Posts
“You can tell alot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans.” (Ronald Reagan)
There are a number of things we have to do that are ugly. There are also things we choose to do that are similarly ugly, but today I'm going to focus on one particular thing: eating. We all gotta eat. While it'd be great if we didn't have to… if there were some sort of Jetsonian pill we could pop that would placate our nutritional requirements while also appeasing our appetite, this whole issue would be moot. But, until some genius gets us that pill, were stuck having to eat. So I'm going to say why having to eat is one of the most degrading things that we do on a daily basis; I'm going to explain that we should try (if not succeed) in raising ourselves above the negative aspects of eating. We fail to do avoid the caused degradation, I think in at least part, because of how we typically approach eating. I’m going to argue that, in large part, the thing that makes it a repugnant act is rooted our a general failure to recognize the sickening qualities of having to eating.
So let’s start by differentiating between two aspects of this discussion: (1) the physical act of eating; and (2) the way we eat. I'm going to say that both of these are disgusting and contribute to our degradation. Let's start by focusing on the act itself: We take solids and liquids, most often dead things, and place them in our mouths where the solids are mashed until they become liquid-ish. Only then do our bodies go through the process of changing that stuff into waste. Because there's a necessity to eating it's an activity that associates us with our savage ancestors and the lower creatures we share this world with. Having to eat lowers us away from the superior status we, as people, have (a privileged status we’re entitled to in virtue of the abilities we have; traits that separate us from the other entities on the earth). However, while there's an inescapability to this hardship that is having to go through the physical act of eat (so repetitively too boot), this isn't the key contributor to the repugnancy of eating. By that I mean the overarching problem, while contributed to by the fact that we need to go through the disgusting physical process of eating, is really rooted in how we typically eat.
The way most people eat is plebeian. Like cattle to the trough we queue at cafeterias, cafes, fast food restaurants, hot dog stand or whatever. We trudge to the counter where the slop du jour is heaved over. And while this is bad enough, the typical repulsive behavior doesn't stop there. It’s compounded by the fact that some of us take our dead objects and liquid to a safe comfortable place – like the warthog that drags its food back into its cave - and begin the awful required physical act. Others of us take our sustenance and cram it down in front of, for instance, a TV. There we zone out like ghastly zombies eating brains. The worst of us, while doing the act, hunch over the grub like a convicts protecting what little they’ve got from the scum that surrounds them. If, at this point, you say "that doesn't apply to me - I make my own lunches!" Sorry, you missed the point. Instead of lining up like cattle when you're ready to eat (something you do at an earlier point; namely at the grocery store) you have your stock of substance piled at home 'tidily' hoarded into cupboards and the fridge ready to be hedonistically pillaged whenever the mood strikes.
Thankfully, because the primary source of the problem with eating is generated by how we eat, we can (at least in part) make eating a bearable activity. Those who thought: "I'm not that bad, I engage people intellectually or socially in conversations while eating", are halfway to the solution. To state it plainly, the solution is to eat in the most aristocratic fashion you possibly can; do everything possible to maintain your elevated status while partaking in the required physical act. Those who are eating at the up-scale restaurant are doing it right; there eating is the tertiary activity. Eating takes a backseat to the act of going out, doing something trendy, engaging your companions conversationally, and whatever. See, now, how those who gossip with friends at McD's are, at best, getting it half right? If we fail to maintain our superior status when we eat, we degrade ourselves. When others eat improperly we are all degraded as it adversely affects out common humanity. While some of us may struggle to avoid eating like Neanderthals we need to put in as great an effort as we can possibly muster. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
10 comments:
I can't really tell if you're being serious or not, so will restrain myself from launching into a self-righteous tirade until know for sure.
I dont think he's joking.
Paul is a classy guy who enjoys the finer things in life.
He also takes umbrage with the fact that sometimes, when I am sad, I put a pie between two bits of bread, and claim I am eating a delicious sandwich.
He calls a backward step for human evolution. I call it the marketplace of ideas.
Tirade away, Byron.
Alex's comment may have been a little confusing insofar as it might have been sarcastic. So I'll clarify: fundamentally, I'm serious about the position I take in this post. However I did, playfully, write it in the same style as a lot of second wave feminism: taking the position to an extreme through over the top language. So maybe I should concede to holding a slightly more moderate version of what I expressed. But if Byron, or anyone else, doesn't think eating slovenly is degrading I'm keen to hear why.
