Food Inc Sociology

1463 Words3 Pages

Have you ever eaten a meal consisting of products that you do not know where they came from? If you answered no, think again. Food Inc. illustrates the process that food goes through when being produced and manufactured. More specifically, it allows us to have a sneak peak from what multinational companies are deliberately hiding from us. As some find these processes troubling already, this paper consist of what three theorists would think about it. Karl Marx will be the first to be addressed, continued by Emile Durkheim, and finalizing with Max Weber. Their concepts and main ideas will be represented by examples depicted throughout the film.
Karl Marx
Karl Marx would argue that Capitalism influences on the way food is produced in America …show more content…

Monahan Lang explains, “as long as the dominant ideology remains dominant, workers will have a false consciousness… not seeing oneself as a member of the group that is exploited” (Lecture). As exemplified by Vincent Edwards, a Tyson grower, “they [Tyson] got it all figured out. If you could grow a chicken in 49 days, why would you want one you gotta grow in three months? It’s more money in your pocket” (Food Inc.). Hence, Marx would find problematic that the growers are not able to recognize that the companies are maximizing their profits, while they become more indebted. Also, the lack of awareness from growers when altering animals in the production process might seem problematic to Marx. Perhaps growers are not mindful about these processes because they do not feel fulfilled by their job – they have become human ‘machines’ due to the repetitiveness within the …show more content…

Caroline, the Perdue grower, would represent egoism since she agreed to film the actual process that the chickens she raised were going through. Besides, she was reluctant to upgrade her poultry house to a dark, tunneled-ventilated house although she knew this risked Perdue terminating the contract with her. Contrary to her, Vincent Edwards, the Tyson grower, would represent altruism since the company’s decision on filming inside the poultry house became more important than his. He did not allow the film producers to film inside his poultry houses as mandated by Tyson

Open Document