Veganishm

[Second Summer]

Is there a case for a different, more flexible attitude to products that are not completely vegan?

From the "HRC report: 70% of vegans stop being vegan." thread:

Many activists feel that vegan orthorexia and dogmatism have negatively impacted the struggle for animal rights/welfare. In fact, the mainstream AR/AW movement has increasingly used "veg" or vegetarian in place of vegan due to this perception. And it's not just mainstream AR/AW groups that are unhappy with the vegan community -- even the ALF has published critiques of vegan dogmatism.

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that vegans, as a group, don't care about animal rights/welfare issues but rather than veganism as an ideology can distract from them. I think veganism can be a distraction because its an extreme position and isn't rooted in any particular legal, ethical, etc theory that can be used to motivate animal rights/welfare issues.....yet it tends to get most of the attention.

If so, is "veganishm" a good name for this philosophy? Or, is the better approach to "reform" veganism?

Personally, I take the stand that there is a healthy difference between theory and practice. The requirements for what defines a vegan product are fairly clearly defined. On the other hand, the requirement for what defines a vegan person are much less clear. A vegan person may for various reasons not use exclusively vegan products 100.000% of the time.

 

[Blobbenstein]

veganishm

yesh, i shthink jat ish a good idea! hic!

 

[Blobbenstein]

what about 'vegetablist'?
>97.32%vegan

 

[Blobbenstein]

if there was a term for 98% vegan, then the 2% could include meat, so it may not be that helpful at some points to identify with that, if one doesn't want to be served meat.

 

[Scorpius]

I personally hold the belief that its impossible to be '100% vegan', unless maybe you live in a bubble and eat bananas all day. But then, the bubble was probably made out of plastics that used petroleum! AND there could have been insects injured while harvesting the bananas and, and, and . . .

You get my point. You really have to strive for progress, not perfection with veganism. Unfortunately for some, their dogma eats their karma and you get the problems that were mentioned in the first quoted posts.

 

[Tom L.]

I just posted this in the Vegan Form, then saw this thread and figured it belongs here. I moved my post.

prioritarian said: ↑
.... The Humane Research Council recently published a study of ~10,000 respondents that finds that ~70% of vegans stop being vegan. This compares with ~84% of vegetarians giving up vegetarianism.
(prioritarian, I've only quoted part of your post.)


I've sort of taken the grand tour of diets: started Omni, went to pescetarian, then ovolactovegetarian, and now mostly vegan (okay, I will have actually taken the Grand Tour when I'm honest-to-God Vegan.) In my experience, veganism is considerably more demanding than vegetarianism, simply because it is more restrictive- and yet, a greater percentage of people stay with veganism than vegetarianism. It looks clear to me that vegans, on the average, have a higher level of commitment than vegetarians do. I'm not saying that vegetarianism has no merit; if it didn't, I wouldn't be one.

I still don't call myself "vegan" yet, even though most people I know consider me to be one, because veganism has a precise meaning. At this time, I do not see a boycott of the leather industry (except maybe for buckskin) as effectively benefiting animals because the meat and dairy industries are not driven by a demand for their byproducts. The demand for meat, milk, or eggs, however, causes animals to be born into an industry which exploits and ultimately kills them before their time. But vegans, by definition, do not use leather (although they may use leather items from their pre-vegan days until those items wear out).

The thing is, I'm not going to complain about vegans not letting me into their club, and use this as an excuse to start munching omelets, cheese, and God knows what else.

ETA: Dammit. I don't think this post is supportive enough of veganism to belong in the Vegan Forum, but it's probably not supportive enough of vegetarianism to be here either... Indian Summer, if you think it should be zapped or moved, let's do that.

Excuse me please while I go pull the splinters (from my sitting on the fence) out of my rear...

ETA (AGAIN): The term "veganishism" will probably have the same difficulties as "flexatarianism" (reducing one's meat consumption as opposed to stopping it completely): it's not precise. How much does one reduce their consumption of a certain food? do they eat it once a week, or skip it once a week when they would otherwise have eaten it?

 

[Mischief]

I don't think we need a new term; part of the problem is the never ending arguments about the terms we already have.

I'm comfortable in describing myself as "vegetarian" or "veg", and if I think that further information is needed, as an AR/AW vegetarian. I think that's an adequate description for someone (me) who eats nothing derived from the corpse of an animal; doesn't use wool, leather or silk; tries to minimize the footprint left on the planet by reducing my consumerism; doesn't worry about trace elements of dairy or egg when eating out or buying prepared food; has no issue with anyone using dairy, eggs, etc. produced by animals who are treated the way companion animals should be treated (i.e., vet care, good diet, good/enriched quality of life, companionship of their own kind, taken care of for their natural lifespan, without regard as to whether they are "producing" or not); AR as the long term goal, pro AW until AR is achieved.

 

[Calliegirl]

I think what we have is enough. There doesn't need to be a new term for every person who thinks they're so special that everything should be redefined for the way they eat.
If you eat meat occasionally, you're an omnivore.
If you eat dairy occasionally, but no meat, you're a vegetarian.
It really is that simple.

 

[prioritarian]

If so, is "veganishm" a good name for this philosophy? Or, is the better approach to "reform" veganism?

I would never argue for veganishism. I think one way to help make veganism more inclusive is to create a label that recognizes that the ethical imperative behind being almost-vegan or mostly vegan is veganism.

 

[prioritarian]

It really is that simple.

