where we play » 2008

Body odor, bad breath, dandruff, and acne – these maladies have been part of our human existence long before we knew them as diseases or ailments. These products of being human have been transformed by advertisers of the 1920s into plagues of huge proportions whose only remedies are modern name brand products claming to tame the symptoms, cleansing the body of foul smelling invaders. These ailments have continued to be further developed and refined into social controls by modern advertising and our evolving notions about what is considered clean and normal. Because body odor has been packaged and positioned, as a “bad”, it cannot be seen as destructive or harmful to a civilization. Although in some cases foul smelling breath can be an indication or symptom of a more serious ailment, the smell of someone’s breath cannot harm another individual. Odor is however perceived as a threat to ones social status. Odor, if not controlled, becomes a danger to the person not able to have a mastery over their body. In this way the sin of bad breath can be seen as a manufactured dramatization of a risk. For social theorist like Ulrich Beck, this illustrates the central problem for contemporary society. Instead of focusing on “the production and distribution of social “goods” such as wealth, and employment in conditions of scarcity” our society focuses on “the preventions and minimizations of ‘bads;’ that is risks.” In the case of body odor, bad breathe in particular; the “bad” has been created by the body. No harm is done unless we all agree that odor is offensive to our society and way of life. Advertisers link the desire to reach and maintain social status, love, and relationship to ones ability to control the body. These warnings of risks by advertising identify to society that bad breath is undesirable, but the knowledge of this risk does not describe the solution to the undesired state. It does however create a preoccupation with the desire to minimize the perceived threat in order to make sure that ones body is presentable or clean from the point of view of ones social world arenas. It is this uncertainty, reinforced by advertising, which perpetuates the insecurity, which drives the perception of a risk. In the case of bad breath the perceived risk is a lack of acceptance by ones peers, the fear of becoming a social outcast, or loosing favor and being stifled in the progression that is adult life. The solution to this condition can be found in an array of products positioned to reduce, fight, and eliminate bacteria causing bad breath. These products allow us to control our body’s natural processes reducing our risk of falling into the trap of the aforementioned condition.
Ridding the body, (the mouth in particular,) of smell, has become an obsession for which we have many modern remedies. These remedies include mouthwash, toothpaste, tongue strips, vibrating toothbrushes, and various homemade or natural remedies. The ailment in question also goes by a variety of labels such as oral malodor, breath odor, foul breath, fetor oris, fetor ex ore, or most commonly bad breath, and Halitosis. These are terms that are used to describe what we now classify as unpleasant odor exhaled in breathing from the mouth. Without this classification of mouth odor it would not be possible for a society to label someone as a person different from the norm. The labels allow us to position someone with mouth odor as different by contextualizing them as someone with halitosis. This classification allows for clarity and a minimization of uncertainty that is seen as a risk.
It seems that the desire to appear clean to others started after World War One, when Listerine mouthwash, previously marketed as a general antiseptic began referring to bad breath as the more scientific sounding ‘halitosis’. Listerine boasted breath freshening while promising germ-killing action. This changed the public perception from bad breath as an unpleasant occasional occurrence to a social crime. The idea that there could be something bad inside the body or that the body is a source of pollution is reinforced in this repositioning of Listerine mouthwash. The history of chewing gum is similar to that of mouthwash. As more and more manufacturers entered the chewing gum market, various manufacturers began to market gum in different ways. Wrigley’s sold gum as a treat or candy to children while Ohio physician Dr. Edward E. Beeman invented Beemans gum in the late 19th Century. Beeman originally marketed their gum, which was made of pepsin powder and chicle, as an aid to digestion. Pharmacist Frank Canning invented what is referred to as a “dental gum”. Canning promoted his gum as an aid to oral hygiene “To prevent decay, to sweeten the breath, to keep teeth white,” read the package. Mr. Canning called his new gum Dentyne. The name is derived from a combination of the words “dental” and “hygiene”. It is important to note that in each case the creators linked the product in some way to the professional world of medicine or dentistry. Mouthwash attached itself to a medical sounding term and talked about germ fighting while Dentyne was created by a dentist and positioned as a “dental gum”. These are experts in physical hygiene telling the public that there are germs in our mouths that need to be eliminated. Because of our learned history as a civilization we have the understanding that germs can be classified as high risk. If we were not concerned with the state of our breath before we should be now because there is the threat of infection to our body that has been communicated to us by professionals.
