Scent is not a word commonly used in aromatherapy. In fact it is quite
an old fashioned word. In the modern world we tend to use the word perfume, whereas in the 1950s we might
have used the word scent. Today,
dictionaries tend to be online and somehow, even though they sport venerable
printed names such as Webster’s or Oxford, they seem to be less informative and
nuances aren’t explored.
Both the word perfume and scent have been added to the English vocabulary from Norman French: scent from sentir which can mean to smell, feel or touch and perfume from parfum meaning perfume but also flavour. Aroma, too, derives from the French arôme meaning what we may call fragrance but with reference mostly again to flavourings. Basic English, derived from Saxon, seems empty of these luxurious words, though stink is clearly more English and down-to-earth! We have reek, and stench. Whilst Middle English (Anglo Norman) provides odour just a little more glamour but still from the French odeur. Fragrant however is more mysterious whilst having the same Latin overtones as perfume it does refer to a pleasant smell rather than the incense i.e. not through the smoke Fragrant passed via the Church early into English usage..
The word scent is really quite
interesting. Scenting can mean the
action of making something smell or to refer to an action like dogs hunting.
They may hold their noses up and said to be scenting,
scenting the air, in other words ‘tracing’ the origin of something. It is
basically a form of deriving information
from odour molecules.
It has long been my contention that aromatherapy has over-emphasised the
application of essential oils and other odour materials in massage and internal
dosage, emphasising various biological pathways of ingestion. These pathways
are well understood and have merit. Chemical analysis has become important in
making sure that certain levels of certain chemicals are present. This of
course has opened up the therapy to accepting a variety of ‘soups’ sold as
essential oils. Indeed, these mixtures have a place and role within the
essential oil and related industries. This is especially true where replication
is needed in cosmetics and medicine.
The value of fragrance never seemed to me to have been particularly
emphasised in aromatherapy. Basic aromatherapy teaches us about the olfactory
system. We understand that airborne chemicals are processed so that we respond
to various smells. Mostly we take these receptors for granted as simply being
there. But smell is unlike any of our other senses. For example, with sight, we
only need photo receptors for red, green, blue and white, to provide a whole
palette that gives us our vision. Smell is fundamentally different we do not
create a palette of vision but differentiate and separate the various molecules
not only as a recognisable odour but also continue to scent its
components.
The most accepted theory on how we smell is the concept of ‘lock and
key’, i.e. that every chemical molecule has a shape that fits into a specific
protein receptor. We are not however born with the response to these stimuli.
We interpret individually in our own way what we smell. Indeed every smell is a
cascade of chemicals – a bouquet – and our olfactory system, mostly
unconsciously to ourselves, sorts out these signals. We can generalise, or see,
a pattern of odours. So, for example, some are fruity, some are fresh, some are
green, and perfumers have long worked with phrases to describe the accords and
pyramids they build into categories such as green, herbaceous, etc. Such
generalisations have allowed for the production of ranges that may be smelled
or sprayed to create mood and emotion. So relaxation, sleep, or enhanced
sensuality, may be encouraged by the signals conveyed by the cascade or
bouquet. Most but not all of a worldwide population can respond in the same way
to these generalised smells and combinations which require care and attention
in their construction.
It does not matter generally whether
the recipient culture has dined on curry, fine cuisine or pie and mash. Most
ethnic populations seem to have an inbuilt reaction to some odours. In a
diverse world this cannot all be attributed to learned responses. Having been for
many years associated with essential oils for travel purposes I have noted this
quite carefully.
If we can generalise then this suggests that there is more to our
receptors than a learned response. Learned responses to odour is the presently
accepted scientific view concerning our understanding of odour. Smoke is often
quoted as an example. In other words we learn that smoke equals fire, equals
danger, equals concern, equals hormonal response. A learned response.
Well, that depends on whom you have learned the response from. The smell
of smoke can be comforting, inviting, warming, and depending upon your
circumstance. The smell of a ‘barbie’ is great in the garden next door unless
you, as a neighbour, are sunbathing.
In Poland and other Slav countries the term ognisko means ‘hearth’, like a fireplace. So smoke, especially wood
smoke, conveys the meaning of warmth, security and family. Quite the opposite
to fright and flight.
Many years ago, in my little book ‘Aromatherapy for the Family’ (now
published as ‘Aromatherapy for Everyone’), I took the ideas of Homoeopathy and
Flower Remedies, both best described as vibrational medicines, and similarly
related emotional responses to mostly chronic disease and some trauma, to essential
oils. The starting position was to compare the physiology of our olfactory
system to that of plants.
