What is Happening to Veganism?

[Lou]

The movement is torn between upholding a strict posture against the consumption of living beings and incorporating people with a plant-based diet who have the odd piece of cheese​

The article concludes with, "According to Leenaert, we must take into account the effect that our behavior has on others. The more veganism is presented as doable and fun, rather than strict and complicated, the more people will try to be vegan, he says. “And if someone finds it difficult to follow this diet, then make an exception,” he says by videoconference from the Belgian city. “If we allow exceptions, people will want to try it. It’s that simple.”

I’m vegan, but sometimes I eat meat: What is happening to veganism?

The movement is torn between upholding a strict posture against the consumption of living beings and incorporating people with a plant-based diet who have the odd piece of cheese

english.elpais.com

 

[Mufflon]

In 2014, Faunalytics surveyed 11,500 consumers in the United States and Canada who were starting a vegan or vegetarian diet and found that, within six months, 84% of them had given up.

That being said I wonder if it's really that "social pressure" of not wanting to reject your granny's cookies? Or are these cookies very yummy and people don't want to miss out?
Do people really feel "uncomfortable" ordering a vegan meal at a restaurant or are the vegan options (or most of the time more like that one vegan option that all too often doesn't even fit in with the rest of the food...) at the restaurant just not as tasty as that steak they crave and they don't want to miss out?
Is it really that problematic to bringt (at least partly) your own food to family gatherings - or do people simply not want to miss out when it comes to the delicious food being provided?

I'm in sincere doubt about that whole "social pressure" stuff.

 

[Brian W]

By the UK Vegan Society's definition, the definition that many animal rights extremists prefer, I am a vegan. By the definition I prefer, the original commonly accepted definition that you will find in the word "vegan" and in just about every existing dictionary, I am not a vegan because I will eat animal derived foods if they are to be thrown out otherwise. If I wasn't in a position to eat waste, I would probably still eat the occasional omelette, simply because I cannot sustain a strict plant-based diet all the time. If it was a choice between being strictly 100% plant-based or be an omnivore then I would have to be an omnivore. Those who can do it 100% need to understand that, despite their idealistic dreams, many of us simply do not have their resolve and it is not because we don't care enough! I don't even believe in keeping pets so you can't say I don't care enough. What I have discovered is that I am doing much more good by allowing myself the freedom to choose than I was doing when I tried to force myself and kept going back to eating meat when I failed.

 

[beancounter]

Yes, more flies with maple syrup than vinegar...

 

[christen_g]

My favorite defiinition of veganism is "rejecting the commodity status of animals".

Some people out there are very superstitious and abuse veganism. They treat it as a purity thing. "If i eat one microgram of salmon then ive defiled myself and ruined al my progress". Its insanity and not what makes a person a vegan. Imagine how cool youd sound if you told a car nut "hey i saw you riding a bike the other day, guess you cant call yourself a car nut anymore huh".

The most productive thing to do about the neurotic is ignore them. Let them have their dumb fights with each other.

 

[Graeme M]

I have previously posted about my own belief that veganism needs a major reformation. I think Leenaert is broadly right but maybe not for the same reasons. Super strict veganism, what I call "strong" veganism, has never appealed to more than a few people (see the other thread here about empathy). And eating a plant-based diet is not veganism.

In the end, veganism is not required by the law, so all we can ever do is encourage people to make the changes they are willing to make. Advocacy aimed at making people make huge changes to their lives (many of which most simply will never make) is always going to come up short. The actual goal of vegan advocacy, I think, should not be converting people to veganism. It should really be encouraging a different societal attitude.

We have a vegan activist here in Australia, Tash Peterson, whose advocacy is a form of DXE. She aggressively denounces people for not being vegan. I could be wrong but sadly I think she has set the "cause" back considerably here. I think had she taken a far more encouraging and inclusive approach that didn't seek to make everyone turn vegan she could have had a much more positive influence.

As I wrote in one of my blog posts that I think I shared here a while back:

"I’d even go a step further and NOT measure success by individual conversion to veganism and thus strict and complete adherence to a vegan lifestyle, but rather by engagement, interest, willingness to discuss and by whether or not participants in discussions depart on good terms. In other words, success is measured by the extent to which public attitudes to veganism (justice for other animals) are positive, enquiring and supportive, even if the public remain by and large not strict vegans. The long game is important."

