You Are What You Eat Analysis

A Critique of Jill Dubisch’s You Are What You Eat Before reading Jill Dubisch’s article You Are What You Eat, I had many presumptions regarding how Dubisch would connect the health food movement to Geertz and his definition of religion. When thinking about the supposed “premise” of religion, I had always believed the vague and obscure definition that religion is a set of beliefs and practices that center around a divine force. Because of my ignorance regarding religion, my views were incredulous concerning Dubisch and her claim of connecting the food movement to Geertz’s definition. After delving into the works of Dubisch and Geertz, I came to the conclusion that while Dubisch had displayed a logical connection with food in relation to
Since Geertz uses the word ‘general’ to describe order of existence and didn’t actually specify certain orders, Dubisch unknowingly explained what she believed to be orders in the health food movement, and did not take into account what others may see or believe. Dubisch goes into great depth on the consciousness of health, healthy eating, and illness in the health food movement as an order of existence, describing the impacts it has on the body physically and spiritually. She also spoke of media and its impact on society. The media, or powerful force, influences the thoughts of people, wanting them to change their attitude about certain practices and form new beliefs based on a preferred lifestyle, or order. These proposed orders, to which I believe Dubisch intended to be, guide people to make the right choices and persuade people to change their lifestyles to be healthier. Dubisch does an adequate job of connecting these views to Geertz’s definition of religion and his claim of there being an order of existence which drives people to believe and follow certain morals and ideologies. Although she does a great job of connecting the two, her views of the health food movement and religion are dependent on Geertz’s model, to which I feel has caused logical
I believe that it is senseless to try and create a universal definition for religion, as it is something that cannot be clearly defined. Every being has their own belief or practice and it is impossible to create a complete interpretation to which everyone’s beliefs will adhere to. It is also absurd to create a definition for something so individualized without having a bias, to which Geertz unknowingly applies and creates another defect in his claim. Culture will always have a connection with religion or thought and people will always associate different beliefs or practices with the word. Religion should be a term to think about and analyze, but not to define. Because Dubisch relies so heavily on Geertz’s definition and says that the health food movement resembles that of a religion, it is therefore impossible for Dubisch to prove that the movement has any religious qualities because Geertz’s definition is too