Who Decides What Smells Good? The Politics of Niche Fragrance

There is a particular kind of perfume encounter that begins with admiration and ends with hesitation.

You smell something beautifully made. Perhaps you can recognize the quality of the materials. You understand why the composition is interesting. Yet the thought of wearing it feels somehow different from appreciating it on a strip.

Too animalic. Too bitter. Too green. Too medicinal. Too much like smoke, damp earth, old leather, cold metal, or skin.

We often call fragrances like these difficult, which is a curious word. A perfume cannot actually make demands of us. What it can do is move outside the range of smells we have learned to associate with beauty, cleanliness, desirability, or even perfume itself.

This is where the question becomes more interesting than personal taste.

Who decided that vanilla is comforting, that citrus smells clean, that jasmine is sensual, or that certain bodily, fermented, smoky, and bitter odors have no place in something we wear for pleasure?

The answer is not one person, one industry, or even culture alone.

Part of what we like appears to arise from properties of odors themselves. Part comes from familiarity and experience. Memory adds its own complications. Marketing teaches us categories. History changes those categories again. Class and gender can influence which smells are considered refined, while racial and cultural prejudices have repeatedly turned the odors associated with other people into evidence against them.

A perfume reaches the nose carrying more than molecules.

We bring something to meet it.

The simplest version of the cultural argument would say that nothing smells inherently good or bad and that society teaches us everything.

Olfactory research suggests something more complicated.

A large cross-cultural study published in Current Biology asked people from nine culturally diverse communities to rank monomolecular odors by pleasantness. Despite very different lifestyles and environments, participants showed substantial agreement. The chemical identity of the odor explained considerably more variation in pleasantness rankings than culture did. ( pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

We are not blank slates.

Some features of odor appear to constrain human preference across populations.

But neither is smell completely universal. A more recent study involving communities in Amazonia, East Africa, New Guinea, Malaysia, and Poland also found considerable cross-cultural agreement while concluding that ecological and cultural exposure still influenced preference. ( pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Both things can be true.

The nose has biology.

The person attached to it has a life.

That distinction matters for perfume because a finished fragrance is far more complicated than one isolated odor molecule. It contains materials with recognizable associations and may deliberately place attractive and unattractive facets beside one another.

The question is no longer simply whether a molecule smells pleasant.

It becomes what the whole composition means to the person smelling it.

One of the most persistent findings in olfactory research is the relationship between familiarity and pleasantness.

In a study comparing everyday odors among Japanese, German, and Mexican participants, researchers found consistent positive relationships between how familiar an odor was and the strength of people's positive or negative judgments about it. Earlier Japanese-German research likewise found culturally influenced differences in familiarity, pleasantness, edibility, and the associations prompted by odors. ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

This has an intuitive counterpart in perfume.

The first time someone encounters a highly indolic jasmine, the almost bodily facet beneath the flower can dominate the experience. Galbanum may seem aggressively bitter and green. Vetiver can read as damp root or smoke rather than polished wood.

With familiarity, the same material can become easier to place. The unpleasant edge has not necessarily disappeared. The nose has acquired more context around it.

Even knowing what a smell is can change perception. Experiments have shown that identifying an odor source, or being given a label that seems to fit it, can influence ratings of intensity, familiarity, and pleasantness. ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

This is why perfume descriptions are powerful before we even discuss advertising.

Tell someone that an accord evokes wet earth after rain, and the smell has been given a landscape.

Tell them it smells like mildew, and the same general territory has acquired a problem.

Language does not completely manufacture the odor.

It can alter the frame through which the odor becomes meaningful.

Sociologist Karen Cerulo tested this unusually directly.

In blind smell tests, participants evaluated commercially marketed perfumes without being shown the bottles or advertising. Even in the absence of those visual cues, many participants were able to infer the kinds of users and situations that manufacturers intended the fragrances to represent.

Those judgments also reproduced ideas about class and race. ( journals.sagepub.com)

This tells us something more subtle than “marketing manipulates us.”

Cultural meanings can become attached to odors strongly enough that people recognize them from the smell itself.