In the early 1920s, Clove gum was said to freshen the breath of those drinking liquor illegally. In this way personal hygiene became increasingly important for maintaining social status and synonymous with upholding social order. “Physical processes that had previously been taken for granted began to acquire ominous qualities, as one can see in the changing attitude towards odor.” writes Jackson Lear in Fables of Abundance: A Cultural History of Advertising in America. Personal hygiene became linked to efficiency, order, and social status. The clove gum used by individuals drinking illegally during prohibition allowed these individuals to mask the odor that would reveal their consumption of the illegal substance. This speaks to ideas about order and disorder associated with odor and beliefs about what is dirty and what is considered to be clean. The smell of alcohol on someone’s breath would immediately identify them as someone operating outside the agreed upon rules of that society. Masking the smell allows the individual to appear to be abiding by the social constraints of prohibition, therefore maintaining the appearance of social order by cleansing the body of the ‘dirty’ smell. This person was able to avoid being classified as anything other than normal. The masking of the odor not only protects the individual from harm by hiding the illegal action but also protecting that individual’s social sphere by not allowing the knowledge of the action to spread to others. Mary Douglas in her book, Purity and Danger, refers to the idea that the physical body can be a metaphor for the societies in which these bodies reside. For example, ideas about what is safe to ingest into the body or what is clean and beneficial for the physical body can be likened to the way a society will makes decisions about where and how to place and enforce boundaries. As humans, we maintain the health of our bodies by ensuring that we only ingest substances that can be adequately processed and controlled by our complex circulatory system. So, a society will maintain its health by regulating the entry of certain types of people in, while maintaining boundaries to keep others out. These boundaries and allowances are decided upon with the assumption that the polluting person is always in the wrong and should be reprimanded for not abiding by the socially considered norms of a particular group. In today’s modern society the person is shunned and disregarded, as bad breath on a stranger is often processed as a kind of low-level moral failing; and can outweigh many virtues and kill desires for continued relations that would bring them within smelling range. The length of exposure to the pollution is limited and a comfortable distance from the offender is maintained to physically disassociate oneself with the dirty body. The connotations are reinforced; physically distancing oneself form the odor reduces the offensiveness of the individual. So one could reasonably conclude that the correct social response would be to maintain boundaries to those crossing social norms as a form of protection. Douglas suggests that one way many societies deal with people who deviate from the common rule is to classify them and their deviation into another category. In this case “good hygiene” would be considered the norm and “bad breath” would be the category the anomaly would be classified under, this links back to the term halitosis and its usage. In this way there is less uncertainty about the condition, the person is clearly classified as someone not fit to operate in the same social arena because they are a pollutant both medically and morally. Through this classification the uncertainty is removed, the good is clearly defined and the anomaly can then be controlled or avoided because it can now be reasonably identified.
The boundaries above are maintained because individuals may think they will appear naive or ignorant if they question something. Asking questions puts them at risk of exposing their ignorance. It also may be threatening to others because it implies that what they accept may not be correct. This may then create resistance, conflict, or even ridicule by others. To avoid this situation the breath freshener has been repurposed into three main category extensions: mouthwash, dental gum, and breath strips. Each of these devices has been created to allow the ritual of breath freshening to take place in a variety of situations affording individuals or groups various levels of public or private cleansing. Mouthwash is designed to be used in the privacy of the home, most likely during a morning routine. There is an elaborate ritual used in consuming this product that would not make it desirable to consume in a public setting. A person must unscrew the safety cap and gargle the liquid with ones head tilted back resulting in fresh breath. The action and sound emitted from this ritual would draw attention and would position the user as different, defeating the purpose of freshening ones breath in order to be accepted. Breath strips are similar to mouthwash in that the ritual is private, although carried out in public places. The physically elaborate part of the ritual found with mouthwash is dispensed in exchange for a more discrete action involving a small package and easily dispensed paper-like squares. This product is intended to be carried close to the body thoughout the day, creating safety in knowing that there is a discrete way to control the smell of your breath should a situation arise wherein an insecurity about ones breath could become an issue.
