"What If I Don’t Like Beans?”
Bean Soup Theory, Whataboutism, and Anti-Intellectualism on TikTok
Introduction
“Bean Soup Theory” is a phenomenon on social media where, due to the fact that algorithms often feed new and only tangentially related content to users, viewers are served content that is not directly related to them and comment, stitch, or otherwise critique the video’s lack of personal connection. Starting on TikTok, Bean Soup Theory (colloquially “bean souping”) came from a video of a woman sharing the recipe for a dense bean soup that is high in iron that she eats while on her period. The comments on that video included some to the effect of “What if I don’t like beans?” The internet, as it does, tore into these comments, centering on the idea that it’s “not all about you.” Because of the way that social media functions, the flood of comments critiquing the self-centeredness of others feeds the algorithm, which pushes the video out to more people for more engagement, over and over again until the video’s relativity fizzles out.
The original “Bean Soup” video opened a much broader conversation on “whataboutism” and the individualism that social media both highlights and exacerbates. It also provided language for a very specific version of whataboutism that is unique to social media and nonpolitical discourse across the internet. Whataboutism, in its general usage, is a way to shift a conversation about one population or public person to another. For example, when talking about the first Trump administration’s care (or lack thereof) of undocumented immigrants, supporters would argue that the Obama administration also separated families and deported them. This kind of argumentative rhetoric shifts the conversation laterally rather than progressively (as seen in “moving the goalposts”-style arguments), prompting comparison rather than evolution.
In Bean Soup Theory, this lateral shift is a reflection of the messaging change from an audience at large (girls with anemia, in this case) to a single person outside of the intended demographic (a person who doesn’t like beans), rather than the intention of influencer-based social media, which focuses on projecting the personal experience (being a menstruating woman who is also anemic) to a broader audience of people who fit one or more of those categories (women, menstruating, iron-deficient, or anemic).
Bean Soup Theory is a phenomenon that materializes as a symptom of whataboutism and anti-intellectualism. Because of this, ideological rhetorical analysis is the most effective rhetorical method through which to explore this conversation.
Ideological rhetoric examines how rhetoric operates within and constructs cultural and ideological contexts, moving beyond texts to include the analysis of everyday communication practices. This approach is particularly suited to analyzing digital discourse like TikTok, where user-generated content shapes cultural norms and power relations.
Through ideological rhetorical analysis, Bean Soup Theory becomes a symptom of how digital platforms naturalize individualism and close consumers into echo chambers. The analysis shows three levels of anti-intellectualism that start with Bean Soup Theory as a surface phenomenon, grow to whataboutism as a tactical derailment, and bloom into anti-intellectualism as the foundational ideology: “If it doesn’t apply to me, it should; and if it shouldn’t, then it has no value.”
The underlying social current is that these stacked phenomena systematically undermine collective knowledge-building, decrease consumers’ ability to appreciate knowledge and culture beyond their own, break down efforts to build community through teaching others, and find one’s “village.” This ultimately serves the highest levels of influential power by shifting conversations laterally into whataboutism and undermining experts and counter-discourse.
This phenomenological stack is particularly telling of American culture and its cultural relation to power. In America, the push toward conservative hyper-individualism has created a culture of tribe-seeking behavior that has really taken root in social media and political discourse. People say outlandish or controversial things in order to clearly identify those who align with a specific set of values, beliefs, or opinions. This behavior has a two-fold effect: it creates in-groups and out-groups inside of pre-existing cultural clusters (for example, the infighting between liberals and leftists in progressive political spaces), and it purposefully removes people from cultural narratives.
Because human beings create meaning in relation to each other, the removal of people from cultural narratives creates the environment that results in Bean Soup Theory, where those in the out-group seek common experience with those in the in-group in hopes of being included. With the quasi-proximity created by social media, the urge to be a part of the in-group (like a viral trend or hot topic of conversation) is compounded, and users begin seeking alignment with everyone, everywhere, all the time; thus, Bean Soup Theory shows up in traditionally uncontroversial spaces (like recipes for menstruating women who have anemia).
The power structure here becomes one where members of the out-group insert themselves into discourse that is centered around not including specific people. American politics is particularly rife with this. The debate around the 0.2% of transgender youth in sports is just one example of how Bean Soup Theory, and the broader whataboutism, show up in partisan discourse. Families all across the country are having heated debates over transgender children playing sports (girls’ sports, specifically), even when there are no transgender children in their area playing sports and the impacts of laws around transgender children playing sports would have no effect on them whatsoever. By targeting and debating a minute portion of the population, out-group conservatives force themselves into the in-group to be a part of the conversation.
