Simon Parent
Ph.D. Student in Social and Cultural Analysis
Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Concordia University
17 December 2024
The sense of smell, often ignored in sociopolitical discourse, plays a critical role in how we navigate public spaces. Its regulation can reveal deeper societal tensions, particularly around inclusion and exclusion. This essay examines the intersection of law and olfaction through the lens of Montreal’s recent by-law targeting personal hygiene in public libraries. While justified under the guise of fostering inclusivity, the law exposes contradictions in how we conceptualize the right to public space. Building on the idea of smell as a social construct, drawing from Georg Simmel, Alain Corbin, and contemporary scholars, revealing the enduring stigmatization of marginalized groups through the regulation of smell in public space. I draw from the history of hygiénisme in Montreal to reflect on the struggles for inclusive access to public, and the relations between hygiene and social coexistence.
Smell as a Social Construct
Smell, far from being merely physiological, is deeply enmeshed in social processes. Georg Simmel’s “Sociology of the Senses” (2013) highlights how sensory experiences, including smell, mediate human interactions. He observes that odors evoke “instinctive sympathies and antipathies,” serving as proxies for cultural, racial, and class divides. Urbanization and individualism, according to Simmel, have heightened sensitivity to smells, intertwining them with hygienic norms and social boundaries.
Alain Corbin’s The Foul and the Fragrant (1986) provides a compelling historical account of how societal attitudes toward smell have evolved, particularly during the rise of hygiénisme in the 18th and 19th centuries. Corbin argues that smell, far from being a neutral or purely physiological phenomenon, is a deeply social construct shaped by historical and cultural contexts.
In pre-modern societies, odors were integrated into daily life and were often regarded as natural extensions of the human and environmental condition. However, with the rise of urbanization and the emergence of hygiénisme—a movement focused on public health and sanitation—perceptions of smell underwent a radical transformation. Corbin (1986) identifies what he calls an “olfactive revolution,” wherein the tolerance for certain smells diminished dramatically. This shift was driven by growing associations between odor and disease, filth, and moral decay.
During this period, public health authorities increasingly viewed foul odors as indicators of contagion and sites of infection. This belief, influenced by the miasma theory of disease, spurred campaigns to sanitize cities and eliminate “noxious” smells. Streets were cleaned, sewers were constructed, and personal hygiene became a moral imperative. These changes marked the beginning of what Corbin calls “olfactive silence,” where urban spaces became progressively deodorized, and social norms around smell tightened.
The work of anthropologists and sociologists expands on the social and political dimensions of smell, positioning it as a key site for the production and reinforcement of power relations. Classen, Howes, and Synnott (1994) argue that “olfactory codes create and inform power relations” (161) in contemporary Western societies, creating distinctions between groups, such as social classes, ethnicities, and genders. They argue that smell functions as a “boundary marker,” delineating the self from the other and the desirable from the undesirable. For instance, the odors associated with marginalized groups, such as the working class, ethnic minorities, or the unhoused, are often framed as offensive or threatening. This framing serves to perpetuate social stigma and justify exclusionary practices.
One of their key observations is that prejudice precedes the odor. Classen, Howes and Synnott (1994) write that “a feeling of dislike towards a given class of people usually precedes and informs the perception of them as foul-smelling” (165). People are socially conditioned to interpret certain smells as intolerable or repugnant based on their associations with specific groups or contexts. For example, odors linked to unhoused individuals could be perceived as “dangerous” or “polluting” not because of any inherent quality of the smell but because of the social meanings attached to homelessness. People often perceive one’s group as inodorous, while these codes often mark marginalized groups as “odorous others,” reinforcing social hierarchies. Crucially, prejudice often precedes odor itself; society learns to associate certain groups—such as the unhoused—with undesirable smells. This framing underpins exclusionary practices, including the regulation of public spaces.
The Case: Montreal’s Public Library By-Law
In November 2023, several Montreal boroughs amended their public library codes of conduct to include a ban on “personal hygiene that inconveniences other users or staff.” This rule empowers library staff to evict individuals or impose fines ranging from $350 to $1,000. Though framed as a neutral measure, the policy was widely criticized for targeting unhoused individuals, effectively limiting their access to public spaces and essential services.