A fragrance can feel youthful, affluent, formal, masculine, inexpensive, old-fashioned, sexual, restrained, or domestic before anyone tells us what the campaign was supposed to mean.

Those associations are not immutable properties of the formula.

But once enough people learn them, they become part of the environment in which perfume is smelled.

The wearer inherits a language they did not personally invent.

They can use it, ignore it, or occasionally disrupt it.

History makes the instability of good taste particularly clear.

In eighteenth-century England, strong perfume gradually became the subject of criticism. Historian William Tullett argues that this was not simply a rejection of animal ingredients or an early movement toward modern ideas of cleanliness. Heavy personal fragrance could be perceived as an intrusion into increasingly crowded social spaces and an affront to new expectations of polite behavior.

The extravagantly perfumed Macaroni became an especially visible target of satire. ( academic.oup.com)

The perfume had become socially difficult because the social rules surrounding the body had changed.

By the later nineteenth century, perfume acquired another set of associations. Catherine Maxwell's history of scent in Victorian literary culture shows fragrance becoming intertwined with aestheticism, decadence, sexuality, refinement, and sometimes danger. Tuberose in particular acquired associations with voluptuousness, bodily excess, decay, eroticism, and death. ( academic.oup.com)

A material can therefore travel between beauty and suspicion without changing botanically.

The culture around it changes.

This is one reason declaring any perfume permanently sophisticated or vulgar is risky. History has a habit of moving the boundary.

Some of the most interesting perfume materials hover near smells we have learned to regard as inappropriate for polite fragrance.

Jasmine is the obvious example.

MANE describes Jasminum grandiflorum in its natural-material compendium as floral, fruity, and indolic, with some jasmine absolutes also showing animalic characteristics. ( compendium.mane.com)

Indole is part of what can make a rich jasmine feel alive rather than merely floral, but at higher concentrations the olfactory territory becomes bodily and even fecal.

The flower contains both possibilities.

Vetiver offers a different kind of resistance. Robertet describes Haitian vetiver oil as woody, earthy, slightly smoky, with a grapefruit undertone. Galbanum oil is described as green and terpenic, with bitter, earthy, and slightly woody facets. ( matieres-premieres.robertet.com) ( matieres-premieres.robertet.com)

None of these facets is a defect.

But neither does everyone have to enjoy them.

This is where writing about “difficult perfume” often becomes slightly exhausting. The wearer is told that resistance indicates insufficient education, that unpleasantness is something to overcome, and that learning to appreciate increasingly challenging odors is evidence of sophistication.

Taste does not need a hierarchy.

Sometimes familiarity reveals beauty.

Sometimes you simply dislike galbanum.

Both are legitimate outcomes.

Natural perfume can make these questions particularly vivid because botanical extracts frequently contain several recognizable facets within one material.

The jasmine is floral but also indolic. Vetiver is woody but can contain earth, smoke, and citrus-like brightness. Neroli may be radiant and floral while retaining bitterness and greenness. Labdanum can move between resin, fruit, leather, warmth, and animalic shadow.

This complexity gives a perfumer unusual material to work with.

It does not mean that natural ingredients are inherently more complex in finished perfume than synthetic ones, or that synthetic materials exist to “smooth away” nature's difficult edges.

Modern aroma chemistry created entire olfactory territories that would have been impossible using botanical extraction alone. Metallic effects, abstract musks, unusual marine impressions, amplified woods, and many of perfumery's most radical twentieth-century structures depend heavily on synthetic materials.

Natural and synthetic palettes can both make perfumes beautiful, strange, easy, or challenging.

The particular attraction of natural perfume is that a botanical material can contain contradictions before composition even begins.

The perfumer decides whether to polish them or leave them visible.

For someone drawn to natural perfume, those rougher edges can become part of the pleasure.

Not because difficulty proves quality.

Because specificity is pleasurable when you happen to love the specific thing.

Perhaps no perfume category demonstrates learned association more clearly than clean.

Cleanliness itself has no single natural odor.

