I'm struggling with publishing another book. The send up of trade books was delicious. As it were.
As it happens, I am writing from Houston, which I too often visit. I thought closing by making an (invariably invidious) comparison with entire peoples was more than a little jarring. Especially since you noted, re Manne on Weil, that charity counts. I would say it is a big part of how the critic establishes authority with the reader. I suppose you could say one ought to have structures, ways of thinking about appetites, even if only in the service of fashion. Just bingeing at Buc--ee's, well, look where that gets you. (I was delighted by the reference, though I find the places painfully overstimulating.)
But I thought you would make the ancient point more directly: the appetites are dangerous. Lust, gluttony, drunkenness -- these things can get you killed. Dionysus is a dangerous god.
I loved this: " entirely within the same Anglo-philistine frame that produced Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill, and Peter Singer. All four of them appear to take for granted that there is a single knowable calculus to which we may appeal that can tell us, when weighing up two opposed courses of action, which of the two is “better.” There is an impressive bourgeois optimism . . ." My sentiments entirely.
I have been wondering how this became the house style of philosophy, in the US at any rate, and even among those who do not see themselves as utilitarians. In this view, the point of philosophy seems to be to make things plain, rather than explore the sorts of things toward which Unamuno points. But neither love nor wisdom are plain to see. I'm not sure what Manne is doing should even be called philosophy, though I can't think of another name.
"capable of scanning infinity, yet at the same time, in W. B. Yeats’s words, “strapped to a dying animal.” That’s a tough predicament, no matter how just or unjust our human institutions are, . .. " This is perfect. We live in a time when many people deeply feel that politics is the cause of bad things, and if we can fix politics . . .
Finally, Ross, I note that once again TMR has published an essay more interesting than its subject.
A great piece of writing: you went far beyond the bones of a review to the cultural formations of the meatworld. Manne, like so many comtemporary commentors (and analytic philosophers) is embedded in a specific mode of individualistic determinism. You’ve opened it out into many strands of complexity. I’ve been trying to put together a book about pre-modern cooking and eating which raised similar issues. Thanks!
I am thrilled that the readers of TMR are getting an introduction to Justin Smith-Ruiu, who is simply one of the best writers, essayists, thinkers, etc. today, as evidenced by this brilliant piece which, I have to say, is subtly devastating. I'm sure there's already some overlap between TMR and Justin's stack, but for the uninitiated, head over to "The Hinternet" and yes--you may!
Beautifully written! Have you ever read Tennyson's poem about St Simeon Stylites? It's long and enjoyably over-the-top but an absolute banger, as they say: https://www.online-literature.com/tennyson/728/
Coincidentally, I am also in Paris, and the only tweet I ever posted that went semi-viral was a picture of the daily menu at my youngest child's municipal crèche (for the under-3s). The Anglophone world simply could not believe it, especially the daily cheese course. https://x.com/victoriamoul/status/1762861760770359491
Great essay! As a sober person in recovery, I feel like eating disordered folks are my spiritual kin. Like you, I don’t think politics or advertising formed my addiction. Our culture has a facility for discussing physical maladies, and to a lesser extent mental illness. But there seems to be a spiritual component to illnesses such as ours and modern day thinkers have nothing useful to say about that crucial aspect. By making desire a moral imperative, this author is essentially channeling Anton LeVay. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” Ridiculous.
Everyone loves an anorexia backstory... No, I get it, I too am personne (get it? nobody!) avec antécédents de TCA. I am therefore particularly inclined to notice, not without some ressentiment, how people flock to the subject. Why am I resentful, amère, vielleicht—sklavisch? Well, reader—Justin?—I really, really hurt myself that way. (Want to know how? Commission me, I guess, hahaha.)
I understand thinking it's part of you, "personally, spiritually", of course I understand; but when you've (not you, me) clearly ruined your life with the behavior and are being held down for state-enforced gavage (the horrors of which we should totally write a collaborative Hörspiel about!!), that's when you might (justifiably or not) start to wonder whether there was something beyond your own idiocy, or something exacerbating your own idiocy, that contributed to your “actions” (/failures to act).
