Natural therapy and the moralization of food – Nursing Clio

Guilt-free: natural remedies and the moralization of food

Zack Seton

American consumers who are concerned about their appearance while trying to maintain the latest fad diet are turning to protein bars, sugar-free cookies, and low-carbohydrate breads to curb poverty-induced cravings. We often try to fulfill it. As you scan the health food section of your supermarket, you’ll notice brownies, potato chips, and other products that are usually off-limits when you’re on a diet. However, these treats are labeled as “all-natural” and “clean.” Consumers quickly realize that these snacks are acceptable in their diets, unlike the snack aisle and its dirty processed products. However, in reality, these terms have no regulatory definition, so no organization can guarantee that these cookies are truly completely natural or clean. These labels are essentially useless because they don’t tell you anything about the nutritional value or ingredients of the product. So why is it effective to describe cookies as “natural”? Are those “pretty” donuts different from other donuts? In a sense, these advertising devices derive from our culture’s obsession with “natural” healing and the moral attributions we attach to food. Our imaginations about diet, health, and personal agency have been shaped by decades of implicit and explicit social conditioning, perhaps beginning with the advent of natural remedies near the beginning of the 20th century. Ta.

Naturopathy was a form of alternative medicine that emphasized living according to the “laws of nature.”^[1] Naturopathy, founded by Benedict Rast in 1902, proposed that the body could be healed by natural means without the use of pharmaceuticals. Naturopathic philosophy subscribes to the belief in the unity of disease, in which a single cause of disease manifests itself as a variety of illnesses, and that the body can heal itself if the patient maintains sufficient healthy habits. and thereby held them responsible for their well-being. The patient. Henry Rindler, one of the early proponents of naturopathy, explained that in contrast to mainstream American medicine, naturopathy is a preventive form of medicine, “preventing disease rather than treating it.” “It is more advantageous to do so.”^[2] In this vein, naturopaths emphasize the need for “natural” nutritious foods, advocate balanced diets, and argue that fad diets are overly restrictive and nutritionally deficient. I criticized it.^[3] As president of the American Naturopathic Association, Rust emphasized the value of living a healthy lifestyle rather than just taking care of your body when problems arise.^[4] Naturopathy took a relatively holistic approach to health. In addition to practices that support physical health, naturopathic Christian leaders also emphasized self-regulation and “positive spiritual health.”^[5] Habits like eliminating waste, eating nutritious food, and building a positive mental state are claimed to increase “vitality,” a term naturopaths use to describe overall well-being. . Evacuation was so integral to the framework of natural therapy that vendors in the early 1900s sold “internal baths” claiming that their products “helped nature, not forced it.”^[6] It was certainly “the most interesting way” as the same article states.

Critics probably agreed that natural remedies were “interesting.” 1914 new york times The headline described this “vaguely defined healing technique” as simply a “healing cult.”^[7] This skepticism painted naturopathy as an ineffective and unsafe form of medicine.^[8] It was “too complex and too simple”.^[9] Critics argued that naturopathy lacked structures and principles that truly distinguished it from mainstream medicine at the time. They believe that naturopathy simply recycles outdated practices and beliefs that mainstream doctors relied on centuries ago, and that they vaguely distinguish between natural and unnatural treatments such as herbs and physical therapy. He claimed to be separated. For mainstream practitioners, the name naturopathy was misleading, as nature is essential in some way to all forms of healing. Even the medicines that naturopaths denounced were in a sense natural because they were simply substances that naturally existed in isolation.^[10] Naturopathy as an exercise died out in the 1950s when the spiritual emphasis collapsed, but some of its philosophical remnants persisted and perhaps strengthened over time.

Naturopathy was a turning point in the way Americans understood their health and solidified many of their previous beliefs about the need for a “natural” lifestyle.He is one of the most important, if not of The most important development from naturopathy has been the emphasis on self-control and personal agency in personal health outcomes. Historian Susan Caleff says that because of the simplicity and emphasis on behaviors that were key to health, “responsibility for health ultimately rested with each individual.”^[11] Prescriptions of moderation, discipline, and diligence imply a degree of personal failure and inadequacy if a person falls ill. Lindler went so far as to refer to not taking precautions against the disease as “taking permission.”[ing] People get sick. ”^[12] While this view may have been rational based on a belief in the unity of disease, it persists even in modern times, and the undisciplined consumption of “dirty” foods is not only harmful to health; This led to the idea that it also undermines moral character.

As the wellness movement gained momentum in the 1950s, some of the ideological parts of naturopathy persisted and acquired additional meaning. Health has become confused with appearance, and a more toned or “toned” body is automatically considered healthy. As a result, physical appearance became a salient indicator of morality and a person’s level of self-control, as natural medicine, which emphasized controllable habits, linked health to morality. Traditionally, the Eurocentric “fit” look has come to mean not only health but also virtue. Today, these beliefs can be found in the areas of self-care and diet as well. Almost any perceived physical flaw, such as skin blemishes, stigmatized body size, or lack of muscle tone, can be treated and corrected. But obviously everything is curable, so the fact that the defect persists could mean that the person was too lazy, undisciplined, or simply morally inferior to fix it. Any physical defect or disease is considered a moral stain on a person’s personality. Not only are these beliefs clearly misguided, they destroy our self-concept and understanding of health and wellness. These ignore the important role our environment and genetics play in determining health outcomes, and if we don’t correct and prevent problems related to health and appearance, it will ruin our well-being. Not only that, but it also suggests that it ruins our personality.

Today, food may be the area where we most clearly make moral attributions related to health choices. Shelves are lined with foods labeled “clean” and “guilt-free,” implying that the alternatives are “dirty” and “sinful.” Eating “dirty” food suggests a lack of discipline and self-control, and to some degree immorality.^[13] Moral evaluation of foods is further seen in the marketing of “all natural” or “all ingredient” products. Because Americans have historically perceived natural foods to be healthier than unnatural foods, natural foods are seen as better and their choices hold higher moral values. It’s possible. These attributions and underlying moral meanings of food and health in American culture foster a dysfunctional and destructive cultural endorsement of food culture, fatphobia, and excitement. Beyond the common pain, embarrassment, and frustration that we all feel about these concepts, these norms manifest themselves pathologically. Orthorexia, like other eating disorders and body image disorders, is exacerbated by this toxic and illogical cultural norm. Ironically, while naturopathy criticized the Eurocentric dietary culture that continues to permeate American discourse, it also philosophically emphasized individual responsibility and divided good “natural” foods from bad processed foods. Differentiation ultimately perpetuated the era of fad diets.^[14]

Food ads have become silly and nonsensical, but they reveal our cultural understanding of health. Marketing foods using terms such as “clean,” “pure,” and “sinfully delicious” reflects the idea of ​​“good” and “bad” foods and the need to make the “right” choices. Emphasize. But what these phrases are actually promoting is an unhealthy relationship with food and feelings of inadequacy when you make the “wrong” choices. The conflation of morality with diet confuses the nation and makes our society vulnerable to the subliminal messages of food manufacturers and diet industry vultures, leaving your poor mother in the cereal aisle. I’m confused and having a nervous breakdown, but I’m trying to make “”. She was a good choice for her child. ”