Freshly washed skin does not inherently smell of white musk, aldehydes, citrus, lavender, marine notes, or laundry musk. These materials became associated with cleanliness through soap, detergent, cosmetics, hygiene products, and decades of repetition.

Once that association becomes familiar, a perfume can smell “clean” even when there is nothing chemically cleaner about it.

The reverse is also true.

Certain food smells, bodily odors, cooking aromas, incense traditions, and environmental smells have historically been assigned to groups of people and used as evidence of their supposed difference.

Jonathan Reinarz's history of smell describes what anthropologists have called osmologies, cultural systems in which smells classify people and objects and assign relative value to them. In histories of race, the imagined “other” has repeatedly been characterized as smelling different and usually worse. ( academic.oup.com)

Class developed its own olfactory mythology. Reinarz documents the historical idea that the refined classes possessed more sensitive noses while working populations were portrayed as both smellier and less capable of refined smelling, despite the sophisticated olfactory expertise required in many forms of labor. ( academic.oup.com)

Hsuan Hsu has extended this history into questions of racialization and environmental inequality, examining how certain populations and neighborhoods have been characterized through supposedly objectionable smells while unwanted industrial atmospheres and pollution are themselves unevenly distributed. ( academic.oup.com)

This does not mean disliking a smell is secretly an act of prejudice.

It means disgust has a history.

Sometimes knowing that history helps us understand why particular smells arrive carrying more emotional weight than their chemistry alone would predict.

Perfume counters still make social categories look surprisingly natural.

One side traditionally offers flowers, powder, fruit, vanilla.

The other gives us woods, aromatics, leather, tobacco, and marine freshness.

Yet the historical boundaries between masculine and feminine perfume have shifted repeatedly. Reinarz describes the sharp division between male and female scents as relatively recent within the much longer history of fragrance. ( academic.oup.com)

Experimental work also suggests that our perception is less binary than the merchandise.

When participants in a 2013 study smelled commercially gendered perfumes, only those perceived at the most strongly masculine or feminine extremes reliably matched the market classifications. The remaining fragrances occupied a more continuous perceptual spectrum. ( tandfonline.com)

This is one area where niche fragrance has helped make an older convention look less inevitable.

A rose does not become more or less beautiful according to the gender of the person wearing it. Orris does not know who purchased it. Leather has no biological allegiance to a men's fragrance counter.

Once the category is removed, the smell is given another chance.

“Niche fragrance” has accumulated its own hierarchy of taste.

The term can imply that a fragrance is more artistic, more expensive, more unusual, or more intelligently composed simply because it sits outside conventional designer distribution.

None of those qualities is guaranteed.

Niche is now a broad commercial category containing independent perfumers, large luxury brands, experimental work, highly conventional work, natural perfume, fully synthetic compositions, and virtually everything between.

Its most interesting possibility is simpler.

A fragrance intended for a narrower audience does not necessarily need universal approval.

That leaves room for perfumes whose central idea is bitter, earthy, animalic, austere, excessively floral, strangely mineral, or otherwise unlikely to satisfy everyone who encounters them.

Sometimes the result is extraordinary.

Sometimes it is merely strange.

The wearer still has to decide.

The value of niche fragrance is not that it teaches us to prefer difficult things. It can give difficult things enough room to exist so that the people who already find them beautiful can find them.

Sometimes.

Human odor preference is flexible.

Experimental work has shown that associative learning can increase the pleasantness of an initially neutral smell when it is repeatedly paired with a pleasant experience. Familiarity and repeated exposure can also influence odor evaluation, although the effects depend on the odor and the circumstances and do not simply move everything toward greater liking. ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Another repeated-exposure study found something subtler: emotional responses tended to move toward neutrality. Pleasant odors became somewhat less intensely pleasant with repetition, while unpleasantness could diminish or remain relatively stable depending on the odor and participant. ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

So the perfume maxim “wear it three times and you'll understand it” is not science.

But giving an unfamiliar fragrance another encounter can be useful.

The first wearing may be dominated by surprise. The second begins with recognition. By the third, you may be able to distinguish the perfume itself from your reaction to its unfamiliarity.

