When people are born, they enter into a foreign world with a terrifying number of ideals, traditions, methods, and ways of thinking and acting. These ideals, which have formed and evolved due to thousands of years of societal evolution, are engrained within a person’s mind, integrating them into a way of thinking and living with other people. These ideas, when first introduced, are rarely questioned; things are they way they are because things have always been that way, and because of this, they are rarely questioned. However, once a certain age is reached, the conscious mind develops, and people are capable of thinking and acting for themselves, rather than the ways they are taught. This induces questioning of ideas and traditions once thought to be normal and insignificant. Upon questioning, certain ideals seem less normal than they once were. Sometimes, these ideals seem strange or pointless, while other times they may appear to be outright immoral or inhumane. This concept is explored by the American author David Foster Wallace, who explores the concept of cooking lobster in American culture. Though seemingly insignificant, Wallace explores the topic in great depth, bringing up points on the subject that are rarely questioned or even given thought. Other American authors, such as Jessica Mitford and Michael Pollan, have done something similar, questioning American ways of disposing of dead and the healthiness and ethics of the fast food industry, respectively. Though their methods differ, all these authors question ideals and traditions in American society that, although normalized, may not be as normal as previously thought. By questioning these ingrained and normalized traditions, new revelations and truths can be revealed that change perspectives, and ultimately revolutionize how topics are thought of.
In David Foster Wallace’s essay Consider the Lobster, he explores the novel method of preparing lobster for meals. He inquires about the nature of cooking lobster, asking questions such as “whether and how different kinds of animals feel pain, and of whether and why it might be justifiable to inflict pain on them in order to eat them” (Wallace 505). This is a highly complicated question, which has different answers for different applications and, ultimately, is unanswerable in most contexts due to limitations in communication and research. Though asking this questions about a lobster, a seemingly mentally numb oversized sea insect, seems pointless, the ambiguity on the topic opens it up for further questioning. This questioning can also be applied to different animals, most of which would require large amount of research using different methods to obtain a concrete answer. The overall point of this questioning isn’t to obtain answers; it is to point out the ambiguity on many topics people have already made decisions on, and open up their thinking to the fact that there may be un-obtained evidence that could sway the argument. Wallace is also capable of pointing out the same piece of evidence can be used to support different arguments. For example, Wallace reveals that lobsters, while having pain receptors, do not “appear to have the equipment for making or absorbing natural opioids like endorphins and enkephalins, which is what more advanced nervous systems use to try to handle intense pain” (Wallace 508). Using this evidence, Wallace presents a sort of dichotomy; either the animal isn’t capable of numbing intense pain, or the animal does not need these receptors because it doesn’t feel intense pain. By using this method of questioning, and developing multiple answers, Wallace is able to expose much more on a topic than someone with a set opinion or agenda. Not only this, but he presents further questions that need answering to develop a reasonable conclusion. This greatly increases the perspective on a topic, rather than giving a narrow minded answer based on incomplete evidence. Wallace’s methods of questioning are obviously applicable to more than just lobsters; questions such as these can be asked on a wide variety of topics, from the seemingly insignificant to ones with major implications on many facets of life. Overall, the point of this style of questioning is to broaden perspectives and allow for a real understanding of topics to occur.
In Jessica Mitford’s essay, many grim and gruesome facts on an already depressing and emotionally stressful topic are investigated and revealed. She writes about the funeral industry in North America, mainly the practice of embalming dead. Using wit and satire, she effectively cuts away at the integrity and morality of the funeral home business, including the high costs, hidden fees, and the procedure itself. In respect to the cost, Mitford cites a source in the funeral industry, which claims that “while the process of embalming takes only about three hours, it would be necessary for one man to work two forty hour weeks to complete a funeral service. This is coupled with an additional forty hours of service required by members of other local allied professions, including work of the cemeteries, newspaper, and, of course, the most important of all, the service of your clergyman”(Mitford 42). Mitford questions this claim, exposing first the fact that the most “important service of all”, that of the clergyman, isn’t something paid for by the funeral industry. She goes on to try and answer where all these mysterious man-hours come from, and determines much of it is from bookkeeping, as well as idle time, waiting for many of the embalming processes to occur. Since the funeral industry is something normalized and rarely questioned by society (given the discomfort supplied by disposal of the dead), most wouldn’t know of these falsified man hours being produced. However by asking these questions, Mitford is able to expose the untruthful and immoral claims made by the funeral industry. Mitford goes on to explore in great depth the process of embalming and how it occurs. Since the topic of death is something that has been pushed to the fringes of societal thoughts due to the associated discomfort, most people are “blissfully ignorant of what is all about, what is done, and how it is done. Not one in ten-thousand has any idea of what takes place. Books on the subject are extremely hard to come by. You will not find them in your neighborhood bookshop or library”(Mitford 44). Mitford wonders why, other than the associated discomfort, would information be so hard to come by? Besides, gruesome medical procedures and general gore has become quite realistic and popular on television. By exploring the gruesome process and exposing how it works, Mitford allows the reader to ask why this process is even important, to which they will likely think to no avail. This is similar to strategies employed by Wallace, asking many questions about a normalized industry in an attempt to reveal unseen information and sway opinions. By questioning this shady industry, and asking why these conditions have been made and normalized, Mitford is able to expose the abnormal and immoral practices happening just out of sight in an industry many believe they can trust.