But I will add an amendment here. When I chatted with David M. about this post, he convinced me that my claims about TV watching while eating need to be refined. TV (or whatever) is a cultural thing, like theater or music. Some of it facilitates our degradation (e.g. shows like 'Friends') while other stuff can elevate us (e.g. well-crafted documentaries). But what you watch while you eat is more indicative of if you're intellectually engaged - which is important to escape the degradation of having to eat - or just another cow-chewing-the-cud zombie.
Paul, I utterly agree with you.
Eating is, like Maslow's other basic needs (sleep, sex, excretion etc.) disgusting and degrading.
This of course does not mean it and the other needs are not enjoyable.
Perhaps this is a contributing factor in it's repugnance. The fact that it is so pleasurable to suck the meat of a dead carcass or gorge onself on blocks of chocolate shows how much we are opressed and subjected to our need and desire for food.
Any dignified human should surely be above such proletariat pleasures.
Obviously the way to solve the dilemma is as you suggest; to 'dine' rather than 'eat'.
I thought this would be appropriate:
http://www.holytaco.com/2008/10/24/things-that-have-been-found-in-fat-peoples-folds/
It's gross, sure.. but still not the grossest thing ever. Again, I don't think that blaming people for eating and destroying themselves in this way can solve anything. Can't blame them? Can we blame their parents? McDonalds? Health care personnel who help them when they fall down? nope, it's their choice, and they choose to eat until they are in this state. So I guess it's their own fault, but they're not hurting anyone.. just grossing us out i guess. (or maybe you could say they're hurting the starving people be "eating their food"... or maybe they're helping other obese people by giving them motivation to lose weight and not lose coins in their pannus.
I have just gotten way off subject i think. But anyway.
I don't know if i'm right about the next thing i'm going to say but i'm going to ramble anyway.. correct me if i'm wrong:
I think you said (either in this post or when you were talking to me) that eating is kind of animalistic - it's a basic need. Well, with such an overabundance of food around people act like animals and eat it all without any self control.
You say that to dine classily we separate ourselves from the animals.. i guess because then we are choosing to. However, to live simply, perhaps this would be better. Maybe a better solution would just be to moderate your eating habits. I think that fine dining can also be repugnant, as it can also be taken to an excess.
My train of thought is derailing here, so i think i'm going to give up on it for a while. Let me know if you have any questions, if this makes any sense.
[Reply to Jess]
First: The stuff on that link you posted is gross.
Second: I think that we can meaningfully blame individuals who eat in a disgusting fashion. Sure, blame may fall elsewhere (e.g. Mc.Donald's for contributing to the problem) but people make individual choices to degrade themselves and those around them by behaving and eating like pigs. And I do think, unlike you, that they are hurting people. They hurt themselves by being unhealthy and by degrading themselves (with or without knowing it) but they also hurt those around them by degrading them - the gluttonous sloths in our midst demeans us all by contributing to the destruction of social niceties. People who eat savagely contribute to a culture where that kind of action is acceptable. What I'm saying here is that that kind of culture shouldn't be acceptable; we're all worse off when it's tolerated.
Third: There isn't a (global) overabundance of food. While there may be an an overabundance in wealthy states, that's no excuse for those living in such places to throw self-control out the window and act animalisitically.
Fourth: To dine classily is just one possible way to make eating a less repugnant thing. I agree that that same end can be met by eating or living simplistically. It all depends on how the eating is done...
"People who eat savagely contribute to a culture where that kind of action is acceptable. What I'm saying here is that that kind of culture shouldn't be acceptable; we're all worse off when it's tolerated."
Should we just kill all the fatties?
The beauty of a democracy is that people CAN eat this way. What can we do in order to stop these people from eating this way? Nothing. Because we all do it sometimes, and I guess we could just say we could try not to as a collective population. However, some people will still eat like that dude in Se7en who represents gluttony. A lot of people have vices. A lot of people (obviously) have opinions about these vices. You have your right to your opinion, but I don't think you can stop any one from eating because it disgusts you (and degrades people around you). You can't just stop things that annoyed you and disgusted you and you felt degraded you just by being around them all the time.
I know your post is only an opinion, but it doesn't really propose a solution to this "repugnance" besides "let's try to eat differently".
Also, what disgusts you exactly? Is it the general idea of someone eating french fries, or chocolate? Or that specific person? Or watching them eat? Or when you eat and that urge you get to eat things that you don't need?
Perhaps the lack of moderation and tendencies toward savagery as you say, were always inherent in certain people. When these people are exposed to an overabundance of delicious treats, or laziness (or money given to them by the government) they tend towards immoderation. Maybe that is what I meant to say when i said something about overabundance in my last post. I don't know if that connects to the rest of this, but oh well.
[Reply to Jess 2]
I'm not going to comment on your suggest to "just kill all the fatties", but I will response to your other points.