 

[LoreD]

I'm willing to support anyone that reduces their intake of animal products, and I don't demand a purity test.

In my own home, I don't have any animal products; but when I would be invited to my grandchildren's birthday parties, I would accept, and eat, a piece of birthday cake. I wouldn't ask whether it was vegan or not.

I hope one day that all of the products will be vegan, but I do the best I can. If I eat vegan 364 days of the year, and then eat a piece of birthday cake; I think I am doing pretty well.

I think we are too hard on people.

 

[shyvas]

I'm in sincere doubt about that whole "social pressure" stuff.

I would have to agree

The issue that I have with eating non plant based food at other peoples` homes, is that not only are you giving out a wrong message
but is that slice of cake/ice cream etc really worth going against your principles? I think not

 

[PTree15]

I applaud anyone who reduces their intake of animal/animal-derived products, and I do agree that you get more with maple syrup than you do with vinegar. That said, I was sent on the vegetarian/vegan path by a veggie friend at a house party many years ago. I had some chicken on my plate, and she commented that I'd never eat chicken again if I really knew how it got to my plate. While initially taken aback, it set the veggie wheels in motion. Granted, it took me years to actually go vegan, but I'm so glad I did.

As far as the movement, I think part of the problem is the labels themselves and the whole purity argument. People get so caught up in both. I would like "vegan" to mean the same thing to everyone, but it seems that is not the case, as people like to adapt/tweak a label to their own purposes. The obsession with labels is ridiculous, IMHO, and it doesn't only apply to vegan/vegetarian. And human nature being what it is, people get frustrated if they can't be perfect -- perfection is unattainable anyway, people! I've said it before, and I'll say it again that I like the philosophy of looking at veganism as a journey, rather than a destination. That allows for slip-ups, mistakes, what have you.

in my own home, I don't consume animal products, and I don't consume them at family functions or restaurants or whatever. I just try to make do with what's available in those situations. My feeling is that it's not worth compromising my principles for a piece of cake -- but that's me, I am not going to judge someone if they feel uncomfortable refusing a piece of cake. Everybody's tolerance in social situations is different. I also don't make a big deal out of it. If I'm at a function where people don't know that I'm vegan, I just politely decline the cake, say I'm full, or whatever. I would never try to make someone feel bad for not providing a vegan option. I don't expect it, because going vegan was my decision, and at present, vegans remain in the minority. When someone does provide vegan food, I express my sincere gratitude because I really do appreciate it when a person makes an effort to honor/recognize my ideals.

As far as ingredients, I don't worry as much about the origins of sugar or if bread has some weird ingredient that might be animal-sourced. I stay away from what I consider the biggies: milk, honey, eggs, gelatin etc. That's why I've been making my bread of late because typical bread has far too many weird ingredients for my liking.

 

[Graeme M]

I would like "vegan" to mean the same thing to everyone, but it seems that is not the case, as people like to adapt/tweak a label to their own purposes.

This is the thing, it seems to me. Whenever we have a behaviour that we think others should undertake, we either have to enforce it as a standard in some way or accept that people will take it on board as suits them. That happens with everything. And such behaviours become subject to different interpretations and even change over time. That's where veganism is at. We simply can't make people adopt it so furiously rejecting/criticising people who don't do it well enough is likely counterproductive.

 

[g0rph]

The movement is torn between upholding a strict posture against the consumption of living beings and incorporating people with a plant-based diet who have the odd piece of cheese​

The article concludes with, "According to Leenaert, we must take into account the effect that our behavior has on others. The more veganism is presented as doable and fun, rather than strict and complicated, the more people will try to be vegan, he says. “And if someone finds it difficult to follow this diet, then make an exception,” he says by videoconference from the Belgian city. “If we allow exceptions, people will want to try it. It’s that simple.”

I’m vegan, but sometimes I eat meat: What is happening to veganism?

The movement is torn between upholding a strict posture against the consumption of living beings and incorporating people with a plant-based diet who have the odd piece of cheese

english.elpais.com

I think "veganism" or being a "vegan" needs to be kept fairly pure.

