlighted in the image through their delight.
However, one noticeable feature is how the children are being held, arguably, in a controlling and restrictive manner. A restraint that teaches children, whether intended or not, to control the impulse to touch. Also, the majority of the children are also touching but not playing with toys suggesting how merchandise has begun replacing the interpersonal touch. What both these adverts appeal to is the audiences need to touch, whether sexual or otherwise. Gaining material value at the expense of losing touch with each other, an ideology affirming the subliminal limitations imposed on touch in Western culture.
Free to see and believe, pay to touch the truth (Hibbitts, 2007, p.93). An ideology that has enabled advertisements and businesses to integrate with ease into everyday life. Analysing the Dolce & Gabbana campaigns provided a greater understanding of how advertisers use the images produced to influence and alter certain behaviours and beliefs. We are continually brought up against the backdrop of perfection, models who have it all, money, beauty and importantly loving relationships. The manipulation of a desire to feel touched psychologically and personally has resulted in an industry not only dedicated to touch, but exploiting its rarity in public and, increasingly, private settings. ‘We must reach out and actively engage with the world in order to learn about it through touch’ (Fulkerson, 2014, p.5-6). Although this lack of touch engagement has created a discourse between public, private, real and fake, it is nevertheless encouraging individuals to be more in touch. While this may not be in the traditional sense of physical touch or in the genuine interpersonal relationships, it reflects the changing attitudes towards touch. A reflection of a society putting greater emphasis on feelings and taking control of this to compensate for the subsequent restriction on the physical touch.
Ch.4: Is the physical touch being superseded by the virtual touch? Are haptic interfaces adequate substitutes?
From computers to touch screens, trains to airplanes, video games to virtual reality. Modern life is in constant motion with machines, bodies and brain power on overdrive, unseating notions of time, security and control. The relationship between man and machine, the physical and the virtual, have almost become indistinguishable. With the explosion of innovation comes technologies able to respond to our touch71, and in turn, making it easier to keep in touch of friends and family (Naisbitt, 1999, p.2) with a simple click. This, arguably, has created a discourse between what is real and fake (Naisbitt, 1999, p.11), especially with technologies able to recreate the fantastical
everyday, a hyper-reality of limitless possibilities. A multi-sensory experience that mimics sight, sound, even smell and touch, the latter coined as haptic technology, an important case study. The complete integration of touch technology appear to have superseded the physical touch. But while this could potentially highlight the loss of the real touch, the act of replicating touch has thrust this sense into the public domain like never before. Simultaneously aiding in the self-evident growing need for authenticity and the noticeable progression towards digitisation.
Technology started out in the humble beginnings of the personal computer and since then has exploded into a field where devices are able to respond to your voice and touch. In recent decades, the term haptic technology has been increasingly used and is defined by its ability to recreate touch sensation through the application of vibrations and motions according to user interaction. There have been significant breakthroughs towards haptic technology, such as 3D displays, touch screens and virtual reality. While not an exhaustive list, these devices owe a significant part of their success to the technologies revolutionising what it means to touch.
The term ‘3D’ refers to a three-dimensional stereoscopic film, meaning it provides the illusion of depth from a 2D image. It aims to enhance the cinematic experience, a closer proximity adding to the perceived participation between image and viewer. In doing so film is able to shape new ways of feeling and connecting with the world through visceral mental stimulation. A spectator’s physical touch may be absent but the realism created appeals to our desire to touch and to feel touched by a performance reminiscent of a personal memory. But, much like advertising, this illusion of the now heightened touch remains unsatisfied. ‘No matter how proximate, objects are always given across an intervening space’ (Wyschogrod, 2007, p.163). The distance between spectator and screen, with or without 3D technology, can disengage audiences therefore leading to an increase in devices able to respond to our touch, a true multi-sensory world to escape to.
Multi-touch technology, used in the development of touch screens, enables the digital surface to recognise, track and respond to multiple points of contact. A technology propagated in 2007 by Apple with their iPhone 1st Generation (Figure 9). A smartphone that could provide graphic feedback through predefined gestures, from pinch to zoom, scrolling and touch keyboards, enabling customers to seamlessly multitask between applications. In popularising this technology, Apple were not only able to beat competitors but revolutionised how humans are able to interact with machines. ‘Smartphones, in particular, have become extensions of our brains. They have fundamentally changed the way people receive and process information’ (Vogelstein, 2013). An extension that has instigated the need to process more in-depth sensory information bringing greater control to customers.
Finally, virtual reality (figure 10) is able to generate realistic environments by incorporating multiple sensations to evoke physical presence in a virtual world. ‘Haptics enables a more active exploration and allows the user not just to see three dimensional shapes represented on the screen but also to feel them and interact with them’ (Paterson, 2005, p.431). This immersion is the one development that truly addresses the body’s sensorial make-up. Yet generating authentic multisensory feedback without the authenticity touch provides has been a continual limitation in the
integration of this technology, you can look but can’t touch and feel. However, the development in external devices able to mimic tactile pressures (Paterson, 2005, p.432) that can integrate with virtual reality, such as the Dexmo 52 (figure 11), an exoskeleton designed to replicate the experience of touching objects. Although prototypes, these techniques and ideas could offer alternative ways of sensing for various industries, such as surgical training, video-games, and even interplanetary exploration (Paterson, 2005, p.431).
