The smell of shrimp:
the academic and
philosopher Timothy
Morton first tackled
food in his book
The Poetics of Spice.
Here he returns to
the Axial-Age ideas
that underpin our
understanding
of consumption
39 / TA N K
Illustration by Stine Deja
38 / TA N K
4 0 / TA N K
It is horribly topical, isn’t it? The baby boomers –
a marketing and PR concept have eaten, heated,
priced and voted the millennials – another
marketing and PR term – out of everything
that is good. (And as usual, Generation X –
another marketing term, surprise surprise
does not get a look in: we really are, as Jacques
Derrida would have quipped, Generation
Under Erasure.)
Yet the UK Boomers’ decision to exit the European
Union is indeed the chickens of PR – politics
“enhanced” by consumerism – coming home
to roost; Thatcher and Reagan’s not-so-subtle
dog-whistle suggestions of a niced-up version of
the 1950s, without rationing and hippies and with
some kind of subliminal (and not-so-subliminal)
whites-only vibe – triumphing over rational
thought. Consumerism, thy name is grandad.
And yet again, we do keep palming consumerism
off onto someone else: evil must be other people.
Consumerism: a blunt instrument to describe a
selfish mode you can choose to opt in or out of,
like Europe. But it isn’t. The very idea that you
can opt in and out of consumerism is exactly
the kind of thing that consumerism wants you
to think. Good old-fashioned ideology theory
(from your grandfather’s generation; paging Louis
Althusser) says just this: we are like supermarket
shoppers, floating or surfing or browsing (or
whatever metaphor you wish for being a flâneur,
aka everyone at this point) above the identities
on display like bars of “artisanal” chocolate,
choosing them (rationally, according to a dominant
theory of capitalist economics) with some kind
of freedom, as one might choose a costume.
“You horrible, sadistic bastards: you chose to
do this to us.” That is what the millennials are
supposed to be shouting at the boomers, over the
heads of the X-ers. And yet and at the same time:
you stupid, hypnotised addicts. That is the other
theory of consumerism – we are totally enslaved to
it, especially when we think we are not (see above).
In its fascinating confusion of active and passive,
it is akin to sin. Consider the language of addiction:
you have to resist that over which you are told
you have no power. Lurking in the background
is the horror of being passive, of being everything
we think is evil about being (dreaded word) an object.
You have too much free will, or too little. What
is wrong with this picture?
41 / TA N K
All of it – really all of it, no matter what angle you
are coming from – is an artefact of what some call
“Axial Age religion”: institutions that arose during
the agricultural age, aka the Neolithic, aka what
happened to humans across the Earth around
10,000BC, for instance in Mesopotamia, aka
so-called “Western civilisation”. These religions
share all kinds of things in common. For instance,
they have a nasty tendency to outsource human
powers, capacities and pleasures to a transcendental,
non-material realm outside of physical, tangible
reality, a domain inhabited perhaps by an invisible
old man with a beard who mostly harbours
unsavoury impulses towards you.
The Potato Clock by Rivka Galchen
Scientists have looked into the eiciency
of powering LED lights and laptops and
phones via potato batteries; almost every
American child knows about potato
batteries; those old elementary school
experiments are where the scientists got
the idea to look into the potato power
question more seriously; and when the
potato as battery was formally looked
into, the results were promising: potatoes
could provide battery energy at 1/50th
of the current price. The scientists
felt confident the potato battery, now
more fully understood, would catch on,
would be of use, especially as a source
of energy for the billions of people living
in poverty. But the potato battery didn’t
catch on. There are several theories as to
why. One theory was that it was important that the potato as battery market not
interfere with the potato as food market.
Another was that the potato as battery
market not interfere with the potato as a
cash crop for farmers. But these theories
seem to offer insuicient explanatory
power. Another theory is that energy
purchasing – whether for conventional
batteries or for solar power – is not just
about purchasing light and electricity,
but also about purchasing status. And
the potato has no status.
The Fall: that is something they have in common,
too. Sometime “before” – before in some
irreducible you-can’t-get-there-from-here sense –
we humans were happy and healthy and our world
was benevolent and abundant. We needed what
we wanted and wanted what we needed. We said
what we meant and meant what we said. We were
perfect – which begs the question, how did we
get here from there? Because here means we never
quite mean what we say or say what we mean, and
wanting and needing have drifted perilously apart.
That is the Fall in a nutshell: at some point we did
not desire, then for some reason desire was born.
And desire is evil. And why? Because desire puts us
in a loop. Desire is twisted. No wonder we have an
obsession with gluten: it is like an itch we cannot
stop scratching, this agricultural-age itch, so deeply
connected to wheat. If only we could get rid of the
one sinful thing that stops us from being totally
present to ourselves, without a twist!
For the wonderfully clinical Jacques Lacan, what
I call “me” is in fact a wild goose chase in which
“I” am perpetually chasing “myself” through a
bewildering region of desirable things. Lacan:
“I am not wherever I am the plaything of my
thought; I think of what I am where I do not think
to think”. It’s the drum-and-bass remix of Descartes’
“I think therefore I am”, with all kinds of extra beats
and grace notes. I am Coyote and Roadrunner at
the same time, or as David Byrne puts it in “Born
Under Punches”, “I’m catching up with myself”.
If I ever actually coincided with myself, I would
disappear – what is called “me” is precisely this
weird, strung-out sliding.
Now think about the ancestor of this idea, a concept
created at almost exactly the same time by two very
different writers, philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach
and gourmand Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin.
