At the end of 2024, a Twitter/X controversy raised questions about academic work and public engagement, particularly regarding the language used in academic writing.
On November 27, University of Cambridge PhD candidate Amelia Louks announced her successful viva with her dissertation titled "Olfactory Ethics: The Politics of Smell in Modern and Contemporary Prose." The thesis is currently under embargo, making it largely inaccessible to the public.
Louks' tweet garnered over 120 million views and 12,000 replies, many of which included dismissive and abusive comments about her work. With limited access to the thesis, most responses were directed at the abstract, which discusses concepts like "the language of smell" and "olfactory oppression".
The abstract employs terms such as "intersectional" and "power structures," which have roots in sociological discourse. Critics argue that such jargon can alienate lay readers and obscure meaning.
Louks referenced George Orwell's use of smell in literature to illustrate its significance, while others, like Salman Rushdie, highlight how sensory experiences can evoke memory and emotion.
Media responses largely condemned the abuse directed at Louks, but some commentators suggested critiques stemmed from political biases. Notably, Noam Chomsky has criticized the impenetrable language of certain theorists, contrasting it with more accessible scientific writing.
As UK universities face financial pressures, questions arise about the allocation of resources towards esoteric research. Critics urge academics to engage with the public and justify their work, especially when it challenges established norms.
Writer Ella Dorn criticized the attention Louks' thesis received, suggesting it reflects a broader trend of academic discourse that prioritizes certain ideologies. Dorn argues that many humanities courses focus on structural oppressions, often at the expense of diverse intellectual engagement.
The debate underscores a need for critical engagement in academia, where harsh reviews and rigorous questioning should be encouraged. Critics warn against a culture that equates criticism with personal attacks, which can stifle meaningful discourse.
Ultimately, the scrutiny of academic language and its impact on public understanding remains crucial as scholars navigate the complexities of communication in their fields.