Finally, sugar-free or dental gum is a publicly accepted form of breath freshening, and although still discrete, is it not out of the ordinary to share this product with others. In each of these cases the product indicates that by partaking in the ritual of breath freshening your breath will excel or overachieve in the smell department! This enhancement to your body reduces your risk of social embarrassment by improving the freshness of your breath. The artifacts allow us to gain control of our body’s natural functions reducing our risks of being cast as an other, someone who must be isolated because of a difference. In the case of dental gum, the product is individually wrapped and sealed in plastic and tinfoil to prevent outside dirt from tainting the contents. This device also makes it acceptable for sharing amongst pears. The gum is then revealed to the consumer through a clear plastic cover that allows the consumer to view the bright white contents. White signifies cleanliness, while the arrangement of the contents stacked two by two enforces the marriage of order and efficiency with cleanliness. As white signifies cleanliness in gum, green signifies mint and a pleasant odor in mouthwash and breath strips. In order to partake in the ritual surrounding the breath freshening gum the consumer must break the seal and immediately place the gum in one’s mouth. Upon doing so, the gum provides a cool refreshing sensation while emitting what is generally agreed upon as a strong burst of mint and a pleasant odor. This type of sensation is present to varying degrees in each of the product extensions, and is important in that it provides feedback telling you that you are now safe and clean. The packaging devices directly contribute to a risk strategy wherein the physical item is protected and ensured clean as a result. Mouthwash has a child safety top requiring the user to “unlock” the contents, breath strips are housed in a small plastic one-use container, and an airtight seal also protects gum. These mentioned devices in combination with the product names indicate to the consumer that there is a risk of being considered dirty and a solution that will help you hold a high social status, excelling in your endeavors because of your fresh, socially approved breath. Because in many cases the product is ingested or placed in the mouth there is a relationship established between the products power to clean, and your body. We only put things that are clean into our body while only waste comes out. This boundary between the inside and outside of our body is established as a safety precaution. This idea of what is dirty is also determined by our perceptions. Food that is left on the plate is seen, as garbage when we are finished eating, food particles that are left on our tongues is revolting, therefore even more so the smell that is a result of this is a danger. The fear or risk that is being managed is similar: as people we do not want to be cast out of the communal sphere. To manage this risk we ensure that our bodies are clean and under our control; in North America this translates to odor free. The individually wrapped pieces of gum provide us with portable security. After a meal if there is no immediate way to ensure ones breath is presentable or acceptable a feeling of insecurity over others’ opinions may begin to enter ones’ mind. Knowing that there is a sterile way to cleanse ones mouth or mask the odor provides the individual with a feeling of confidence.
From this scenario it can also be reasonably concluded that control of the body becomes synonymous with social control or as Marshal McLuhan wrote in his 1964 book, Understanding Media “Ignoring politics and worrying, instead, about the threat of scaly scalp, hairy legs, sluggish bowels, saggy breasts, receding gums, excess weight, and tired blood.” This is a rather extreme example but it does illustrate the well-manufactured nature of this risk and its artifacts effect on society. Looking more broadly at this subject, on a global level difference in opinion about what is clean are inevitably diverse. Because of various living conditions ideas about pollution will be arbitrary as will the level of acceptance for a known pollution. As a result local opinions on what is considered dirty will not matter outside that context. However within the context of the group who constructed the beliefs the boundaries not only apply but also indicate or mirror deeper anxieties and fears. In short, body odor is affected by several varying factors. Likewise, descriptions of body odors remain socially constructed.

- Garus Booth

_
Posted Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:50:22 -0700 | 1 Comment »

Archive for April, 2008

Familjen - Det snurrar i min skalle

World Freehand Circle Drawing Champion

Awareness Test

Get off this blog you have bad breath

Categories

Archives

Links

Become friends