Bennet references Nietzsche and his idea of edible objects (in this example, beer) “as a contributing source” but also “as part of a diet consisting also of German “newspapers, politics, … and Wagnerian music” to the cultural state of Bismarck controlled Germany at the time. Do you agree with this intermixing of edible and non-edible objects? Can all objects a human is subject to be considered edible as they’re ‘digested’ to form these types of societal diets?
ENGL 365 | Medieval Object Ecologies
Dr. Myra Seaman | Fall 2014
In the case of Nietzsche it seems that the material and cultural surroundings combined with the food creates a sort of assemblage whose agency has great influence on the experience of eating. Nietzsche believes that the historical placement of the soul and other immaterial things above material things like “nutrition, place, climate” is a mistake. What has been thought of as the soul (i.e. perception, belief, and memory) is not, in Nietzsche’s opinion, separate from the material body. In this way edible material et cetera have great influence on an individual’s experience of phenomena. The specific assemblage of beer “newspapers, politics,… and Wagnerian music” is credited with the power of engendering anti-Semitism in the person experiencing these phenomena. I agree that these elements definitely strengthened hatred, but the beer part of the ensemble seems odd to me. I do however agree that the food-person-sound-nation assemblage has significant power in agency.