Perales 1

Iesha Perales English 1010 March 6, 2014

The Pleasure of Knowing Wendell Berrys article The Pleasures of Eating was posted to the Ecoliteracy site, although having been originally published in 1990. In this article Wendell posed the notion that people as a whole look at food as only what is seen when we receive it, never asking the question where does it come from. Berry sought to catch the interest of the everyday consumers by starting off with a simple story from his own experience. Berry attempted to make his claim by logically stating fact-like information with no proof, emotionally driven words and ideals for humanity, as well as driving in credibility from his own experience. Although his paper is very empowered by his ideas, his biased opinions were prominently shown by his somewhat attacking tone. This led to his paper not quite coming up to par with what he had most likely hoped it to mean. His paper started with a simple story from his own experiences saying that after one of his lectures someone in the audience asked What can city people do?(para. 1) to which he responds Eat responsibly(para. 2). From here he speaks about how people as consumers have become, what he calls, passive consumers (para. 3), meaning that people have begun to stop asking simple questions of where our food truly comes from and what it has gone through.

Perales 2

Building on this idea he brings in the idea that we are actually no better than children waiting to get fed by our industrial mothers. Never seeing the parts of our food before they are all put together into food shaped items that taste just good enough to eat, and continue eating. Coming to the end of his paper he speaks of the necessary things one can do to get freedom of their food in numbered format. He closes his paper with a very simple poem by William Carlos Williams poem which Berry considers to be honest( para. 23) and ties together with his piece quite well. Berry hopes to build logos by initially stating fact-like information with no sufficient evidence of that these are facts. As Berry says this about how people have become passive consumers he states But as the scale increases, diversity declines; as diversity declines, so does health; as heath declines the dependence on drugs and chemicals necessarily increases. As capital replaces labor, it does so by substituting machines, drugs, and chemicals for human workers and for the natural health and fertility of the soil (para.11). It all sounds quite logical, but using this slippery slope idealism he is just telling long tales that when first read it makes the reader believe that this situation is dire. Although hoping to get the reader to understand his theory, upon further thought the claim seems to be a worst case, apocalyptic even, situation making the claim seem quite unbelievable and thus losing his standing. Berrys papers driving force is the emotional way he tries to convey his ideas. Much like a preacher telling the word of the lord, Berry comes off as though he is doing the same. Going on to say When food, in the minds of eaters, is no longer associated with farming and with the land, then the eaters are suffering a kind of cultural amnesia that is misleading and dangerous. (para.

Perales 3

5). This comes off more like a sermon than a serious article about how we need to worry about our food. Sometimes this kind of speech will keep readers engaged because it is similar to organized religion, but for the atheists and the intellectuals this will be a turn off. He then tries to help knock in the point of not conforming to this passiveness that the average American has come to know quite well by attaching it to American idealism of freedom. There is, then, a politics of food that, like any politics, involves our freedom. We still (sometimes) remember that we cannot be free if our minds and voices are controlled by someone else. But we have neglected to understand that we cannot be free if our food and its sources are controlled by someone else. The condition of the passive consumer of food is not a democratic condition. One reason to eat responsibly is to live free (Berry para. 7). This paragraph pulls back the American reader by instilling this feeling of fighting for our freedom, of food, mind you, and the reader is kept in the look of this authors ideas. He then makes the reader feel as though that being a consumer of this manufactured era of food is all controlled by big businesses by stating that: The food is produced by any means or any shortcuts that will increase profits and the business of the cosmeticians of advertising is to persuade the consumer that food so produced is good, tasty, healthful, and a guarantee of marital fidelity and long life (para. 11). This section is to disgust the reader with the ignorance of the average American. This makes a good point and helps to build upon the earlier statement for us to seek food freedom because it is democratic of us to do so. He keeps the reader engaged and enraged at this atrocity.

Perales 4

Continuing with this emotional rampage he moves on to a more heartbreaking aspect by saying that It would not do for the consumer to know that the hamburger she is eating came from a steer who spent much of his life standing deep in his own excrement in a feedlot, helping to pollute the local streams, or that the calf that yielded the veal cutlet on her plate spent its life in a box in which it did not have room to turn around (para. 9). This emotional statement gives his paper backing, looking to animals that have suffered to show that he cares for what is happening and that this is why the reader needs to do something to get this monstrosity to stop. By doing this it grabs any animal lover to stand by him and his notions. He tries to build his credibility in his topic by stating first that the he often gets asked the same question after a lecture on the decline of American farming and rural life (para. 1). This gives quite a bit of credibility to him knowing about agriculture in America. He then goes on to talk about how he himself buys food from actually farms where he knows what happens to his produce. Building on this he incorporates his ideas throughout his paper leading to the big section where using his own credibility he gives ideas to what the reader can do. Saying things like Only by growing some food for yourself can you become acquainted with the beautiful energy cycle that revolves from soil to seed to flower to fruit to food to offal to decay, and around again. And that You will appreciate it fully, having known it all its life. He then leads on to this idea that the reader needs to learn these steps.

Perales 5

Prepare your own food. Learn the origins of the food you buy, and buy the food that is produced closest to your home. Whenever possible, deal directly with a local farmer, gardener, or orchardist. Learn as much as you can of the economy and technology of industrial food production. Learn what is involved in the best farming and gardening.(para. 12-18) Building this information for the reader in a list gives easy guidelines for what the consumer can do to be more active. He goes on to say that he himself follows these ideas, thus creating a sense of equality. He makes it so he is not just preaching, but actually doing these things himself. It gives his paper a final push to create active consumers. Berry was not very effective in his paper The Pleasures of Eating. This was due to the fact that his paper did not have credible information regarding his facts, it was completely supported his strong emotional opinion, and his credibility alone. His logic was initially flawed because when he used facts they were never backed up by proven evidence or a reference to where he got it. This hurt his paper and he only used his own thoughts and perceptions on what the reader should do to improve the passive consumer. He did not effectively convince the heath considerate American that this was the best plan of action. Berry attempted to make his claim by logically stating fact-like information with no proof, emotionally driven words and ideals for humanity, as well as driving in credibility from his own experience. Although his paper is very empowered by his ideas, his biased opinions were prominently shown by his somewhat attacking tone. This led to his paper not quite coming up to par with what he had most likely hoped it to mean.