Sometimes affection appears.

Sometimes clarity does.

You realize that the perfume is brilliant and you still do not want to wear it.

That is a perfectly sophisticated response.

This may be the most useful distinction when encountering an unusual perfume.

Dislike is relatively simple. Something about the smell gives you no pleasure.

Discomfort can be more interesting.

You may enjoy the fragrance but feel uncertain about wearing something that smells too floral, too sexual, too old-fashioned, too masculine, too feminine, too earthy, or simply too noticeable.

At that point the hesitation is no longer entirely olfactory.

You are imagining another person's nose.

That does not mean social anxiety must be conquered. Perfume occupies shared air, and considering other people is part of wearing it.

But it can be revealing to notice whether the resistance is coming from the perfume or from the identity you imagine the perfume communicates.

There is a difference between I don't like this and I don't think someone like me is supposed to smell like this.

The second sentence contains a history worth examining.

No single authority does.

Molecules contribute something. Humans across very different cultures show meaningful agreement about the pleasantness of some odors.

Then life begins adding information.

A family kitchen makes one smell comforting. A hospital makes another frightening. A detergent campaign turns musk into cleanliness. A perfume counter teaches rose to be feminine and woods to be masculine. Class changes the meaning of restraint. A culture associates one food smell with home and another culture experiences it as unfamiliar.

Eventually the nose receives all of those histories at once.

This is why a difficult perfume can be so compelling. It briefly exposes the machinery of taste.

You become aware that pleasure is partly immediate and partly inherited.

Natural perfume can do this through the contradictions already present in botanical materials. Niche fragrance can do it by giving unusual compositions room to survive commercially. Neither category has a monopoly on complexity, and difficulty is not evidence of superior art.

Sometimes the perfume that changes your taste is one you initially resisted.

Sometimes the perfume that changes your taste is the one that gives you permission to admit you love something uncomplicated.

Both experiences enlarge the vocabulary of pleasure.

The point is not to learn to enjoy everything.

It is to become curious about why you enjoy what you do.

Ayabe-Kanamura, S., et al. (1998). “Differences in Perception of Everyday Odors: A Japanese-German Cross-Cultural Study.” Chemical Senses, 23(1), 31–38. ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Cerulo, K. A. (2018). “Scents and Sensibility: Olfaction, Sense-Making, and Meaning Attribution.” American Sociological Review, 83(2), 361–389. ( journals.sagepub.com)

Distel, H., et al. (1999). “Perception of Everyday Odors: Correlation Between Intensity, Familiarity and Strength of Hedonic Judgement.” Chemical Senses, 24(2), 191–199. ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Distel, H., & Hudson, R. (2001). “Judgement of Odor Intensity Is Influenced by Subjects' Knowledge of the Odor Source.” Chemical Senses, 26(3), 247–251. ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Ferdenzi, C., Poncelet, J., Rouby, C., & Bensafi, M. (2014). “Repeated Exposure to Odors Induces Affective Habituation of Perception and Sniffing.” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 119. ( pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Hsu, H. L. (2020). The Smell of Risk: Environmental Disparities and Olfactory Aesthetics. NYU Press. ( academic.oup.com)

Lindqvist, A. (2013). “Gender Categorization of Perfumes: The Difference Between Odour Perception and Commercial Classification.” NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 21(3), 218–231. ( tandfonline.com)

Maxwell, C. (2017). Scents and Sensibility: Perfume in Victorian Literary Culture. Oxford University Press. ( academic.oup.com)

Reinarz, J. (2014). Past Scents: Historical Perspectives on Smell. University of Illinois Press. ( academic.oup.com)

Tullett, W. (2019). Smell in Eighteenth-Century England: A Social Sense. Oxford University Press. ( academic.oup.com)

MANE. Compendium of Natural Raw Materials: Jasmine / Jasminum grandiflorum. ( compendium.mane.com)

Robertet Groupe. Galbanum Oil and Vetiver Haiti Oil, natural raw-material catalogue. ( matieres-premieres.robertet.com)