studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Warwick, United Kingdom. She writes for Philonomist.
Picture © Cyril Druesne
Pastries, chocolate, biscuits, fruits… Everyone munches on something in the office. Unlike meals, these untimely snacks don’t always answer a hunger pang. But they do help pass the time, console, or stave off an existential void… Let’s take a closer look at the real reasons why we never stop munching.
We all know the sound: that crackling and popping of a plastic wrapper which instantly makes us salivate; and more arousing still, the sight of shiny packaging being torn open, exposing a bar of chocolate in all its delicious nudity. If snacking is a sin, we’re all guilty. According to an Ifop survey for Lavazza in 2019, one in two employees is tempted to indulge at work. Remote work doesn’t help: employees snack 8% more and eat 22% more chocolate on average when working from home, according to another survey by Crédoc for Danone, conducted among the latter’s employees. What could be the purpose of all this munching? Here are five philosophical explanations to consider.
1. Crisps vs. frustration
What a mess these archives are! And what a botched job they made of this report! Feeling discouraged? Grab a croissant. Frustrated? Quick, a chocolate snack! Sometimes munchies are triggered by feelings of anger or helplessness; they become a form of procrastination disguised as a much-needed break, after which we think we’ll come back revamped and ready to get back to work. When I’m faced with a tricky problem, I get up and stomp over to the kitchen. When I chomp down on a packet of crisps, I’m just shifting my anger onto another object – and discharging my destructive impulse. When I feel stuck, immobilised by a difficulty, I deviate all the energy I can’t bring to fruition elsewhere. But sadly, pleasing the palate does little to resolve the problems of the mind, and sometimes it even increases one’s feeling of helplessness, as well as all the guilt that goes with it.
‘From the helplessness we feel in a tricky situation stems a destructive impulse’
These voracious impulses can be interpreted in light of Freud’s theory of impulses. A sexual impulse, he explains, has “the capacity to exchange the sexual aim with another which is no longer sexual,” all “without losing much of its intensity.” (“‘Civilized’ Sexual Morality and Modern Nervous Illness”, 1908). For Freud, abstinence is therefore an inestimable source of productivity: “The [sublimated] sexual impulse places quantities of extraordinarily large forces at the disposal of cultural work.” The same idea could be applied to the munching impulse: from the helplessness we feel in a tricky situation stems a destructive impulse which we can satisfy by destroying a chocolate eclair… or we can sublimate it to spend this energy and strength trying to resolve the initial frustration – and take on this chaotic archive or that badly…
Subscribe to Philonomist and gain free access to all our content and archives for 7 days. You'll also receive our weekly newsletter. No commitment. No bank details required.
You're already subscribed to Philonomist via your employer?
Connect to your account by filling in the following details (please provide your professional email address).
