Darwin on Disgust

5
Disgust is a sensation rather more distinct in its nature, and refers to something revolting, primarily in relation to the sense of taste, as actually perceived or vividly imagined; and secondarily to anything which causes a similar feeling, through the sense of smell, touch, and even of eyesight. The term ' disgust,' in its simplest sense, means some^- thing offensive to the taste. It is curious how readily this feeling is excited by anything unusual in the appearance, odour, or nature of our food. In Tierra del Fuego a native touched with his finger some cold preserved meat w^hich I was eating at our bivouac, and plainly showed utter disgust at its softness; whilst I felt utter disgust at my food being touched by a naked savage, though his hands did not appear dirty. A smear of soup on a man's beard looks disgusting, though there is of course nothing disgusting in the soup itself. I presume that this follows from the strong association in our minds between the sight of food, however circumstanced, and the idea of eating it. It is remarkable how readily and instantly retchingor actual vomiting is induced in some persons by the mere idea of having partaken of any unusual food, as of an animal which is not commonly eaten ; although

description

Darwin on Disgust

Transcript of Darwin on Disgust

Disgust is a sensationrather more distinct in its nature, and refers tosomething revolting, primarily in relation to the senseof taste, as actually perceived or vividly imagined;and secondarily to anything which causes a similarfeeling, through the sense of smell, touch, and even ofeyesight.

The term ' disgust,' in its simplest sense, means some^-thing offensive to the taste. It is curious how readilythis feeling is excited by anything unusual in theappearance, odour, or nature of our food. In Tierra delFuego a native touched with his finger some cold preservedmeat w^hich I was eating at our bivouac, andplainly showed utter disgust at its softness; whilst Ifelt utter disgust at my food being touched by a nakedsavage, though his hands did not appear dirty. Asmear of soup on a man's beard looks disgusting, though there is of course nothing disgusting in the soup itself.I presume that this follows from the strong associationin our minds between the sight of food, however circumstanced,and the idea of eating it.It is remarkable how readily and instantly retchingor actual vomiting is induced in some persons by themere idea of having partaken of any unusual food, asof an animal which is not commonly eaten ; althoughthere is nothing in such food to cause the stomach toreject it. When vomiting results, as a reflex action,from some real causeas from too rich food, or taintedmeat, or from an emeticit does not ensue immediately,but generally after a considerable interval of time.Therefore, to account for retching or vomiting being soquickly and easily excited by a mere idea, the suspicionarises that our progenitors must formerly have had thepower (like that possessed by ruminants and someother animals) of voluntarily rejecting food which disagreedwith them, or which they thought would disagreewith them; and now, though this power has beenlost, as far as the will is concerned, it is called intoinvoluntary action, through the force of a formerly well establishedhabit, whenever the mind revolts at the ideaof having partaken of any kind of food, or at anythingdisgusting.This suspicion receives support from thefact, of which I am assured by Mr. Sutton, that themonkeys in the Zoological Gardens often vomit whilstin perfect health, which looks as if the act were voluntary.We can see that as man is able to communicateby language to his children and others, the knowledgeof the kinds of food to be avoided, he would havelittle occasion to use the faculty of voluntary rejection;so that this power would tend to be lost throughdisuse.As the sense of smell is so intimately connected withthat of taste, it is not surprising that an excessivelybad odour should excite retching or vomiting in somepersons, quite as readily as the thought of revoltingfood does ; and that, as a further consequence, amoderately offensive odour should cause the variousexpressive movements of disgust. The tendency toretch from a fetid odom* is immediately strengthenedin a curious manner by some degree of habit, thoughsoon lost by longer familiarity with the cause of offenceand by voluntary restraint. For instance, I wished toclean the skeleton of a bird, which had not been sufficientlymacerated, and the smell made my servant andmyself (we not having had much experience in suchwork) retch so violently, that we were compelled todesist. During the previous days I had examined someother skeletons, which smelt slightly ; yet the odour didnot in the least affect me, but, subsequently for severaldays, whenever I handled these same skeletons, theymade me retch.From the answers received from my correspondents itappears that the various movements, which have nowbeen described as expressing contempt and disgust, prevailthroughout a large part of the world. Dr. Kothrock,for instance, answers with a decided affirmative withrespect to certain wild Indian tribes of North America.Crantz says that when a Greenlander denies anythingwith contempt or horror he turns up his nose, and givesa slight sound through it.^ Mr. Scott has sent mea graphic description of the face of a young Hindooat the sight of castor-oil, which he was compelled occasionallyto take. Mr. Scott has also seen the sameexpression on the faces of high-caste natives who haveapproached close to some defiling object. Mr. Bridgessays that the Fuegians " express contempt by shooting" out the lips and hissing through them, and by turning*' up the nose." The tendency either to snort throughthe nose, or to make a noise expressed by ugh or ach, isnoticed by several of my correspondents.Spitting seems an almost universal sign of contemptor disgust ; and spitting obviously represents the rejectionof anything offensive from the mouth. Shakspearemakes the Duke of Norfolk say, " I spit at himcall" him a slanderous coward and a villain." So, again,FalstafP says, '^Tell thee what, Hal,if I tell thee a" lie, spit in my face." Leichhardt remarks that theAustralians " interrupted their speeches by spitting, and" uttering a noise like pooh ! pooh ! apparently exj)ress-" ive of their disgust."And Captain Burton speaksof certain negroes, "spitting with disgust npon the" ground." ^ Captain Speedy informs me that this islikewise the case with the Abyssinians. Mr. Geaclisays that with the Malays of Malacca the expressionof disgust " answers to spitting from the mouth ;" and\\ith the Fuegians, according to Mr. Bridges " to spit* at one is the highest mark of contempt."I never saw disgust more plainly expressed than onthe face of one of my infants at the age of five months,when, for the first time, some cold water, and againa month afterwards, when a piece of ripe cherry wasput into his mouth. This w^as shown by the lips andw^hole mouth assuming a shape which allowed thecontents to run or fall quickly out ; the tongue beinglikewise protruded. These movements were accompaniedby a little shudder. It was all the more comical,as I doubt whether the child felt real disgustthe eyesand forehead expressing much surprise and consideration.The protrusion of the tongue in letting a nastyobject fall out of the mouth, may explain how it is thatlolling out the tongue universally serves as a sign ofcontempt and hatred.-^^