« Where are the economic historians? | Main | Alan Blinder worries about free trade »
Benjamin Barber's *Consumed*
There is actually [sic] a restaurant in New Jersey called Stuff Yer Face, and fast food generally is about stuffing your face: about nutrition, fueling up, taking in the calories, food as instrumentality, eaters as mere animals responding to biological imperatives.
The subtitle of the new book is How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantalize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole. Here is the restaurant's home page, with sound.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 28, 2007 at 01:44 PM in Books | Permalink
Comments
The title works even better if you replace "Markets" by "Socialism".
Posted by: dearieme at Mar 28, 2007 1:50:41 PM
This brings to mind a David Foster Wallace quote you once surfaced about the "lowest common denominator" element in television programming.
I don’t know, my take on contemporary-culture-despising “treatises” such as this run a bit like “Hate on Britney Spears if you want, but you also have to recognize Belle and Sebastian:”
You know, there may be more McDonald’s then ever before, but more people are cooking at home FOR FUN then ever before! This has to be the era of the dinner party. All in all, not a bad trade off.
Posted by: steveintheknow at Mar 28, 2007 2:18:11 PM
Even more surprising is that stuff yer face isn't bad, at least for college food (it's right next to rutgers).
It's one of the few places on easton ave serving food that you would eat while sober. The beer selection is pretty good as well. It's not a fantastic place, but it's better than the name suggests.
Posted by: Anonymous coward at Mar 28, 2007 3:09:39 PM
Stuff Yer Face was also Mario Batali's first cooking job, while attending Rutgers.
As the Anonymous Coward points out, it's decent enough for a stromboli and beer place (it was one of the places where we sent our out of town relatives who came for our wedding and were looking for something to eat the night before the wedding)
Posted by: Bg Porter at Mar 28, 2007 3:48:26 PM
I went to Rutgers. I've been to Stuff Yer Face. Many times.
It just doesn't live to the name. The portions aren't that big. It's very possible to leave from a lunch at that place and have plenty of room for dinner that night. As it should be.
The only thing that's excessive about that place are the drinks, which come in these large "fishbowl" type glasses. That could cause some serious drunk driving, but most of the people who go there are college students who walk over from nearby.
~~~~
Benjamin Barber is an arrogant gasbag. He believes in replacing his preferences in place of everyone else's. He thinks that "we" should be exporting more jazz and less Britney Spears.
His view of markets is more-or-less neo-Rousseauian.
He believes in sort of "directed democracy" even though he won't admit it.
Barber is the type of dude who gives political theorists a bad name. He's typical of the reason that many of the smarter ones go into PHILOSOPHY departments so that they can be free of his ilk.
The dude is a sophist and a very, very, VERY poor man's Michael Walzer.
Posted by: Jeebus at Mar 28, 2007 3:50:21 PM
I don't know the context, but at face value it seems really odd to complain about people having an instrumental view of food. Is food supposed to be an end in and of itself? I suppose if you viewed getting pleasurable sensations from consuming food as being an non-instrumental usage of food, he'd kind of have a point, but it can hardly be argued that that is a vice of fast food resturants, which tend to make food that a good chunk of the population does enjoy eating.
Posted by: MattXIV at Mar 28, 2007 3:59:43 PM
about nutrition, fueling up, taking in the calories,
As opposed to anorexia, malnutrution, and throwing-up?
food as instrumentality
As opposed to food as an object of mere aesthetic contemplation?
eaters as mere animals responding to biological imperatives
As opposed to space aliens responding to cosmic imperatives?
Barber is a sententious twat. And I mean that in the best way possible.
Posted by: Marcus at Mar 28, 2007 4:14:44 PM
FYI, Colbert's interview of Barber is available at the Comedy Central website: http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml
(I haven't watched it myself yet.)
As others have pointed out, he seems to be one more "the market is bad because it doesn't promote the things I approve of" kind of guy.