Anti-intellectualism, the grounding narrative in this cultural phenomenon, rears its head in this struggle for power by making everyone an “expert.” The rise of “just Google it” has created an environment where those who have the lived experience or academic background to speak as an expert on a subject are put on a level playing field with those who don’t. Additionally, for those who don’t have post-secondary education, the understanding of how learning institutions function and produce scholars is foreign; therefore, “if it doesn’t apply to me, it should; and if it shouldn’t, it has no value” means that the education gained from post-secondary education has no value. This is particularly true of those who believe that formal education is a propaganda and indoctrination machine. Those with degrees are seen as a product of a university and, therefore, a product of the state, and would not know or dispense knowledge that is true and real.
Broader Implications
As a symptom of the broader experiences of whataboutism and anti-intellectualism, Bean Soup Theory stands out because of the nature by which people experience this in many different contexts. BST is not just a reflection of the shifting desire for content curated based on personal preference, but also the larger shift in conversation and social structure toward a hyper-individualistic life experience in which information that is not directly relevant to the person consuming it rejects the premise or otherwise seeks to have the information presented in a directly relevant way.
This phenomenon demonstrates one of the on-ramps to anti-intellectualism through the experience of misalignment between what is presented and the anecdotal experience of the consumer. On TikTok specifically, and other algorithm-curated social media, the focus on a “For You Page” (FYP) has become a hallmark of this consumer-centric attitude. This drives a decrease in unrelated content that is presented to the consumer and creates echo chambers that double down on the idea that posted content is “meant to be made for the consumer.”
Any content that falls outside of the consumer’s natural digital habitat can be met with cognitive dissonance, confusion, and/or a desire to become part of the target audience. Part of the problem created by Bean Souping content is that if there is no way to level with the cognitive dissonance, if there is not enough content in the video to explain away a consumer’s confusion, or if there is no way that a consumer can become part of the target audience, then the content is considered to be “not that deep,” “wrong,” or unimportant. This gets doubled down on by engagement-driven algorithms that have the sole purpose of pushing forward content that resonates with the consumer.
Because of how the internet works and the quasi-proximity between people on social media, each piece of content can be (and often is) seen through a lens of friends talking to friends. This means that all content is seen as directed at the specific person consuming it. The reality is that content is made from the poster’s interior experience and posted in an effort to build community around shared experience rather than adapt the poster’s experience to meet the needs of the consumer. Part of what happens with BST is that conversations around politics, culture, and ethics can be hijacked by attempts to derail good-faith conversations with whataboutism. Consumers who are not part of the target audience feel limited in relation to people who have quasi-proximity to them, and it creates an atmosphere of “othering.”
The other part of what happens is a rejection of the content by the consumer. While the anti-intellectualism conversation on TikTok is mostly centered in the #BookTok community and the discussion of leisure books vs. educational materials, it is creeping into contiguous communities of education, philosophy, contemporary culture, and science. Bean Soup Theory, in this context, encourages consumers to disengage from content that is beyond their education level, presented in ways they don’t understand, or discussed by creators who don’t fit the consumer’s mental image of a subject-matter expert. There has been a rise in frustration from academic creators who are being dismissed by consumers who assume that they aren’t experts on the matters they’re discussing, even when the creator holds one or more degrees on the discussion topic.
There are tensions around the use of Bean Souping as a phenomenon, particularly when it comes to the intersectionality of individuals. Because Bean Soup Theory is a non-academic theory, there is only a loose definition of what qualifies as Bean Souping and what doesn’t. Bean Souping can also be applied with the same kinds of racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, etc. tactics that can befall other social phenomena, like the colloquial use of phrases such as “gaslighting,” “fascism,” “leftist,” and “anti-intellectualism.” There are also discussions around whether asking to be included in conversations about politics or culture, or making the discussion accessible to those with disabilities or who have experienced systemic oppression, are or are not versions of Bean Souping.
Conclusion
Bean Soup Theory, seen through the lens of ideological analysis, is more than just a quirky internet trend or joke (although there are many instances of it being used as a sarcastic joke). Bean Soup Theory is a surface-level manifestation of the much deeper trend of anti-intellectualism and hyper-individualism. These are two key pieces of leverage in the way that influential power over masses is used: do for yourself and the people in your tribe, and deny anything that doesn’t fit your reality. The beginning stages of this are the challenging of new knowledge when it doesn’t apply to you.