But "justifiably or not" is the whole question, I hear you object. I guess you'd say someone like me just wants to absolve herself, to blame external forces of injustice and thereby conceal her own not at all gendered "perversion", as you call it, which was the real cause of her tragic failure and her sinking unwept into oblivion. To that I'd reply, if somewhat apprehensively, that I think there's rather more to the "gendered dimensions" there, which you skip nimbly (lightly, ethereally, delicately) over, than you acknowledge, or that I previously wanted to acknowledge; though that's not to say I endorse anything about Manne's book, which I'm unlikely ever to peruse. I'm on your and Fraser's "side" of the issue, except about Weil, maybe.
Again, I get it, I can't/don’t/don’t want to eat lasagne myself if I have a choice ahahaha (see what they did; brain's giggling still!) But one "argument" for doing so, which I'll put to you, is kids. I know, Justin, you don't have that embodiment of an argument available. But here it is anyway (elliptically): what do my kids learn, not only if I too-insensitively restrict *their* food consumption, but merely if *I* eat too restrictively?
Don't get me wrong. I don't want them to be, in bodily form, like your and my extended families (no offense meant, but I am in fact in the same odobenine boat, genetically, and it's ever a relief to hear you mention that because otherwise I guess I'm completely and utterly alone among those who've heard of Geulincx!)—but there are so many stories about the harm of overly restrictive mothers that I definitely owe it to my children (here analytic philosophers raise solemnly a wafery wish and a word as the consecrated host of "moral obligation") to act in order to mitigate that harm.
As I said, elliptical, which is euphemistic for badly argued because my progeny might wake up. But yeah there's some sort of kid-based argument for lasagne, I think, entre souffrants. Please note that it is *not* a defense of "intuitive eating" or UPF consumption. Note well, also, that it's the kid argument for (homemade/family-made) *lasagne*, and *not* for, say, KFC. Having noted those issues, consider whether my "argument", if you judge it to be one, could also explain some of Manne's public choices, even if you have to stand back from what she "argues" to see that explanation; and even if she and her fans would balk and bristle at my suggestion that parousness has anything to do with philosophy.
For the general reader, final note: people are calling the piece "beautiful", which is certainly right, meet, just; but why isn't anyone saying how hilarious this guy is? "Freud tells of the Rat Man", lol ... "descended from walruses" (though that is sad, too, as gestured at). Don't know anyone else this consistently funny.
Stay bonkers, Justin. Eat, though, as well. Obviously. Someone might be looking up to you.
This is my kind of writing. Having to look up a word or three. Learning about the writer and the subject. Realizing another angle and book to locate regarding my own quixotic creative project involving 18th century French colonialism (Bonjour, Emma Spary) and laughing out loud. A Swiftian side-eye book review? Catching people before they go over some intellectual waterfall? A cri de coeur against the entire all-inclusive “to eat or not to eat” “too fat or not too fat” diet industries? No wonder St Simeon stayed on the pillar.
There seems to be a trend, beyond philosophers, of physical permissiveness in culture these days, regarding food and sex, which is posed as a sort of liberation. It is paired with a sort of ascetism of relationships - boundaries, estrangement, getting rid of friends or lovers that don't believe exactly as you do - and despite our sadness we feel righteous in our lack of friendships.
Wow, Professor, this is really heavy (this use of the term 'heavy' in no way connotes the inability of Houstonians to 'just say no' to that last chicken nugget. )
I am a little confused about the term, ‘fat phobia'? All my life I've never been afraid of fat people. My mom was fat. When we were kids, we never had enough to eat and none of us got fat. I don’t know how my mom managed to do it. Most of my uncles and aunts were fat, they were all on Mom’s side of the family. We had some fat kids in school. Every class had at least one. And we learned in recess that they couldn’t run that far so we were never afraid of them? I don’t know why people are now. Oh, one other thing. Fat people are usually funny. So that's another reason I’m not afraid of them.
Thanks for telling me about ‘intuitive eating.’ My intuition was to not be late for dinner because there might not be anything left.
Now I’m old, of course, and have a belly. Could be the beer. Could be the doughnuts. I could maybe start drinking ‘lite’ beers and slim down a bit. Don’t know that I could give up the doughnuts, though. Do they have lite doughnuts?
Oh… I just thought of something. I sometimes watch that show on The Learning Channel, My Little 1,000 Lb. Sister. It’s kind of a cautionary tale. You know, you are what you eat. And it helps me slow down.
Ha, I loved the review, wondered, 'Is this JSR?' - and was vindicated at the by-line. I find that Steven Pinker is generally a 180-degree-wrong guide to human life, so was curious to see him crop up here.