Posted by: jp at Mar 28, 2007 4:39:52 PM
Stuff Yer Face is actually a great place to eat. The strombolis are great, the beer selection extensive, and the atmosphere...fun. Having attended undergraduate school in Virginia and currently attending law school there as well, I find myself craving such NJ/NY food.
The author's arrogance aside, far too many commentators on every side of seemingly every issue long for some bygone era where things were simply better off. This book, it would seem, ignores the fact that amount of quality cultural products (literature, film, and television) has quite frankly increased.
Posted by: KWA at Mar 28, 2007 4:41:20 PM
Stuff Yer Face was also Mario Batali's first cooking job, while attending Rutgers.
Neat. I lived for a summer on that stretch of Easton Ave.
Posted by: smackfu at Mar 28, 2007 4:43:39 PM
FYI, Colbert's interview of Barber is available at the Comedy Central website.
So Benjamin Barber was out flogging his glossy hardback to a mass audience on Comedy Central? Are we supposed to laugh with him or at him? Title this one "Markets in Everything: Huckstering Hypocrisy Edition"
Posted by: Marcus at Mar 28, 2007 5:26:31 PM
If you're going to complain about Rutgers food the real complaint ought to be the "fat cat," which is served by several lunch trucks around campus. There are innumerable variations, but if memory serves the basic version is something like a hamburger patty, bacon, mozzarella sticks, AND french fries, all jammed into a hoagie roll.
Posted by: Gabriel Rossman at Mar 28, 2007 5:58:36 PM
Amazon Sales Rank: 854
Not bad.
So the fact that Barber's book is selling well is a vindication of his theory that capitalism stimulates the consumption of needless crap?
And will any of the proceeds from the book will be used to enable the consumption of potable water in Africa? If so, will this undermine his theory? If not, will this discredit Barber as a human being?
Posted by: Marcus at Mar 28, 2007 6:16:27 PM
If so, will this undermine his theory? If not, will this discredit Barber as a human being?
Like you could possibly discredit him any further as a human being. Given that he appears to subscribe to Pete Singer's crap and yet still manages to not be dirt poor, I'd say he's already done a solid job of discrediting himself....
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero at Mar 28, 2007 8:59:19 PM
The reviews I read of Barber's book all seemed to say that he was taking the old Galbraithian line about how markets generate wants for frivolous products that people would not otherwise have. Here, he seems to say that the market produces something necessary for life cheaply and with no frills and that this is a bad thing.
Of course, as others have already pointed out, Stuff Yer Face is high-end by the (low) standards of Easton Ave. in New Brunswick. It is pretty clear that Barber, a former Rutgers faculty member, never set foot inside.
Posted by: Ricardo at Mar 28, 2007 10:50:22 PM
The Colbert interview is quite funny; he interrupts Barber repeatedly to advertise products. And he opens the show with, "I guess he's here to not promote his new book."
Also evident from the clip is that he is indeed channeling Galbraith: he believes people's desires are being manipulated by corporate advertising. Bottled water is his prime example--people can get that water at no cost from a tap, so they're obviously being fooled into buying it. (People wouldn't dare pay for convenience, no.) For me, Hayek's answer that all but the most basic desires are manmade will always be a sufficient response to this line.
Posted by: Swimmy at Mar 28, 2007 11:13:53 PM
The Colbert interview is quite funny; he interrupts Barber repeatedly to advertise products. And he opens the show with, "I guess he's here to not promote his new book."
Barber and his ilk are ripe targets for satire, but Colbert wimps out and instead spends most of his time lampooning ads, those instruments of totalitarian mind control that supposedly have us in their thrall. (Barber must be so heroic to rise above and see through them).
Were it true that advertisement overrides consumer sovereignty, then any idiot could make a bundle by taking out a loan and spending 90% on advertising. It wouldn't matter how the other 10% gets spent. You have ads! People will beat a path to your door and pay any price. Forever.
And it's a well known fact that everybody in the ad industry is a millionaire who retires at 35. :^)
Posted by: Marcus at Mar 29, 2007 3:00:22 AM
"eaters as mere animals responding to biological imperatives
As opposed to space aliens responding to cosmic imperatives?"