As many others have stated, I applaud anyone just reducing their use of animal products. It's a start.

But if you compare to any other philosophy then allowing "wiggle-room" sounds nuts.
I mean.
"I'm completely non-violent 29 days a month, but I do enjoy beating on my partner every now and then as a treat"
or
"Yeah, I don't agree with slavery, but we do keep Jethro on to look after the barn. We treat him well. He's like a family member"
or
"I'm all for equal rights, I have a gay friend, but those trans people are just confused"

None of those sound any better than

"I don't eat animals, use their skin or secretions because they go through hell for the sake of our taste-buds, but if offered I'll take a piece of cake - Wouldn't want to be rude to Auntie Gladys."

In the end it's a moral position. If you think stealing is wrong...don't steal. If you think rape is wrong...don't rape. If you think killing and eating or wearing animals when there is an alternative...don't do it.

Sure, you can make a "mistake". But if that mistake is a regular occurrence...you ain't vegan. What you are is probably better, morally than 90% of the population, but why sully the term?
I'm not gonna call myself an athlete because I go to the gym and run the occasional 10K.

Where I have a small disagreement is only with the word "exploit".
We exploit bees to grow many crops.
We exploit dogs and cats for company and service animals.

And honestly, done right, I don't have a personal issue with it (hence no "vegan" in my profile)

 

[Graeme M]

In the end it's a moral position. If you think stealing is wrong...don't steal. If you think rape is wrong...don't rape. If you think killing and eating or wearing animals when there is an alternative...don't do it.

The thing is, the vast majority don't think it's wrong to use animals for food and fibre. And I don't think we can get them there by advocating that they all adopt a super-strict lifestyle that they don't really agree with. Sure, if their salvation depends on it, or jailtime awaits, they *might* do differently. Otherwise, I think it's a long journey of a heap of very small steps.

What you are is probably better, morally than 90% of the population, but why sully the term?

It's not sullying the term, even though I disagree with the term. I distinguish between vegans and veganism. Most people don't want to be vegans, but they might be interested in making what changes they can. And that's veganism, or at least vegan principles. So sure, we can complain when someone calls themselves a vegan when we think they aren't but what is that really doing to change the world?

My opinion is that we should abandon the idea that people become vegans if they are willing to adopt vegan principles. I'd rather encourage people to support vegan principles and act on them as they can, regardless of the extent to which they do. I think "vegan" should be the label for people who advocate for veganism, just as with suffragettes and abolitionists. Suffragettes weren't trying to create more suffragettes, they wanted to change society. They didn't want 10% or 20% of women to be activists as an end-goal, they wanted all women to have the vote.

Where I have a small disagreement is only with the word "exploit".

I tend to agree. I always use the words "fair" and "justice" - I think of veganism as seeking to be as fair as we can towards other animals, preventing injustices to them from our actions, whenever we can.

 

[g0rph]

The thing is, the vast majority don't think it's wrong to use animals for food and fibre. And I don't think we can get them there by advocating that they all adopt a super-strict lifestyle that they don't really agree with. Sure, if their salvation depends on it, or jailtime awaits, they *might* do differently. Otherwise, I think it's a long journey of a heap of very small steps.

I know. But "veganism" is a moral stance. If you think it's wrong. Don't do it. If you want to cut down, great. I am not someone to bash vegetarians even though they still contribute greatly to what is essentially still the meat industry...because they have done "something".

It's not sullying the term, even though I disagree with the term. I distinguish between vegans and veganism. Most people don't want to be vegans, but they might be interested in making what changes they can. And that's veganism, or at least vegan principles. So sure, we can complain when someone calls themselves a vegan when we think they aren't but what is that really doing to change the world?

My opinion is that we should abandon the idea that people become vegans if they are willing to adopt vegan principles. I'd rather encourage people to support vegan principles and act on them as they can, regardless of the extent to which they do. I think "vegan" should be the label for people who advocate for veganism, just as with suffragettes and abolitionists. Suffragettes weren't trying to create more suffragettes, they wanted to change society. They didn't want 10% or 20% of women to be activists as an end-goal, they wanted all women to have the vote.