This is a very good and very thorough examination of not only Kate Manne's book, but a much larger problem: how can one know what is "healthy" and "good"? Just in my lifetime, ideas about what foods are healthy have changed drastically, and then changed back. Here's just one small example: when I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, animal fat was not suspect. Then suddenly, in the 1970s, it was bad, and margarine was healthier than butter. But now we know that hydrogenated fat in margarine is extremely unhealthy for humans, and that butter is actually pretty good for you! A similar switch happened with coconut oil, which went from good to bad to good again.
I am also suspicious of intuitive eating. A person is very lucky indeed, maybe even a bit magical, if their intuition is always "right." Yep, that ice cream sandwich looks very "good for me," so I'm going to eat two or three of them. (Might not feel very good later on.) How about MacDonald's fries? Taste great. Very filling. Lots of free radicals in that frying oil.
I tried intuitive eating for about a week. I did the reading about how to do it. Whatever I want, that's what I'm supposed to eat, right then. But what if it's not in my house? Do I have to go seek it out, right now? That is not very practical for me, a dweller of the hinterlands (see what I did there). Maybe if we had door dash...
I still think Michael Pollan's simple advice is the best: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. (Food does not include pop tarts; it's what your great-grandparents would have recognized as food.) To that I add: go outside, see what's in the garden, build the meal around that. Try to use up the rest of that bag of hazelnut flour from when you made Christmas cookies several months ago, too.
I have encountered people who disparage any rule about eating what and when to eat as "diet culture." But all cultures have had some guidelines about eating. Nobody would condemn anybody for eating kosher for example if it's part of their religion. So why do they attack people who don't want to eat sugar except on the weekend?
Also, what's wrong with wanting to look good? The fatphobia critics seem to think it's "vain" of us to want to look fit and healthy. But they probably get their hair cut and colored sometimes. I bet they even get their nails done sometimes and wear makeup. They probably try to buy clothes that make them look good. So what's wrong with trying to stay within a reasonable body size? NOTHING.
Justin,
Very nicely done. A few thoughts.
I'm struggling with publishing another book. The send up of trade books was delicious. As it were.
As it happens, I am writing from Houston, which I too often visit. I thought closing by making an (invariably invidious) comparison with entire peoples was more than a little jarring. Especially since you noted, re Manne on Weil, that charity counts. I would say it is a big part of how the critic establishes authority with the reader. I suppose you could say one ought to have structures, ways of thinking about appetites, even if only in the service of fashion. Just bingeing at Buc--ee's, well, look where that gets you. (I was delighted by the reference, though I find the places painfully overstimulating.)
But I thought you would make the ancient point more directly: the appetites are dangerous. Lust, gluttony, drunkenness -- these things can get you killed. Dionysus is a dangerous god.
I loved this: " entirely within the same Anglo-philistine frame that produced Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill, and Peter Singer. All four of them appear to take for granted that there is a single knowable calculus to which we may appeal that can tell us, when weighing up two opposed courses of action, which of the two is “better.” There is an impressive bourgeois optimism . . ." My sentiments entirely.
I have been wondering how this became the house style of philosophy, in the US at any rate, and even among those who do not see themselves as utilitarians. In this view, the point of philosophy seems to be to make things plain, rather than explore the sorts of things toward which Unamuno points. But neither love nor wisdom are plain to see. I'm not sure what Manne is doing should even be called philosophy, though I can't think of another name.
"capable of scanning infinity, yet at the same time, in W. B. Yeats’s words, “strapped to a dying animal.” That’s a tough predicament, no matter how just or unjust our human institutions are, . .. " This is perfect. We live in a time when many people deeply feel that politics is the cause of bad things, and if we can fix politics . . .
Finally, Ross, I note that once again TMR has published an essay more interesting than its subject.
Justin, again, Kudos.
A great piece of writing: you went far beyond the bones of a review to the cultural formations of the meatworld. Manne, like so many comtemporary commentors (and analytic philosophers) is embedded in a specific mode of individualistic determinism. You’ve opened it out into many strands of complexity. I’ve been trying to put together a book about pre-modern cooking and eating which raised similar issues. Thanks!
I am thrilled that the readers of TMR are getting an introduction to Justin Smith-Ruiu, who is simply one of the best writers, essayists, thinkers, etc. today, as evidenced by this brilliant piece which, I have to say, is subtly devastating. I'm sure there's already some overlap between TMR and Justin's stack, but for the uninitiated, head over to "The Hinternet" and yes--you may!
