partycove:

If we take as generally accepted principles of modern urban morality that it is desirable and acceptable to pursue pleasure for its own sake, precluding harm to others, and that each should be left to his own devices in life, then I propose that the cultural phenomenon of the ‘Foodie’ exposes a want for a hierarchy of pleasures in urban reasoning.

The ‘Foodie’ can reasonably be taken to be one who really likes food and pursues fine vittles at some expense. However, there is a little more to it than that. Barring drunken expeditions for tacos and pizza, as intoxicated states of mind are outside the realm of this consideration (however, desiring and achieving intoxication are well within our purview), ‘Foodieism’ seems to fetishize the consumable. More specifically, if we accept ideas from Marxism, Foodieism is a perfectly understandable evolution of advanced capitalism in a context of opulent food. It is supremely American in its focus on convenience, instant gratification and repetition. Looked at from this perspective, the pursuit of fashionable foods is something done purely for-itself, without any purpose other than personal satisfaction.

“No shit,” you’re saying. Well, every discussion needs a starting point. When I say that Foodies fetishize consumables, that does not mean they idolize every cupcake, meatball, and slider. Perhaps in the beginning that is what it is; hungry pursuit of tasty food. But when it becomes something of a lifestyle choice or an exhaustive hobby, then the (dare I say) obsession shifts to the idea around the food: Consumption itself. The hunt for a good morsel, the thrill of exploration, and perhaps most importantly the self-satisfaction of being able to say “I had the best X yesterday, and you wouldn’t believe where I found it…” become more important that whatever you actually ate.

Then, maybe, the drive behind Foodieism is not unlike sex addicts, who crave the feeling before actual copulation, the pursuit and anticipation of it, rather than the act itself. The shift from the object to the feelings around its consumption occurs either through fact of personality, or more reasonably in the case of Foodieism, the superabundance and ease of acquisition of good cuisine. The very fact one can be a Foodie in this environment rather than a gourmet undermines the value of a fine meal on its own and accelerates one along the Foodie cycle: Pursuit, Consumption, Boast.

“So who cares? Let people do what they want. You totally over analyzed this.” Granted. I am not saying there is anything wrong with Foodies or Foodieism, I am just curious about it as a social phenomenon. Whatever anyone wants to think about revering the types of food Foodies pursue and fetishizing consumption is up to them. What is of interest here is how it exposes the relevance of ordering pleasures.

Consumption for pleasure rarely brings about any bad, except when performed in excess. This is true of all pleasures, which according to the Epicureans are good in themselves but depend on how they are produced to bring either happiness or disturbance. Eating to bring nourishment to the body and repose to the mind is one of the great pleasures of life; why not enjoy it to the fullest with fine food? What is key here is that eating is a necessary, natural desire, with the fundamental purpose to maintain one’s organism. It has an objective outside of itself, and all enjoyment in partaking in it is secondary to its main function. This is where there is a corruption in the American attitude towards eating, made fashionable in Foodieism. These treat eating as a pleasure in-itself (as mentioned above), which as a confusion on the nature of the desire is a slippery slope towards treating pleasures and desires with the wrong attitudes. A good example is the confusion on the nature of money: Money is purely a means, and to pursue it as an end in-itself usually leads to a corruption of the soul. This is not something many would disagree with. Think of Wall Street fatcats.

While this sounds very patronizing and archaic, it has a timeless element common to human experience. There are countless pleasures available to us, but not all created equal; just as it would be foolish to think shooting heroin is a pleasure equal to philanthropy if they provide equal amounts of happiness, is it unwise to think the American attitude towards eating is healthy or sustainable. While it may not lead to a ‘corruption of the soul’ as Aristotle would put it, it certainly facilitates a distortion of the proper place of eating in human life.

Would it be so bad to propose an ordering, or ranking, of pleasures and desires? Surely this is something nearly everyone is familiar with and partakes in, as the commonsense heroin vs. philanthropy example shows. The Epicureans divided desires and pleasures into the natural and unnatural, the necessary and unnecessary, and static or in motion. Without going into detail about these, it is enough to say that the natural, necessary and static pleasures can be considered the best and need not be moderated. Natural, necessary and in motion pleasures, such as eating and drinking, are also very good but need to be moderated. A lack of moderation leads to insatiable, unlimited desire for pleasure.

Take something along these lines as a guideline, then, to order your own pleasures. There is no absolute framework of desire and happiness, obviously, and we are fortunate to live in an age where people are free to decide things on their own (the second premise in the first paragraph). “To each his own” does not negate the need for ordering; it rather means that each must think hard about what their ordering principle would be and how pleasures would fall under that, to devise a personal hierarchy that is best. This is different than just doing what one wants to, since that implies impulsive non-reflexive behavior; it rather means that one should have reasoned out and reflected upon why they do whatever they want to, i.e. the ordering of the pleasures of choice.

After such a mental exercise, I would not be surprised if many people did not change anything. The Foodies will probably continue along their cycle, and that’s fine. The pull of das man is strong. All I want is that people rationally and disinterestedly examine themselves and what they find important, pleasurable, and necessary. That and a burger.