I think maybe we need another term to be honest. Veganism is what veganism is, and it's not flexitarianism, vegetarianism or anything less than the complete removal of non-human animals as ours to do with what we want.

I want to see less suffering. My family has not followed my "almost vegan" journey, but if they went pescatarian I would be happy for now.

I tend to agree. I always use the words "fair" and "justice" - I think of veganism as seeking to be as fair as we can towards other animals, preventing injustices to them from our actions, whenever we can.

Agreed. But whenever we can would include not cheating because an Aunt offers you cake.

 

[Tom L.]

As I see it... what's happening to Veganism is.... it's catching on!!!!!

My Captain Obvious statement for the year: People are different. There are those who will even abuse animals who have a high degree of legal protection (by today's rather inadequate standards) if they can get away with it... and those who go full vegan from an early age. But veganism is noticeably more... demanding?... restrictive?... than vegetarianism. So it will probably take someone more time to take the plunge- very likely getting there in steps. "I'm glad I can still have milk and eggs- cows and chickens aren't harmed in the production of those, and live long happy lives!" gives way to "...oh... I hadn't thought about what happens to them after they stop "producing"... and those pictures of hens in battery cages looked something very like a sort of Hell..."

 

[Col]

"According to Leenaert, we must take into account the effect that our behavior has on others. The more veganism is presented as doable and fun, rather than strict and complicated, the more people will try to be vegan,

Our behaviour does have an affect on others - being vegan with people around us that look to us is influencing them to not kill and abuse,
'strict' is not the same as 'complicated' ; it can be simple and joyful, fun and varied, tasty and loving.
Also it spreads more joy to those most affected - the animals.

 

[silva]

I think "veganism" or being a "vegan" needs to be kept fairly pure.

As many others have stated, I applaud anyone just reducing their use of animal products. It's a start.

But if you compare to any other philosophy then allowing "wiggle-room" sounds nuts.
I mean.
"I'm completely non-violent 29 days a month, but I do enjoy beating on my partner every now and then as a treat"
or
"Yeah, I don't agree with slavery, but we do keep Jethro on to look after the barn. We treat him well. He's like a family member"
or
"I'm all for equal rights, I have a gay friend, but those trans people are just confused"

None of those sound any better than

"I don't eat animals, use their skin or secretions because they go through hell for the sake of our taste-buds, but if offered I'll take a piece of cake - Wouldn't want to be rude to Auntie Gladys."

In the end it's a moral position. If you think stealing is wrong...don't steal. If you think rape is wrong...don't rape. If you think killing and eating or wearing animals when there is an alternative...don't do it.

Sure, you can make a "mistake". But if that mistake is a regular occurrence...you ain't vegan. What you are is probably better, morally than 90% of the population, but why sully the term?
I'm not gonna call myself an athlete because I go to the gym and run the occasional 10K.

Where I have a small disagreement is only with the word "exploit".
We exploit bees to grow many crops.
We exploit dogs and cats for company and service animals.

And honestly, done right, I don't have a personal issue with it (hence no "vegan" in my profile)

I absolutely agree with the word veganism kept to mean no animal products used. I don't find your comparisons to be equilavent

Animals ARE food. Everything that lives is food, and being omnivores we can survive eating other animals and at times it was very necessary for our survival. The comparisons I feel are most important are based on choices and NEEDS
People have bore children in order to have more farmhands. Families have sent their children to work for lack of money.Children have been sent to to fight wars. If those needs weren't present it would be pretty horrible to do that to a child. When food is scarce and animals can more easiliy provide the calories it is a very different scenario than buying plastic wrapped steaks sold next to the produce and beans.

I seriously cringe at the anthropomorphism so many vegans like use. Animals need to be left to their own lives without our interference. My biggest argument is that humans have taken so much of their homes and food we surpass the kill count of what our ancestors hunted. We simply don't need to do it.
It's more like killing your next door neighbor because they made noise at night as opposed to killing your neighbor because he threatened to kill your family and holding them hostage

The word vegan for me will always mean things made without animal products nor from exploiting them. However strict people stay within that parameter isn't as important to me as the realisation that veganism is both practical and possible

 

[g0rph]

I absolutely agree with the word veganism kept to mean no animal products used. I don't find your comparisons to be equilavent

Animals ARE food. Everything that lives is food, and being omnivores we can survive eating other animals and at times it was very necessary for our survival. The comparisons I feel are most important are based on choices and NEEDS
People have bore children in order to have more farmhands. Families have sent their children to work for lack of money.Children have been sent to to fight wars. If those needs weren't present it would be pretty horrible to do that to a child. When food is scarce and animals can more easiliy provide the calories it is a very different scenario than buying plastic wrapped steaks sold next to the produce and beans.