But it's not simple. And let's just leave it at that because I don't want to start another boring thread where I have to point out all the ways vegans are non-vegan. I think most of us have seen those threads before and they annoy just about everyone.

 

[prioritarian]

because veganism has a precise meaning.

There are huge differences in how vegans define veganism. Heck, we even have competing vegan certification programs, in part, due to this split:

http://vegan.org/certify/

vs

Trademark showcase | The Vegan Society

Silly.

 

[Second Summer]

There are huge differences in how vegans define veganism.

Care to elaborate?

Heck, we even have competing vegan certification programs, in part, due to this split:

http://vegan.org/certify/

vs

Trademark showcase | The Vegan Society

Silly.

I don't know too much about the issue, but I'm guessing this has less to do with disagreements about what are the proper definitions of "veganism" and "vegan product", and more to do with two different vegan organisations.

 

[Second Summer]

I would never argue for veganishism.

OK ...

I think one way to help make veganism more inclusive is to create a label that recognizes that the ethical imperative behind being almost-vegan or mostly vegan is veganism.

I think what you're saying here is that veganism as commonly understood is fine as it is, but that we could need a new label to describe an almost-vegan / mostly vegan person. In other words, you make a distinction between the theory (veganism) and a person whose ideal is veganism, but whose practice may not conform entirely with that ideal. If so, then that is something I could maybe get on board with.

 

[prioritarian]

Care to elaborate?

Sure...vegan.org/vegan outreach, in general, have a utilitarian/welfarist vegan position while the vegan society, in general, has a more deontic/strict vegan position (maybe this is changing).

In other words, you make a distinction between the theory (veganism) and a person whose ideal is veganism, but whose practice may not conform entirely with that ideal.

Yes. I'd also add that because no vegan conforms entirely with that ideal we are all "veganish" to some degree.

 

[flyingsnail]

The requirements for what defines a vegan product are fairly clearly defined.

Only if you define vegan product as one that doesn't contain some long list of ingredients but in this case why should anybody care about vegan products? Whether you're talking about people or products there are two different types of definitions you can give, first a definition by exhaustion and second a definition by principle. So, for example:

A vegan product is a product that doesn't contain X, Y, Z, etc.

or

A vegan product is a product that makes minimal impact on animal suffering/animal exploitation.

The first definition is concrete, the sort of thing you can create commercial products on, certificate program, etc....where as the second is more personal and loose. The fundamental question here is, I think, whether veganism is a sort of ethical/legal philosophy or whether its just a long list of products you're forbidden to use.

 

[flyingsnail]

Yes. I'd also add that because no vegan conforms entirely with that ideal we are all "veganish" to some degree.

What ideal? What is the vegan ideal? And if nobody can actually be vegan....then what exactly is the point? Does one's degree of departure matter? It must because otherwise everyone would be vegan....so then just how much can you depart from the ideal and still be vegan? How do you measure it?

 

[Second Summer]

Sure...vegan.org/vegan outreach, in general, have a utilitarian/welfarist vegan position while the vegan society, in general, has a more deontic/strict vegan position (maybe this is changing).

Vegan Action (vegan.org) doesn't seem to have a definition of veganism on their web site. Neither does Vegan Outreach have a definition on their web site, as far as I can tell. The Vegan Society do have a definition, which is (more or less) the same definition they've used for decades, I think.

 

[Second Summer]

What ideal? What is the vegan ideal? And if nobody can actually be vegan....then what exactly is the point? Does one's degree of departure matter? It must because otherwise everyone would be vegan....so then just how much can you depart from the ideal and still be vegan? How do you measure it?

The vegan ideal refers to veganism, obviously. The distinction between theoria and praxis - between the ideal / teachings / theory and how followers choose to implement it in their daily lives - is one that is common and widely accepted in other philosophies, ideologies and belief systems, e.g. Christianity. The theory is more strict (the 10 Commandments etc.), whereas the practice / implementation is often not perfect. The followers, e.g. Christians, are often accepted as such despite their departures from the theory, though sometimes they go too far. Exactly where that line is in the case of veganism is difficult to articulate, and obviously opinions vary ...

 

[prioritarian]

Vegan Action (vegan.org) doesn't seem to have a definition of veganism on their web site. Neither does Vegan Outreach have a definition on their web site, as far as I can tell. The Vegan Society do have a definition, which is (more or less) the same definition they've used for decades, I think.

http://vegan.org/learn/
http://vegan.org/frequently-asked-questions/

Defining 'Vegan' -- Vegan Outreach

I think the differences are more about interpretation or "practice" (as you wrote above). Nevertheless, both these organizations tolerate the use/consumption of animal products not associated with exploitation/cruelty by "vegans". This is a huge...erm...doctrinal difference.

 

[prioritarian]

The vegan ideal refers to veganism, obviously. The distinction between theoria and praxis - between the ideal / teachings / theory and how followers choose to implement it in their daily lives - is one that is common and widely accepted in other philosophies, ideologies and belief systems, e.g. Christianity. The theory is more strict (the 10 Commandments etc.), whereas the practice / implementation is often not perfect. The followers, e.g. Christians, are often accepted as such despite their departures from the theory, though sometimes they go too far. Exactly where that line is in the case of veganism is difficult to articulate, and obviously opinions vary ...

Exactly what I was trying to communicate.
And to extend the analogy, I'm a unitarian universalist vegan. /joke