Choudhary 1

Saksham

Professor Shefali Rathore

English Honors

21st November, 2021

Critical issues in Feed by MT Anderson

M.T. Anderson’s Feed portrays a dystopian world in which the seemingly fixed epistemological
framework of what it means to be human is provokingly destabilized. Renegotiating the
boundary between humans and machines, citizens in Feed live with neural implants; these
installations in their brains redefine every aspect of their existence. Aligning with Anderson’s
vision of a “new” humanity, Katherine Hayles, in How We Became Post human, posits,
“technology has become so entwined with the production of identity that it can no longer
meaningfully be separated from the human subject” (xii). By using Hayles’s theory as a critical
template for reading Feed, the reader uncovers how the permeability of the human/machine
boundary results in an irreversibly new human subjectivity and social reality. Evidently, the
consumption of the old organic human form is not a one-way, parasitic endeavor of corporate
technology, but equally contributed to by humans: the novel depicts a vicious “feeding” cycle in
which humans are fed on by the corporate system, yet also feed on its commodities in return. In
this paper, I argue that upholding the post human subjectivity demands human interdependence
with technology for survival; humans in Feed reciprocate both the literal consumption of their
physical bodies and the metaphorical consumption of their mental thoughts and desires. As a
consequence of being so inextricably linked to technology, humans’ resistance to its bodily and
mental consumption is futile because in their attempt to destroy it, humans inevitably destroy
themselves. According to Leni Marlina in her essay Dystopian World and Young Adults in M. T.
Anderson’s Feed Science Fiction “The dystopia narrative functions to transform the ideologies of
life in the past to create utopian life in the future as described by Bradford, Mallan and Stephens:
The dystopian turn evident in their plots thus encodes not so much a rejection as a recognition of
 Choudhary 2

the past, so enjoining upon young readers a responsibility to transform the ideologies of the past
to cultivate for the future more utopian forms of political and material environments.”

At first glance, the relationship between the Feed and humans acquires a predatory nature: the
corporate technology spirals completely out of control, parasitically consuming bodies, minds,
histories, languages, cultures, and the silence of critical reflection, providing in their place an
overdose of commodities. The Feed may be read a simultaneous moneymaking machine and a
cannibal-like spirit, eating the citizens alive. The growth-enabling definition of “feed” becomes a
virulent paradox; characters in the novel are both physically and mentally infantilized as a result
of their never-ending purchases from the neural implant. Through the Feed, people are
permanently maintained as dependent on corporate feeding in order to operate. However, upon
nuanced inspection, Feed’s title also reveals the interdependency of humans and machines: since
the technology is infused into every aspect of individuals’ existences, both require each other to
survive. As much as the neural implants feed on human bodies, citizens similarly feed the
machine of capitalism and its treadmill of production through their purchases; thus, the human
and machine are no longer two mutually exclusive entities. Violet reveals this through her
cyclical accusation—she says to Titus’ friends, “You’re feed! You’re being eaten!” (Anderson
202); she later continues, “Look what you’ve made yourselves! […] A monster!” (202). Humans
are not only being eaten, but have also become cannibal monsters themselves. Depicting an
amalgam of the consumer and consumed, Feed details humans’ apocalyptic transcendence from
subject to subjected, from human to posthuman. Yet, who can resist against this reality and, in
doing so, survive? Academics Elizabeth Bullen and Elizabeth Parsons, upon investigating this
crucial question, conclude that Feed offers an answer: “no-one” (135). Clare Bardford in her
essay Everything Must Go!’: Consumerism and Reader Positioning in M. T. Anderson’s Feed
mentions that “I would argue that text that draws attention to the processes whereby societies
enforce conformity to socio-political norms can situate readers as subject who attain a degree of
critical distance from narratives and characters, a critical distance that enables critique.

Feed portrays the capitalist system at its most grotesque, as a gluttonous cannibal force that blurs
the boundary between what—or whom—is being consumed. Physical bodies are treated both by
corporations and by humans as malleable and disposable, portraying Hayles’ nightmarish vision
of “a culture inhabited by post humans who regard their bodies as fashion accessories rather than
 Choudhary 3

the ground of being” (5). Accordingly, not only do Titus and his friends compulsively purchase
the latest fashions, but they are also desensitized to the absurd availability of “places where you
could buy extra arms” (Anderson 8) and “tooth extensions” (Anderson 96). The body is treated
as a commodified object that can be easily modified, manipulated, and limitlessly reconstructed
to any extreme; through this consumption, Titus himself fuels the engine of capitalism, truly
embodying the expression “you are what you eat.” One of the epitomic examples of human
bodies’ interdependence with corporate technology is the evolution of teens’ perceptions of their
lesions. Initially, lesions are an omnipotent, apprehensive reminder of the consequences of the
society’s environmental degradation—a physical manifestation of the citizens’ unsafe living
conditions. Due to the complete negligence of safety regulations, bodies are literally eaten alive,
peoples’ lesions depicting an emblem of corporate devouring. This shows Feed-tech’s cannibal-
like desire to discard humans of their organic bodies, an imperative aspect of the individual
subjectivity, in order to transform them from subjects to objects. As the narrative progresses,
however, lesions are made into a fashion trend, first shown off by movie stars, then further
emulated by teens. In fact, multiple lesions are privileged over few, to the extent that teens
voluntarily pay for more of them; when Quendy shows up to a party, her entire body is
intentionally ornamented with artificial lesions: “her muscles and tendons and ligaments and
stuff” (Anderson 199) are seen through them. Instead of realizing the monstrosity behind this
self-mutilation, Titus’s friends comment that the lesions are “a good look”—even “sexy” (199).

In fact, the co-operation is so intricately entangled that resistance is futile: because humans and
technology have become inseparable, killing the technology inevitably kills the human. While it
does not offer a solution, Feed certainly provides food for thought. Masterfully orchestrating an
anxiety-inducing, inexpressibly discomforting space for its readers, the text forces us to reflect
on our own consumer based societies. Through the method of frightening readers into awareness,
the text illuminates an urgent call to action. Opening the door to critical thoughts and
conversations, the novel urges youth to ensure that the malevolent system in Feed does not
become a reality.
 Choudhary 4

Works Cited

Primary Source

Anderson, M. T. Feed. Somerville: Candlewick Press, 2002. Print.

Secondary Source

Bradford, Clare. Everything Must Go!’: Consumerism and Reader Positioning in M. T.

Anderson’s Feed.” Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 2.2 (2010): 128-137. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 9 August 2015

Marlina Leni. Dystopian World and Young Adults in M. T. Anderson’s Feed Science Fiction.
Volume 19, Issue 1, Ver. VII (Jan. 2014), PP 67-73.