Brillat-Savarin was the first really significant
food writer, participating in the new culture of
restaurants, which had been created by French chefs
fleeing the Revolution. The first restaurant menus
were (at that time, very long) lists of items from
which one was to select. Thus one performed one’s
skill at the newly formed myth that our identity is
like a brand of chocolate and we get to display our
prowess by selecting the “right” one, in the absence
of a uniform standard of taste.
In other words, “You are what you eat.” BrillatSavarin writes, “Tell me what you eat and I will
tell you who you are.” Feuerbach says almost the
same thing, “Man” – apologies for the patriarchal
noun – “is what he eats.”
You are what you eat: that is consumerism in a
nutshell. And it is exactly Lacan’s formula, reduced
to a handy bite-size version. Which means that it
is the basis for Althusser’s ideology theory. Which
means that the dominant way in which humanistic
scholarship defines and explores consumerism is
an artefact of the dark side of consumerism, the
one in which we humans get to decide what reality
is, without interference from other life forms!
What’s wrong with this picture?
I have avoided talking directly about food and
eating for several years, because all theories of
consumerism, including many anarchist and Marxist
ones, are retweets of agricultural-age religious
stories about departing from some safe, Shire-like
land of need towards a perilous ocean of desire –
or extreme versions, like the Althusserian ones,
about how this safe, Shire-like land is impossible,
how myths about this land are precisely what we
tell ourselves as we drown in the ocean of desire.
We departed from good, self-consistent being
towards a realm of scary and evil appearances.
Or we never had that blandness and substance,
it is appearance all the way down; we get to
construct the reality we suffer from (Althusser’s
theory sounds exactly like New Age self-hatred
when you put it this way). You just cannot talk
about food without running into these blind alleys.
If you really want to bring the future into the
present, you have to go through the consumerism
tunnel and emerge on the other side.
What is annoying about how we talk about food is
exactly what is annoying about Axial Age religions
and the agricultural, social and philosophical
structures they bankroll. We need to take desire
and pleasure seriously. The way we think about an
ecological future is totally mediated by agricultural
religion by our petroculture, with its languages of
scarcity and eiciency, so keyed to religion. We
think the future will be a super-duper version of
oil culture without the mess of oil itself, but with
society in full-on oil mode, all eicient and pure.
But being able to power everything using the sun
and the wind means being able to have a disco in
every room of your house without harming life
42 / TA N K
43 / TA N K
forms (or far, far less, in any case). The genuine
ecological future means more pleasure, not less.
Which means that consumerism is not bad because
it opens up desire; it is bad because it does not
open up desire enough! Which means that –
and I am sorry to be the devil, I cannot help it –
there are some ecological chemicals hidden away
within consumerism, some experiential chemicals
that will help us figure out what that ecological
future will be like.
What are those chemicals? They have to do
with “You are what you eat”, the pithy, first-timelucky mantra of consumerism, aka the reflective,
Romantic, aesthetic kind that was an avant-garde
style when it started (think Baudelaire and De
Quincey) but is now something we all play. This
mode dominates because it is saying something
true about how we relate to things, and even
about what things are!
Illustration by Stine Deja
It is saying the same thing as Kant was saying at that
time: you cannot access things in themselves, you
can only access data about those things. You cannot
access yourself directly, you can only access the
menu items you select: you are what you eat. Kant
says this is as true about raindrops as it is about you
yourself: when they fall on your head you do not
access them directly, you access highly mediated
data about them (round, wet, small, cold). But this
means something astounding, as anyone who has
read Kant on art will assert. It means that while
you are styling yourself via a certain kind of food,
you are relating to a very specific, very lusciously
vivid thing that is not you, for no particular reason
(the Pope did not order you to like shrimp). You eat
what you are. It means you relate, on a daily basis, to
non-human beings in non-coercive, non-conceptual
ways, so you already have a taste of what ecological
coexistence could mean, in the most unlikely place –
your consumerism.
A Sydney taxi driver set me straight. He was an
Iranian exile, fleeing persecution because of his
(agricultural-age) faith. “Shrimp on the barbie,
that is my idea of God.” At first I thought, What
a cute postmodern statement. Then I wondered,
Was he in a way serious? Is the smell of frying
shrimp (which I am not expecting you to like,
too; you might be a vegetarian or you might want
a burger), is that sensual shrimp data that sucks
me in and makes my mouth water (or not), is that
sensation actually not a much better kind of God
than an invisible old man with a beard in the sky
who mostly wants to kill you?
It is the poison and the cure at the same time.
Consumerism is agricultural-age theism privatised
and globalised, everyone searching for experiences
via objects to provide spiritual highs. It is the closest
we have come to the taboos hidden away in the VIP
lounges of these religions: the knowledge that all
this God stuff is not exactly it, the superpowers you
have outsourced are to be found within yourself.
In a mad historical irony, consumerism comes
closest to undoing the spell of the Neolithic,
the spell that convinces us we are different from
all other life forms, severed forever from the
symbiotic real, caught in a wilderness of our
own desire with no exit.
All we have to do is pursue this a little further.
Objects are not just blank screens for (human)
desire projection – they are pungent with all
kinds of qualities, like shrimp. Free will is massively
overrated. The idea that we humans are skinencapsulated egos floating free of our physical
being (there is that symbiotic real again) is a
dangerous illusion sustained by old concepts of
the soul and modern concepts of consumer choice.
We need a whole new theory of action that doesn’t
depend on ultimately religious concepts of active and
passive. Need is just how some desires look when they
have been cropped and airbrushed to eliminate the
non-human. Reality is not a bland lump of whatever,
but wonderfully twisted and weird. You eat what
you are. When I hear the word religion, I reach
for my shrimp on the barbie. §