Im Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, he investigates the history of food in America. In chapter seven of his book, The Meal, he sets his focus on McDonald’s, a well established, highly popular American fast food restaurant. Mainly, he investigates the history, as well as the integrity of the food being served. Because the food looks normal, not many people wondered what might be inside it. However, upon further examination, the chicken nuggets were found to have a wide variety of preserving and other chemicals, including “TBHQ, an antioxidant derived from petroleum that is either sprayed directly on the nugget or on the inside of the box it comes in to help preserve freshness… It can comprise no more than 0.02 percent of the oil in a nugget” because, “ingesting a single gram of TBHQ can cause nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse”(Pollan 113-114). There are also chemicals that are known mutagens and tumorigenic chemicals, which are, for obvious reasons, not healthy to be consuming. With millions of people eating this food, it is important to know what it is comprised of to ensure it is safe. By asking the necessary questions and getting answers, Pollan reveals many troubling and shocking facts on this industry, allowing people to make educated opinions on a topic they once knew very little about. Pollan investigates more than just the added chemical preservatives; he also investigates the main source of all this food, corn. Corn is used as feed for many animals, especially those used by McDonald’s, and corn product, such as sweeteners and thickeners, make up a surprising amount of what is consumed. By using evidence based on carbon isotopes from corn, Pollan is able to elaborate that, based on proportions “this is how the laboratory measured [his] meal; soda (100 percent corn), milk shake (78 percent), salad dressing (65 percent), chicken nuggets (56 percent), cheeseburger (52 percent) and French fries (23 percent)” (Pollan 117). By viewing with the naked eye, it appears as though there is no corn present in the food he is eating. None of it contains any kernels, or anything else that looks like corn. However, upon further investigation, a staggering amount of corn and corn products are found in his meal, contributing to the overall unhealthiness of what is being eaten. This high level of inquiry, much like that Wallace used, is able to develop a concrete and sound answer on the healthiness of the fast food industry, specifically McDonald’s.
There are some differences between the goals and methods used in Wallace’s, Mitford’s, and Pollan’s writings. All of them ask questions, but none match up to the number and diversity of questions asked by Wallace. This is because Wallace is trying to widen perspectives on an issue by giving mass sums of evidence, answering questions from both sides, rather than Mitford and Pollan, who strive to support a certain opinion and back it up. I believe this gives Wallace’s essay more integrity, due to its lack of bias; without having to support a specific side, Wallace is able to ask more questions, and therefore, paints a better picture of the issue being discussed than the other two authors. Unlike Wallace, Mitford and Pollan don’t discuss the hypotheticals, such as the branching effects, both positive and negative, of making changes on our ways of processing both the dead and fast food. For example, would reducing profits for the funeral industry make it more difficult for them to perform their duties? Would they no longer be able to maintain their ability to be within two hours of travel for every person in America? Would fast food prices increase without using the added preservatives, making it more difficult to provide people with food and jobs? By doing this, they make their points stronger, but still provide a somewhat narrow-minded perspective to these issues. This makes Wallace’s way of thinking and asking questions seem superior, as it asks all the questions necessary to make changes accordingly with minimal consequences.
To ask questions is something that’s ingrained in human nature; people have always asked why, and will sometimes go through hell to find the answer. Wallace, Mitford, and Pollan all questioned traditions in American culture, exposing unpleasant facts and powerful evidence to support their points of view. By asking the right questions, human society has been able to evolve with tremendous speed, and adapt skillfully to new conditions. Many traditions and ways of living are introduced throughout history, and by questioning these ideas and traditions, human civilization has been able to evolve and improve.
Works Cited
Wallace, David. “Consider the Lobster.” Little Brown and Company, 2005
Mitford, Jessica. “The American Way of Death Revisited.” Vintage Books, 2000
Pollan, Michael. “The Meal.” The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals.
Penguin, 2007.