Most people do not realise that plants have a way of smelling. Plants
are sentient beings. In class I always take a living plant with me to emphasise
to a largely urban student group that plants do not come in little brown
bottles or in cello wrapped units. If we define sentient as ‘having the power
of sense perception or sensation; conscious’; it is the latter word we have
difficulty with. Plants do not have a central nervous system or a brain
The scent of plants is often given off by their flowers as opposed to
their leaves or other parts. Their functions are different. In simplistic terms
we could say that one is sexual, i.e. pollinating insects are attracted, and
the other is defensive such as bitter terpenes deterring biting insects.
The scent of plants is more complex than this. We are not pollinating
insects yet we are attracted and stimulated by the odour alone that the plant
gives off. We behave like scenting
animals. We detect, for example, pleasure and not just food. The cascade may
not just be a learned response but rather a genetic predisposition or inherited
predilection for certain signals that have been previously learned historically
within certain cultures.
This aspect has been used extensively but mostly in end-of-life
situations or palliative care. As an example, a man may suffer from terminal
lung disease and, being born in South Africa, yearns for the smell of citrus. This
aroma provides comfort which in turn produces the right brain chemistry for
this unpleasant situation. How disappointing it would be then for such a man to
receive an orange heavily waxed, so hybridised, it has little or no aroma, or
an essential oil that does not have that quirkiness of a true orange but rather
the stale flatness of the by-product of the juice industry.
The scent of a plant contains information. Smells influence plant
behaviour yet they have no nose. Peculiar isn’t it. The oft quoted example is
ethylene gas which stimulates ripening. Fruits emit it although growers these
days would use lab produced ethylene to hasten ripening. Examples exist whereby
plants communicate by the release of odour molecules as a means of
communication. This may refer to insect or fungal attack but plants respond
because somehow there is latent understanding that a certain odour produces a
given response. So why should it be so different from humans who do not even
have a vocabulary to describe the sensations that go up their nose!
If a lowly plant can detect odour molecules and convert such molecular
stimuli into physiological response then humans too should be able to manifest
this capacity. This is one reason I like this word scent derived from sentir.
The French use this word to touch or feel. Isn’t that what our vocabulary
teaches us that we sense someone around us or we feel on edge by certain places
or events? This is largely due to our sense of smell which provides by its
constant scenting for something that our emotions are disturbed. We have of
course entered a world of pheromones as well.
Pheromones act outside the body as chemical communicators just as
hormones do inside the body. The insect world is rife with pheromones and
mostly what we call scent or smell. Due to their receptors insects ‘see’ things
differently they can ‘see’ smells we cannot but that only means our vision is
limited and theirs is greater. Hence we come back to vibration and wavelengths
associated with odour molecules. Of course they have a shape but no one these
days is going to deny they have a spin and wavelength. This only means the
receptor has to interpret what the signal communicates.
Everybody knows in physiology ‘use it or lose it’. We simply have
forgotten how to use our noses. The ‘right’ smell for us is one that causes a
neurotransmitter to act in some direction. Aromatherapy and indeed perfumery
tries crudely to just talk of memory release. Surely there must be more to it
than that. Emotion, intimately tied to memory, can be considered part of our
immune response. We are part of a world that is interdependent and in a
technological world we have moved far from understanding nature. It strikes me
that many chemists are almost frightened of nature and find it difficult to
accept basic physics at a sub molecular level.
The foregoing brings you to a consideration of smell therapy. Today I
call this beyond Aromatherapy simply because it postulates that smell alone is
more powerful than topical application or ingestion. True those ways have
undoubted merit. However smelling or scenting nature requires that we get as
near to nature as possible. By this I mean that we buy essential oils which are
mixtures possibly of chemicals not relative to the actual oil and we may call
these reconstructions, adulteration or we may simply buy creations of perfumes
either from nature or synthesis. Once we have mixed the message we do not have
what nature provided. Is this a bad thing? Surely this depends on the receptor
and what is expected.
Consider the bee. If the bee arrives on Lavendin
expecting Lavender the worker will not get the same thing and may well starve
on Lavendin compared to Lavender. Given the choice the insect will choose the
more provender full Lavender. Lavendin is near the mark and if that is the only
thing on offer as it can be up in the Vaucluse area of France then so be it.
The same applies to us. Some aroma is better than none, in most circumstances,
but what nixed messages we can give, relaxation may give way to irritation. It
all depends on the individual and their receptors and whether they have the
latent ability to feel or indeed listen with their nose. Our ancestors did so,
so why not train our noses today to listen to what the nose says to our
emotions for well-being.
J.Kuśmirek
©
