The Human Need for Touch - including a review of "Touch" by David Linden

 

A Human Need

My interest with the sense of touch was sparked many years ago - odd though it is to say - when I fixed a crack in our home's bathtub. 

I fibre-glassed the crevice and sanded it all down. One day I inadvertently ran a toe across the fracture and discovered that toes could not detect a thing. My fingers however, could easily discern the rough surface of the imperfect fix.

Clearly there were far more sensitive touch cells in my fingers than on my toes.

More recently, the lack of physical contact enforced by the pandemic has caused many of us to reflect on the universal human need for physical affection.

And all of this - tragically - in a western culture where touch has become synonomous with physical abuse, discouraging us from exploring - or practising - what the Scriptures might teach and encourage on this sensitive subject.

What a minefield!

With all this in mind, when I came across the book "Touch" its subtitle caught my attention, "The Science of the Sense that Makes us Human." 

A few words about the book, first of all then.  We learn many fascinating things about the sense of touch....

• our skin (touch organ) is the largest organ in or body
• sport team success goes up if team sportsmen or women engage in celebratory touch
• children who were deprived of touch as babies can end up with considerable problems ranging from impaired growth to attachment issues
• there are four main types of touch sensor (Meissner, Merkel, Pacinian, Ruffini), to cover the range of different stimuli touch encompasses. The output from these sense-cells are fed separately down the spinal cord and eventually are combined to give us the remarkable feeling of touch we all experience and enjoy
• much remains to be understood about how the brain creates our experience
• there are three categories of pain sensor - mechanical, thermal and polymodal
• as we age there is a reduction in our ability to feel, less so in our fingertips than on feet soles and toes (No surprise there)
•  in spite of the many disparate signals that make up a human orgasm it feels like a transcendental and single unified moment
•  touch from someone you are one with feels different from someone you are out of sorts with
•  we are wired to pay less attention to touch signals that arise from our own movements than those that arise completely from the outside world.  
• touch is an incredible sense- much of the book is dedicated to the complex nature of touch. (Time and time again, I wished the author would simplify the contents and remember that most readers are not biologists and will never remember their TRPM8s from their TRPV1s)
  

Hindered by a paradigm

There is  some unecessary crudeness in the book, but my main critique is the blindness caused by the paradigm of evolutionary theory. 

It is assumed that studies on animal touch will shed light on human touch, because the two come from the same line, "of course." So Linden presents research on gelada baboons, rats and bats. And though animals and mankind were created on the same Genesis Day (Day 6), there is discontinuity as much as continuity between animals and human beings - and nothing is said of this discontinuity. We wait in vain for a description of the differences between the number and sensitivity of sensors in the human hand compared with those in an ape hand. 

But of course there would be no reason to explore any such difference because the paradigm of our day blinds scientists to that route of investigation - they just assume there will be little or no differences.

Wouldn't it be really interesting to know the exact differences between touch in humans and touch in apes? As a piece of neutral research? But because the paradigm of evolution generates no motive for such an investigation it lies unknown. 

(And if someone did dare investigate the facts, they would probably be under  suspicion of being a creationist [the biggest sin a scientist today could be accused of], so that their work might never pass peer-review, or if it did, it would be given a cautionary footnote by the journal editor, worried about his/her job/reputation.)

The other related problem with "Touch" is this: anticipating that the remarkable human sense of touch may lead some foolish readers to transcendental thoughts, the author dedicates his last chapter to some traditional (and rather predictable) debunking. "The supernatural is not required to explain mysterious or transcendent touch sensations." (page 208)

Scientists should stick with science rather than make a fool of themselves as amateur theologians or philosophers saying things that lie completely outside the authority of science.

We all need touch

Narrowing down the discussion to reassuring affectionate touch, we know from Scripture that it is a basic human need.

Jesus often touched people, including children (Mark 10:13-16).

The Creator did not create the comforting and loving sense of touch without sanctioning also the guidelines that brings about reassurance through it. 

Five times the New Testament urges us to greet one another with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:27 and 1 Peter 5:14). 

What shall we make ofthis command? We cannot ignore it.

I note in passing, that many young people embrace one another when they meet up these days - this was not a practice of my generation. But I did once know an older sister who, when coming into a room of believers would give to each one a kiss on the cheek (whether they wanted it or not!) Was she wrong? Who dare judge.

We can surely say the following:

The need for loving touch. The very least we are being taught is that we all need affection through the means of touch. Whether we want to admit this or not, whether it is popular in our culture or not, whether it is allowed or frowned upon, Scripture says we need loving touch. Exactly how we are going to do that may be a matter of cultural debate - a handshake, an arm around a shoulder, a touch on the forearm, a kiss on the cheek. BesselVan Der Kolk, author of "The Body Keeps the Score" says what we all know, "The most natural way that we humans calm down is by being touched, hugged and rocked." (257).

The need to love one another lies behind the command. Family members automatically touch one another because of the bonds of affection that already exist between them. So behind this exhortation lies the prevenient command for heart affection. The external kiss is but the outward expression of inner sincere love. A kiss says "I love you." We know someone loves us for sure in their hearts (unseen) if they kiss us (seen). Unless, of course, our name is Judas.

The Scriptures command physical affection. It's simply impossible to avoid this implication from the repeated command. 

The command multiplied five times implies high emphasis. The same Spirit has given the command five times, not once. None should ignore a single mention, but to ignore a command repeated five times?

Physical affection is regulated by the word "holy."  Four out of the five commands, we find the prefix "holy" kiss. In other words, the motive in our hearts is brotherly or familial love. The motive for the kiss is pure.  

I wonder how many single and lonely folks in our churches are starved of human touch because we have shied away from being misunderstood. I wonder if we have failed to show our love for one another enough by omitting to pay attention to this command. 

I wonder if some have wandered into the arms of the wrong people because we have failed to show them holy physical affection.

In our polluted culture where touch is sometimes / often assumed to convey a sexual message, it would be tempting to avoid this command simply to prevent misunderstanding or abuse. 

But the early Christians were slanderously accused of having orgies, born primarily (no doubt) of filthy Roman minds. 

But could this false accusation, I wonder, also have arisen from observing (and perhaps being jealous of?) the genuine affection Christians showed to one another.