Bahahahaha! Best sentence I read today.
Posted by: Doug at Mar 29, 2007 2:47:56 PM
There is actually [sic] a restaurant in New Jersey...
I'm kind of confused about the grammar error? what did he do wrong?
Posted by: rob at Mar 30, 2007 12:01:28 PM
Benjamin Barber worries that today the economy puts the emphasis "not on production, but on consuming". He was flogging his book on marketplace, and I was angrily shouting back at the radio.
Posted by: hanmeng at Mar 30, 2007 3:46:54 PM
Sounds about right. There is a all-you-can-eat Korean BBQ place in Roland Heights, California that is appropriately named "Feedables"
And that would be "emotional imperatives" as this has nothing to do with nutrition and all to do with self-soothing behaviors of the self-medicating category.
Posted by: Alvin at Mar 30, 2007 7:39:41 PM
rob:
Barber's use of "actually" in that sentence would only make sense if the preceding sentence were something like, "You might think there are no restaurants in New Jersey." Instead, Barber is using "actually" in a grating slang: in order to express some level of shock at the existence of a restaurant named "Stuff Yer Face." It is an expression of condescension. Another example would be: "That bum actually tried to make conversation with me. Imagine such a thing!" This is actually an improper use of the word "actually." (Pardon the pun. I couldn't help it.)
In other words, Barber is being a snob, while revealing that he didn't pay enough attention in eight-grade English. This does not reflect well on Barber, nor on his editor.
Posted by: Trieu Truong at Mar 31, 2007 5:54:13 PM
Correction:
I looked up "actually" in the American Heritage Dictionary and found a citing for the above-mentioned usage (used to express surprise). So, it may not be improper after all, perhaps only modern. It is nonetheless condescending. The Chicago Manual Of Style might have more information.
Posted by: Trieu Truong at Mar 31, 2007 6:05:49 PM
Swimmy,
Is that really true? If bottled water is his prime example because he thinks tap water is "free", he's an idiot.
Posted by: LisaMarie at Apr 3, 2007 7:35:05 PM
I just started reading Consumed. I wasn't impressed with this statement, part of a list of items he presents as evidence of the "infantilization" of American society:
"sexual performance drugs such as Levitra, Cialis, and Viagra (2002 sales of over $1 billion) becoming staples of equally uncomfortable male boomers trying to smuggle atavistic youth in the age of social security."
First, I have to admit I had to look up "atavistic":
"ATAVISM: Reversion to an earlier behavior, outlook, or approach." But is it youth that is atavistic in this sentence or is the desire atavistic?
In any case, erectile dysfunction means a part of the body that once gave you enjoyment has stopped working properly. So is it "infantile" or "puerile" for men who have this issue to use these effective drugs? Or should we call that using medical technology to improve one's life? Doesn't Barber's point sound much like how people used to tell women to stop trying to look feminine or glamorous after, say, 30 or 40?
Posted by: cm at Apr 5, 2007 1:09:11 AM
i dunno. the idea of calling a restaurant "stuff yer face" is actually quite embarrassing and i don't see anything snobby about expressing surprise and distaste over it. actually.
Posted by: mward at Apr 25, 2007 11:11:13 AM
The notion of criticizing barber for producing a commercial object -- a book -- as a means of critizing a commercial culture is like critizing someone in a movie theatre for asking his neighbor to "keep his voice down" during the movie, when the request itself involves speaking. I don't think barber is saying people shouldn't write and sell books.
Posted by: SAM Binkley at May 13, 2007 10:05:07 AM
I think that he is right. Not only continuous and excessive consumption degrade creativiy and thinking, but it also consumes world's resources and contaminates world. Because you will need to waste energy not only on production but also on recycling. Since I have started to live below means years ago, I personally feel much better.
Posted by: Michael at Sep 24, 2007 10:53:40 AM
大家好，我是臺灣人，從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國，環境很陌生，感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過，我是一個優秀的徵信工作者，希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站，認識更多的朋友。
Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 1, 2008 10:58:42 PM