Beautifully written! Have you ever read Tennyson's poem about St Simeon Stylites? It's long and enjoyably over-the-top but an absolute banger, as they say: https://www.online-literature.com/tennyson/728/
Coincidentally, I am also in Paris, and the only tweet I ever posted that went semi-viral was a picture of the daily menu at my youngest child's municipal crèche (for the under-3s). The Anglophone world simply could not believe it, especially the daily cheese course. https://x.com/victoriamoul/status/1762861760770359491
Great essay! As a sober person in recovery, I feel like eating disordered folks are my spiritual kin. Like you, I don’t think politics or advertising formed my addiction. Our culture has a facility for discussing physical maladies, and to a lesser extent mental illness. But there seems to be a spiritual component to illnesses such as ours and modern day thinkers have nothing useful to say about that crucial aspect. By making desire a moral imperative, this author is essentially channeling Anton LeVay. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” Ridiculous.
Jesus it’s hard to be human! Really enjoyed this.
Everyone loves an anorexia backstory... No, I get it, I too am personne (get it? nobody!) avec antécédents de TCA. I am therefore particularly inclined to notice, not without some ressentiment, how people flock to the subject. Why am I resentful, amère, vielleicht—sklavisch? Well, reader—Justin?—I really, really hurt myself that way. (Want to know how? Commission me, I guess, hahaha.)
I understand thinking it's part of you, "personally, spiritually", of course I understand; but when you've (not you, me) clearly ruined your life with the behavior and are being held down for state-enforced gavage (the horrors of which we should totally write a collaborative Hörspiel about!!), that's when you might (justifiably or not) start to wonder whether there was something beyond your own idiocy, or something exacerbating your own idiocy, that contributed to your “actions” (/failures to act).
But "justifiably or not" is the whole question, I hear you object. I guess you'd say someone like me just wants to absolve herself, to blame external forces of injustice and thereby conceal her own not at all gendered "perversion", as you call it, which was the real cause of her tragic failure and her sinking unwept into oblivion. To that I'd reply, if somewhat apprehensively, that I think there's rather more to the "gendered dimensions" there, which you skip nimbly (lightly, ethereally, delicately) over, than you acknowledge, or that I previously wanted to acknowledge; though that's not to say I endorse anything about Manne's book, which I'm unlikely ever to peruse. I'm on your and Fraser's "side" of the issue, except about Weil, maybe.
Again, I get it, I can't/don’t/don’t want to eat lasagne myself if I have a choice ahahaha (see what they did; brain's giggling still!) But one "argument" for doing so, which I'll put to you, is kids. I know, Justin, you don't have that embodiment of an argument available. But here it is anyway (elliptically): what do my kids learn, not only if I too-insensitively restrict *their* food consumption, but merely if *I* eat too restrictively?
Don't get me wrong. I don't want them to be, in bodily form, like your and my extended families (no offense meant, but I am in fact in the same odobenine boat, genetically, and it's ever a relief to hear you mention that because otherwise I guess I'm completely and utterly alone among those who've heard of Geulincx!)—but there are so many stories about the harm of overly restrictive mothers that I definitely owe it to my children (here analytic philosophers raise solemnly a wafery wish and a word as the consecrated host of "moral obligation") to act in order to mitigate that harm.
As I said, elliptical, which is euphemistic for badly argued because my progeny might wake up. But yeah there's some sort of kid-based argument for lasagne, I think, entre souffrants. Please note that it is *not* a defense of "intuitive eating" or UPF consumption. Note well, also, that it's the kid argument for (homemade/family-made) *lasagne*, and *not* for, say, KFC. Having noted those issues, consider whether my "argument", if you judge it to be one, could also explain some of Manne's public choices, even if you have to stand back from what she "argues" to see that explanation; and even if she and her fans would balk and bristle at my suggestion that parousness has anything to do with philosophy.
For the general reader, final note: people are calling the piece "beautiful", which is certainly right, meet, just; but why isn't anyone saying how hilarious this guy is? "Freud tells of the Rat Man", lol ... "descended from walruses" (though that is sad, too, as gestured at). Don't know anyone else this consistently funny.
Stay bonkers, Justin. Eat, though, as well. Obviously. Someone might be looking up to you.
