Cleanliness/dirtiness, purity/impurity as social and psychological issues

Abstract

The issue of cleanliness in its clean/dirty and pure/impure antinomies definitely has a social and cultural dimension. Some daily cleaning practices are indeed quite common actions in every culture and society, even if some differences in the frequency and quality of the practices and in the value attributed to them do exist. In this article, we will discuss how cleaning practices and contamination fears sink their roots in the social context and in cultural practices. In particular, we will explore the connections between one's own sense of cleanliness and attitudes of prejudice and intolerance toward other groups. First, the issue of cleanliness over the centuries and the exaggerations of cleanliness referring to individual psychopathology will be examined. Then, the psychosocial meaning of cleanliness will be considered in revealing the impact of the clean/dirty and pure/impure antinomies on day-today social interactions with others.

Dirty jobs and dehumanization of workers

“…Perceptions of each target as object‐like were measured employing six object‐related words (object [oggetto], tool [utensile], device [macchina], thing [cosa], instrument [strumento], and number [numero]; α = .91) borrowed from previous research (e.g., Andrighetto et al ., ; Rudman & Mescher, ). Instead, perceptions of each target as animal‐like (animalization) and virus‐like (biologization) were measured using, respectively, four animal‐related nouns (animal [animale], savage [selvaggio], primitive [primitivo], and beast [bestia]; α = .91) and four virus‐related nouns (virus [virus], contamination [contaminazione], filth [sporcizia], and contagion [contagio]; α = .90) borrowed from the literature concerning dirtiness and dehumanization (e.g., Douglas, ; Savage, ; Speltini & Passini, ; Steuter & Wills, ; Tipler & Ruscher, ; Valtorta et al ., ).…”

“…More specifically, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which, according to the perspective of Italian society, each worker was associated with these words (1 = not at all; 7 = extremely). Perceptions of each target as object-like were measured employing six object-related words ( Douglas, 1966;Savage, 2007;Speltini & Passini, 2014;Steuter & Wills, 2010;Tipler & Ruscher, 2014;Valtorta et al, 2019).…”

Development and validation of a new Italian short measure of disgust propensity: The Disgust Propensity Questionnaire (DPQ)

“…Italians have always been Catholic. As reported by Speltini and Passini (2014), an 18th century Italian doctor, Bernardino Ramazzini argued that in Italy, the baths had fallen into disuse (whereas they had flourished in the pagan Roman era) because the Catholic religion focused much more on the health of the soul rather than on the one of the body. As reported by Green (2007), you had to smell badly in order to be recognized as a good Catholic at the time of Inquisition.…”

From one species to another: A review on the interaction between chemistry and microbiology in relation to cleaning in the built environment

“…1 Cleaning was often used for rituals or hospitality, or to remove odor, more than it was used to remove human or animal waste as a potential source of infection. The earliest recorded use of soap dates to 2800 BC, but historically, different cultures either prioritized hygiene and the removal of visible soil as well as recommended against it.…”

“…1,158 How often do surfaces need to be cleaned to maintain them free of organic matter and organisms? This is true for studies that pertain to infection control on nonhuman surfaces.…”