Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Deepest Sense:An Interview with Constance Classen Donald A. Yerxa Sensory history is a rapidly emerging field unfolding in the broader context of multidisciplinary sensory studies. Past president of the Historical Society Mark M. Smith has been a pioneer of sensory history. He is editor of the University of Illinois Press series Studies in Sensory History. One of the early books in the series is Constance Classen's The Deepest Sense: A Cultural History of Touch (2012). In it Classen, a Canadian cultural historian who has written extensively on the senses, explores the lived experiences of embodiment from the Middle Ages to modernity and helps us appreciate the tactile foundations of Western culture. Senior editor Donald A. Yerxa interviewed Classen in May 2013. Donald A. Yerxa: Would you provide your readers with a brief summary of what you are doing in The Deepest Sense? Constance Classen: The Deepest Sense explores the tactile underpinnings of Western culture from the Middle Ages to modernity. It investigates people's corporeal experiences of past worlds—the feel of the medieval city, the healing touch of saints, the tactile appeal of art—and how these shifted with social and technological developments such as the Reformation and the Industrial Revolution. In the process it aims to encourage a more full-bodied understanding of historical events and to draw attention to the insights that can be gained by taking a sensory approach to the study of the past. Yerxa: You maintain that the history of touch is "often an inferred history." Why is that the case? Classen: The sense of touch has been taken for granted. It is also a very intimate sense. This means that people often didn't write about their tactile acts, even though these played a major role in shaping their lives. Historians of touch have to be detectives, scrutinizing paintings, examining material culture, and sifting through texts for clues to behaviors. For example, when I was investigating visitor behavior in early museums, I found that many people simply wrote that they had "seen" an exhibit. Then I discovered more detailed accounts in which visitors would say that they "saw" a museum but go on to describe handling the collection. So I realized that "seeing" could include touching. In fact, when they were unable to touch, museum visitors might complain that they hadn't had a satisfactory viewing. Tactile investigation was considered essential. Yerxa: How was touch related to medieval table manners? Classen: The tactile world of the Middle Ages is fascinating because it was such a close-knit, hands-on period. When people ate food with their hands out of a common dish, it wasn't because they didn't have any social graces, it was because it fostered a notion of all being part of one social body. The same occurred when people shared beds and baths, when they danced in circles holding hands, and when a vassal ritually placed his hands in the hands of his lord. Such tactile practices literally united people. However, conveying social rank was also important. Being physically elevated was key in this regard, not only because of the obvious symbolism of height, but also because the earth was thought to be the basest of the elements. Hence, the snake, which came into full bodily contact with the earth, was considered the lowliest of creatures, whereas the knight, riding above the ground on his horse, was a very superior being indeed. Sitting at a raised table during meals was another way in which elevation expressed social superiority. By contrast, one of the signs of the humility of Louis IX of France, or Saint Louis, was that he would sometimes sit on the ground to eat with the poor. The texture of clothing was another tactile mode of conveying social position; coarse cloth for peasants, fine for nobles, a scratchy hair shirt for the pious. Click for larger view View full resolution From a painting on the tomb of Henry IV, Canterbury Cathedral. From James Craigie Robertson, Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury: A Biography (London, 1859). Yerxa: How was touch related to everyday religious practices? Classen: We can also find an emphasis on tactile bonding in religious...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".