Community organizations swiftly condemned the by-law, highlighting its discriminatory nature. Critics argued that the rule perpetuates social exclusion and is an attack on the right to public space for people in a situation of homelessness under the pretense of creating “safe and welcoming” environments. City officials, including Mayor Valérie Plante, defended the measure, describing it as part of a broader effort to maintain “quality living environments” in Montreal. The policy, they claimed, was necessary to address the “delicate and complex situations” faced by library staff.
The Paradox of Inclusion and the Smelly “Other”
This case exemplifies what Jeremy Webber discusses in his article on the “limits of toleration,” particularly in the context of how societies manage the presence of “repugnant” practices or behaviors. Webber explores the tension between the need for tolerance and the moral limits of that tolerance in the face of what society deems offensive or intolerable. In his view, tolerance often hinges on the ability to endure practices that challenge social norms, but these limits are tested when certain practices are framed as too disruptive to the social order.
While the Montreal by-law purports to enhance inclusivity by maintaining “safe” and “welcoming” public spaces, it effectively targets marginalized groups, particularly the unhoused, by legislating against odors deemed “inconvenient.” This regulation of personal hygiene constructs a dichotomy between a “non-odorous” majority and a “smelly other,” marking those who do not meet hygienic standards as undesirable or even dangerous. The unhoused, in this case, are not simply tolerated. Their bodily presence, through the proxy of smell, is considered an obstacle or challenge to a safe and inclusive public space. The idea of “limits of toleration” is crucial here: the by-law reveals how tolerance can extend only so far before it collapses into exclusion.
The regulation of odors becomes a mechanism through which those who cannot conform—often due to economic, social, or structural barriers—are pushed to the margins. As Webber notes, what is considered “tolerable” often reflects the values and comfort of the dominant majority, the assumed “We”, and in this case, the regulation of smell creates a “repugnant other” whose presence disrupts the ideal of a harmonious, orderly public space.
This exclusionary logic raises critical questions about whose comfort and safety are prioritized in public spaces. In the case of Montreal’s library by-law, the discomfort of the majority—those who find the presence of unhoused individuals and their associated odors offensive—is prioritized over the basic right of the unhoused to access public spaces. The by-law, while presented as an effort to ensure inclusivity, in fact reinforces the marginalization of vulnerable populations under the guise of maintaining a “clean” and “safe” public order.
Libraries as Contested Spaces
Montreal’s library by-law is part of a broader global trend where public institutions regulate odor to maintain perceived standards of civility and order. For instance, this year, in the UK, lawmakers have proposed laws allowing police to arrest unhoused individuals based on “excessive odors,” framing the regulation of smell as necessary for public safety (Morton, 2024).
Public libraries have evolved from quiet repositories of books to dynamic community hubs offering a range of services, including internet access, social programs, and safe spaces for marginalized populations. This transformation has made libraries critical refuges for unhoused individuals, who rely on these spaces for warmth, safety, and access to basic resources.
However, this expanded role has also made libraries sites of conflict, where competing visions of public space collide. The by-law targeting personal hygiene reflects broader trends in urban governance, where public spaces are increasingly securitized and privatized (Mitchell, 2003). Such measures prioritize the comfort of the majority while marginalizing those who do not conform to dominant norms, effectively eroding the inclusivity that libraries strive to promote. Public libraries are among the few remaining non-commercial spaces in urban settings, providing essential services without requiring consumption. However, policies like Montreal’s by-law threaten this ideal, transforming libraries into exclusionary spaces where access is conditioned on conformity to normative standards.
The International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) addressed this shift in its 2017 report, “Guidelines for Library Services to People Experiencing Homelessness,” which emphasizes the global nature of the issue and highlights odor, along with rules about bathroom misuse, sleeping, and personal belongings, as potentially exclusionary policies (IFLA, 2017). This global phenomenon reflects the persistence of olfactory prejudice, where odors associated with marginalized groups become grounds for exclusion. By regulating smell, libraries risk transforming from spaces of refuge and inclusivity into arenas of social exclusion, where the comfort of the majority is prioritized over the basic needs of the vulnerable.
Historical Parallel: Hygiénisme in Montreal
The regulation of odor in Montreal’s public libraries draws parallels with the historical practices ofhygiénisme in early 20th-century Montreal. Faced with recurring epidemics of cholera, tuberculosis, and other diseases, city authorities launched public health campaigns targeting working-class neighborhoods. These campaigns framed working-class families as the primary “foci of infection,” with working-class mothers often blamed for poor sanitary conditions (Goulet, 2002).