The resounding accessibility and success of these technologies lies not only with instantaneous communication and gratification, but the powerful use of tactility as a means of connecting us to the world. ‘To manipulate a virtual object with the hand, and have the image change accordingly on the screen over the haptic device, produces a credible sensation of tangible virtual object’ (Paterson, 2007, p.138) . This newfound ability to integrate touch with technology and the ability for that technology to emotionally touch us is truly unique. The engineering and marketable context of these haptic sensations has brought significant attention to the necessity of touch. ,
outlining the beneficial and harmful effect on society.
Replicating touch provides a greater understanding of the complex process of touch perception (Rivlin and Gravelle, 1984, p.23), enabling technologies to improve and support human life. However, with this increased dependency comes a cyberspace that can ultimately disconnect people from the physical world. Why leave a world where you can create, break and emanate rules and regulations previously imposed by society’s expectations? Therefore, one could argue that the increase the virtual space creates surrogate realities, distorting the truth and manipulating the senses in the real world. ‘While offering us enormous freedoms of fantasy and encounter, digital eros may be removing us further from the flesh’ (Kearney, 2014).
Technology is advancing at an unimaginable rate. This new language engineered through constant innovation is rapidly adapting the way we communicate, think and feel, a newfound ability to touch and be touched virtually. Technologies such as 3D, touch and virtual screens have woven into the fabric of daily interactions, the key to feeling in touch and crucially in control. While unequivocally changing our relationship with said technology and crucially with our surroundings by recreating, obscuring and exaggerating the real, it brings a reassurance by the authentic (Naisbitt, 1999, p.13), the human touch.
Though a machine can efficiently complete multiple tasks better, faster and cheaper than we can, there is a growing need for a closeness unachievable through haptic technology (Jütte, 2005, p.239), highlighting the alienating distortion of high-tech society. These hand-based technologies are an illusion of tangibility and control. On the surface the physical touch appears to be superseded by the virtual haptic interfaces due to the number of technologies exploiting the sensory minefield. Yet, while there have been believable technologies able to effectively replicate touch, the extent of research and development into creating virtual touch is a self-evident comment on a society actively driven to understand and take back control of the most important sense, touch.
Conclusion
This thesis aimed to consolidate the vast and varied research on touch to develop the inchoate notion that the sense of touch is controlled in contemporary Western society. This theory presents how the myriad of touch interactions, so complex and ever changing, have been restrained and analysing the consequences of this. Arguing that in limiting the availability to touch has left a feeling of isolation and alienation with our surroundings and our relationships with others, using museums, advertising and technology to support this.
In viewing touch in this way, it became evident that more regulation is imposed on this sense compared to any other sense, like vision. Each chapter demonstrated that the overarching bodies dictating societal norms pervaded in the media, have unequivocally influenced Western etiquette. From the nineteenth-century onwards museums became ocular centric, a stark transformation from the eighteenth-century, rooted in tactile discovery, which established touch as a threat to the historical artefacts on display (Smith, 2007, p.115), disempowering visitors and their understanding of the past. Advertising and commercial industries, like massage therapies, exploiting the desire to feel touched psychologically and physically through banal sensationalism, corrupting tactile sensibilities towards consumerist culture (Svankmajer, 2014, p.1). Finally, technology introducing the engineered language of the virtual touch, providing individuals with the illusion of reality further repressing the physical feeling of touch.
It is essential to note that the belief that touch is incessantly being diminished and controlled due to the aforementioned outlets is unreflective of the argument in its entirety. Touch is the most complex sense and therefore represents multitudes, a confirmation of boundaries, a union or connection, an unwanted invasion, all of which transcending physical, emotional and social limits (Finnegran, 2005, p.18). Hence the instantaneous vigilant surveillance surrounding touch, provide an insight into the interpersonal relationship between the system orchestrating control and society effectuating it.
It is also apparent that nothing can fully exercise control over how someone feels and acts accordingly with touch being the least susceptible to deceit (Tuan, 2005, p.78), making it the most trustworthy authenticator of the truth. However, the simple fact is touch is also delicate (Tuan, 2005, p.76) and malleable across different cultures and therefore is effortlessly directed and governed towards visual markers of emotional meaning, not physical feeling. This overt manipulation of touch aimed creates a cycle of heightening representations of touch, consumers suspending disbelief and buying the product in the false hope of acquiring the unattainable. A perpetual cycle in the West, suggesting that individuals are benefitting in some way from seeing touch. Whether to live out scenarios where tactile gratification is accepted, satiating their need to toucher fulfilling the need to be in touch with the people surrounding them.
In both public, museums and advertising, and private, domesticity and technology, domains the multifaceted meanings behind the significance of touch are unlimited: physical, emotional, social and culturally specific (Cranny-Francis, 2013, p.35). The uncontrollable nature of touch is restrained not just through external visual cues but through self-actualisation and regulation. An impact marking the sharp transformation where being trained to see touch is an adequate surrogate to the physical experience. A shift evident across advertising, museums, technology and human interaction and while there are reputable alternatives, such as museums allowing visitors to touch or technology able to mimic sensation, they are still in their infancy and don’t address the reason why there has been a drive towards emotion. In controlling the physical, it can manipulate the emotional and consequently the immeasurable qualities touch can be manufactured and profited, a strong case to make touch rare, commercialised and sold to the highest bidder, us.
Comments