This is my kind of writing. Having to look up a word or three. Learning about the writer and the subject. Realizing another angle and book to locate regarding my own quixotic creative project involving 18th century French colonialism (Bonjour, Emma Spary) and laughing out loud. A Swiftian side-eye book review? Catching people before they go over some intellectual waterfall? A cri de coeur against the entire all-inclusive “to eat or not to eat” “too fat or not too fat” diet industries? No wonder St Simeon stayed on the pillar.
There seems to be a trend, beyond philosophers, of physical permissiveness in culture these days, regarding food and sex, which is posed as a sort of liberation. It is paired with a sort of ascetism of relationships - boundaries, estrangement, getting rid of friends or lovers that don't believe exactly as you do - and despite our sadness we feel righteous in our lack of friendships.
"It could be that there simply is no authoritative answer to the question. It depends what kind of life you want." Loved this piece.
Wow, Professor, this is really heavy (this use of the term 'heavy' in no way connotes the inability of Houstonians to 'just say no' to that last chicken nugget. )
I am a little confused about the term, ‘fat phobia'? All my life I've never been afraid of fat people. My mom was fat. When we were kids, we never had enough to eat and none of us got fat. I don’t know how my mom managed to do it. Most of my uncles and aunts were fat, they were all on Mom’s side of the family. We had some fat kids in school. Every class had at least one. And we learned in recess that they couldn’t run that far so we were never afraid of them? I don’t know why people are now. Oh, one other thing. Fat people are usually funny. So that's another reason I’m not afraid of them.
Thanks for telling me about ‘intuitive eating.’ My intuition was to not be late for dinner because there might not be anything left.
Now I’m old, of course, and have a belly. Could be the beer. Could be the doughnuts. I could maybe start drinking ‘lite’ beers and slim down a bit. Don’t know that I could give up the doughnuts, though. Do they have lite doughnuts?
Oh… I just thought of something. I sometimes watch that show on The Learning Channel, My Little 1,000 Lb. Sister. It’s kind of a cautionary tale. You know, you are what you eat. And it helps me slow down.
Good article!
Ha, I loved the review, wondered, 'Is this JSR?' - and was vindicated at the by-line. I find that Steven Pinker is generally a 180-degree-wrong guide to human life, so was curious to see him crop up here.
Beautifully written and compellingly argued.
But If it's a macaron fraise in the window, I might not wait!
What a wonderful review! I never would have expected to enjoy reading about this subject matter.
This is a very good and very thorough examination of not only Kate Manne's book, but a much larger problem: how can one know what is "healthy" and "good"? Just in my lifetime, ideas about what foods are healthy have changed drastically, and then changed back. Here's just one small example: when I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, animal fat was not suspect. Then suddenly, in the 1970s, it was bad, and margarine was healthier than butter. But now we know that hydrogenated fat in margarine is extremely unhealthy for humans, and that butter is actually pretty good for you! A similar switch happened with coconut oil, which went from good to bad to good again.
I am also suspicious of intuitive eating. A person is very lucky indeed, maybe even a bit magical, if their intuition is always "right." Yep, that ice cream sandwich looks very "good for me," so I'm going to eat two or three of them. (Might not feel very good later on.) How about MacDonald's fries? Taste great. Very filling. Lots of free radicals in that frying oil.
I tried intuitive eating for about a week. I did the reading about how to do it. Whatever I want, that's what I'm supposed to eat, right then. But what if it's not in my house? Do I have to go seek it out, right now? That is not very practical for me, a dweller of the hinterlands (see what I did there). Maybe if we had door dash...
I still think Michael Pollan's simple advice is the best: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. (Food does not include pop tarts; it's what your great-grandparents would have recognized as food.) To that I add: go outside, see what's in the garden, build the meal around that. Try to use up the rest of that bag of hazelnut flour from when you made Christmas cookies several months ago, too.
I have encountered people who disparage any rule about eating what and when to eat as "diet culture." But all cultures have had some guidelines about eating. Nobody would condemn anybody for eating kosher for example if it's part of their religion. So why do they attack people who don't want to eat sugar except on the weekend?
Also, what's wrong with wanting to look good? The fatphobia critics seem to think it's "vain" of us to want to look fit and healthy. But they probably get their hair cut and colored sometimes. I bet they even get their nails done sometimes and wear makeup. They probably try to buy clothes that make them look good. So what's wrong with trying to stay within a reasonable body size? NOTHING.