Despite its classist and paternalistic underpinnings, hygiénisme acknowledged systemic issues and sought to address them by creating public spaces to meet collective needs. Public bathhouses, for example, were built in working-class neighborhoods, providing essential hygiene facilities to residents who lacked them (Schaffer, 2009; Labonne, 1996). These spaces, though steeped in social control, represented an effort to tackle public health challenges through shared infrastructure that remain to this day and community solutions.
In stark contrast, contemporary policies targeting hygiene focus on exclusion rather than inclusion. Measures like Montreal’s library by-law do not address systemic issues such as the housing crisis or the lack of public hygiene facilities but instead penalize the most vulnerable. This exclusion of the unhoused from public spaces is compounded by the destruction of spaces they reclaim for themselves, such as encampments. In recent years, cities worldwide, including Montreal, have increasingly dismantled encampments under the guise of maintaining order and safety, further marginalizing the unhoused and stripping them of the few places they can occupy.
This shift reflects a broader societal move away from collective solutions toward punitive, individualized approaches. Where hygiénisme once created public spaces to address shared social needs, today’s policies prioritize the comfort and convenience of the majority, pushing vulnerable populations further to the margins. By criminalizing the presence and practices of the unhoused in public spaces and destroying the temporary spaces they reclaim, such policies perpetuate cycles of exclusion while eroding the concept of public space as a site for addressing systemic challenges.
Conclusion
The regulation of smell in Montreal’s public libraries highlights the complex intersections of law, sensory experience, and social exclusion. While framed as measures of inclusivity, such policies perpetuate the marginalization of unhoused individuals, reinforcing societal hierarchies through the language of neutrality. Drawing on historical parallels with hygiénisme, this essay underscores the need to critically examine how public policies shape access to shared spaces.
Creating truly inclusive public spaces requires addressing systemic issues such as the housing crisis and the lack of public hygiene facilities. By challenging the stigmatization of odor and the exclusionary logic it represents, we can begin to reimagine public space as a site of equity and shared humanity.
In response to the growing need for support among marginalized populations, Quebec libraries are adapting by hiring social workers to assist vulnerable users. Montreal’s public library network, as part of a pilot project, has begun integrating social workers into their staff to better support unhoused individuals and others in need (Bongiorno, 2023; Bonaque, 2023). This initiative signals a shift towards more inclusive and supportive public spaces, reflecting a growing recognition of the need for social services in public libraries.
Bibliography
Bonaque, A. (2023, February 10). Plus de 190 000 $ octroyés à la BANQ et à l’UQAM pour lutter contre l’itinérance visible. Noovo Info. https://www.noovo.info/nouvelle/plus-de-190-000-octroyes-a-banq-et-a-luqam-pour-lutter-contre-litinerance-visible.html
Bongiorno, J. (2023, April 10). Why putting social workers in public libraries could help Montrealers in crisis. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-public-library-social-workers-1.6886246
Classen, C., Howes, D. & Synnott, A. (1994). Aroma : The cultural history of smell. Routledge.
Corbin, A. (1986). The Foul and the Fragrant: Odor and the French Social Imagination. Harvard University Press.
Goulet, D. (2002). Le mouvement hygiéniste au Québec. Cap-aux-diamants. (70). 17-20. URL : https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/cd/2002-n70-cd1044158/7571ac.pdf
IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions). (2017, August). IFLA Guidelines for Library Services to People Experiencing Homelessness. URL: https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/lsn/publications/ifla-guidelines-for-library-services-to-people-experiencing-homelessness.pdf
Labonne, P. (1996). Montréal à l’heure des bains. Continuité. (69). 9-10.
Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City : Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. Guilford Press.
Morton, B. (2024, 2 April). Homeless people should not be arrested just if they smell – minister. BBC. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68713436
Schafer, V. 2009. Les rapports à la ville à travers les espaces de loisirs. Montréal, 1880-1940. [Master’s thesis]. Université de Montréal. URL: https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1866/7700/Shaffer_Valerie_2009_memoire.pdf
Simmel, G. (2013 [1907]). Les grandes villes et la vie de l’esprit; suivi de Sociologie des sens. Payot & Rivages.
Webber, Jeremy. (1996). Multiculturalism and the Limits to Toleration. In Lapierre, A., Smart, P. & Savard, P. Language, Culture and Values in Canada at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. 269-279.
You must be logged in to post a comment.