Democracy and tolerance aren't as synonymous (or inextricably bound to one another) as some people think. I think you're talking about tolerance here, so that's what I'm going to talk about, but if I misinterpreted your position let me know by clarifying it. So tolerance isn't as great as some think. It seems to be something hyper-idealized in American culture, insofar as the US as traditionally promoted more personal freedoms than a lot of other developed countries. Now if you can only see the virtue of tolerance, I'll explicitly point out one of its key vices: the tolerance of hate. Racist hate speech, for instance, is far more tolerated in the US than most other developed nations (which is why the vast majority of white supremacist website are based in America). My point being that not everything should be tolerated; so you could say that I disagree with your claim that a "beauty of a democracy is that people CAN eat this way." But this is really getting off the core line of my post. The point I was (originally) trying to get at is that we (i.e. all people) should recognize that some of the ways we can choose to eat aren't in our best interest because such approaches to eating take away the most important thing that makes us who we are: that we are separate from (and better than) lesser creatures. Moreover, in addition to making that recognition, I was saying that we should WANT to avoid eating (or doing anything) that degrades us or lowers us. So this isn't a tolerance issue; it's a wake-up call to snap us out of our trance that will make us all strive to be the best that we can be - eating in a non-savage manner. So, sure, it's up to each individual person on whether or not she wants to contribute to the betterment of society or if she'd rather hold us all back.... Whether or not we should tolerate those who'd rather hold humanity down is a separate and entirely different issue...
okay Paul here it is, my eloquent post to you!
firstly some of us HAVE to haunch over our food, because certain bloggers will snap strawberries off our cakes if other people at the dinner table are not on vigilant guard... (ps thanks for the strawberry yesterday at dinner)
Secondly here's my - looking back on it, it's kind of confusing - so maybe look it up yourself OR talk to me later because it's too late and my brain can't function to explain this to you now - post:
Soooo i took a horror literature class and we got into all this psychological mumbo-jumbo and came upon why people are repulsed by things and such sooo... here's my off the wall theory - It all stems from the symbolic order of things as defined by Jacques Lacan. (how we kind of have this world view of real/not and just what is consisted within that view...)
Anyways the degradation of this 'disgusting trough eating' (whatever) (seems to me) to be falling outside the (your - and mine cause i agree) symbolic order of humans of holding this higher position and their desire/ambition to be above or at the height of the pyramid. What comes to be distinguished in what you are calling the repugnance of eating has to do with the abject (abjection) which is a breaking away from this higher order/ our 'proper' place in - society? so was we see people making pigs of themselves we are personally embarrassed and ashamed for them, and this degradation pathway in which they are leading our society/race/species/whatever!
so i agree - class it up! - however i think the whole aspect/arrangement of our culture is attributing to this as well, with food-courts, fast-food, halls of residence, where people all congregate to cram it in/stuff it down and somehow we've got to make the best of it ... (sorry i don't really have a solution, just an aside 'theory' i though i could apply to this topic. see what you think, let me know you may want to look into it more as i mentioned.)
Paul -
As someone who is fan of KFC's 'Favourites bowl' (google it), I feel necessary to defend my principled and idealogical support to all that is finger lickin' good.
Firstly, I appreciate what you were trying to do with your point that 'Not all things should be tolerated -LIKE hate speech!' Assuming that the banning of hate speech was a good thing (and it would make a superawesome jointblog post), I would argue that the distinction to draw between the intoleration of racism and the intoleration of messy eating, is that racism involves you denigrating and announcing the inferiority of another, based on characteristics they cannot control, to a third party. It's more harmful to society, because when you spew racist bile your case is 'I AM JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING A RIGHT FROM X BECAUSE X IS INFERIOR'. The social harm of messy eating, is that you get jam on your own face, and may find it harder to find someone to marry you - but you're not advocating the removal of a recognisable right away from anyone.
But I think my biggest objection to your post comes from your line 'we should WANT to avoid doing anything that degrades or lowers us'. You've taken your subjective view of something (eating) and turned it into an objective criteria by which we can freely categorize people into an objectively reachable ideal of 'degraded and non-degraded'.
And while I would agree with you that sticking chicken bones up your nose and pretending to be a walrus is disgraceful, I can understand that its dangerous to bandy about words like 'these people shouldnt hold humanity down'. Having heard this argument be made as an argument against gay marriage (but basically, pick your civil rights issue - Hijabs? FGM? ), I can understand why imposing a threshold of tolerance against anything not directly harmful to others who have not consented is considered by some others who have commented to be dangerous, bewildering or offensive. One man's Big Mac is another man's anal sex you might say.
Post a Comment