Over at Common Dreams, Kevin Mattson posted an essay entitled “What The Jungle Tells Us Today.” Mattson asserts that Upton Sinclair’s goal in writing “The Jungle,” which exposed unsanitary conditions and unsafe practices (for bother workers and consumers) in the meatpacking industry was to provoke public reactions which would lead to federal oversight and other governmental intervention. Sinclair succeeded in part, but not to nearly the degree he had expected, which caused him to withdraw from the political scene, and focus on private dietary regimes that would lead to better health for himself. Mattson also notes that two recent exposes of the food industry, Eric Schlosser’s book “Fast Food Nation” and Morgan Spurlock’s documentary “Supersize Me” seemed to resonate with their audiences largely because of the personal implications of the material for readers and viewers. For example, people who were deeply affected by Fast Food Nation were far more likely to evaluate and maybe change their eating habits, rather than to lobby for better labor conditions for immigrant workers employed in slaughterhouses. Mattson’s larger point is that people, particularly those on the left, seem to be overly focused on “lifestyle politics,” and inadequately inclined to pursue wider public solutions to social problems surrounding food production and distribution. Mattson’s essay concludes:
This penchant for lifestyle politics brings me back to the way I’d suggest we remember The Jungle today. Sinclair’s disappointment in the Meat Inspection Act and his search for”perfect health”symbolizes a dangerous legacy for today’s left. We would do well to remember today that there are problems – even the most personal problems of eating – that require wider public solutions. The Jungle doesn’t offer any concrete policies about regulating the food industry that can be adopted today (after all, it IS 100 years old). But it does suggest a frame of mind that is much needed to improve the way we talk about politics as a whole. Remembering that would be a good way to remember the most important legacy of the novel.
This essay made me think again about that recent Applebaum article in the WaPo, in which she accused “feminists” (and strawfeminists at that, since she didn’t ground her critique in any substantive analysis) of causing “cartoonish conversations” because they write about themselves, but then turn their personal observations “into a party platform or a tax policy.” Applebaum asserted that such literary undertakings are “of…questionable legitimacy and usefulness.” Mattson’s essay offers a powerful rebuttal to Applebaum’s criticisms. Advocates need to channel their knowledge and experience in ways that can lead to public conversations about social problems, and if “feminists” are attempting this, they should be lauded and encouraged, rather than mocked and superciliously dismissed.
–Ann Bartow