I seriously cringe at the anthropomorphism so many vegans like use. Animals need to be left to their own lives without our interference. My biggest argument is that humans have taken so much of their homes and food we surpass the kill count of what our ancestors hunted. We simply don't need to do it.
It's more like killing your next door neighbor because they made noise at night as opposed to killing your neighbor because he threatened to kill your family and holding them hostage

The word vegan for me will always mean things made without animal products nor from exploiting them. However strict people stay within that parameter isn't as important to me as the realisation that veganism is both practical and possible

I agree.
Although my comparisons are simply analogies in other areas of life where we might "want" to do something and be "able" to, but don't "need" and in doing so we are causing harm.

 

[AndyAlexander]

My favorite defiinition of veganism is "rejecting the commodity status of animals".

Some people out there are very superstitious and abuse veganism. They treat it as a purity thing. "If i eat one microgram of salmon then ive defiled myself and ruined al my progress". Its insanity and not what makes a person a vegan. Imagine how cool youd sound if you told a car nut "hey i saw you riding a bike the other day, guess you cant call yourself a car nut anymore huh".

The most productive thing to do about the neurotic is ignore them. Let them have their dumb fights with each other.

I use this same definition of veganism for myself with just one different word. Instead of commodity I put property. I see animal enslavement to not be very different if at all to human enslavement and slaves are treated by the law as property.

 

[AndyAlexander]

I have previously posted about my own belief that veganism needs a major reformation. I think Leenaert is broadly right but maybe not for the same reasons. Super strict veganism, what I call "strong" veganism, has never appealed to more than a few people (see the other thread here about empathy). And eating a plant-based diet is not veganism.

In the end, veganism is not required by the law, so all we can ever do is encourage people to make the changes they are willing to make. Advocacy aimed at making people make huge changes to their lives (many of which most simply will never make) is always going to come up short. The actual goal of vegan advocacy, I think, should not be converting people to veganism. It should really be encouraging a different societal attitude.

We have a vegan activist here in Australia, Tash Peterson, whose advocacy is a form of DXE. She aggressively denounces people for not being vegan. I could be wrong but sadly I think she has set the "cause" back considerably here. I think had she taken a far more encouraging and inclusive approach that didn't seek to make everyone turn vegan she could have had a much more positive influence.

As I wrote in one of my blog posts that I think I shared here a while back:

"I’d even go a step further and NOT measure success by individual conversion to veganism and thus strict and complete adherence to a vegan lifestyle, but rather by engagement, interest, willingness to discuss and by whether or not participants in discussions depart on good terms. In other words, success is measured by the extent to which public attitudes to veganism (justice for other animals) are positive, enquiring and supportive, even if the public remain by and large not strict vegans. The long game is important."

I strongly agree veganism needs a major reformation. With these “vegans, who sometimes eat meat” you can guess who is trying to steal the movement. The major reformation I think should be a bit of a decide and conquer strategy for the outreach and a much stronger inreach or standing for each other, if that makes sense, which I see as mostly lacking.

 

[AndyAlexander]

“I’m virgin, but sometimes I make sex”, I mean…what is happening to veganism is that nefarious actors are trying to steal the conversation by inserting such stupidity and hitting two birds with one bullet: 1. To the haters it makes veganism look absolutely silly, mental and retarded and 2. To the “aspiring” makes veganism look like it’s nothing about the animals, but a fad diet you keep 5 days a week, which only attracts self absorbed narcissists to call themselves vegans for virtue signaling purposes. In both cases that’s so much convenient to certain industries and most religions that I’m most certain these topics are discussed in some boardrooms and church councils. That’s what’s happening to veganism. It’s the only slightly pregnant, the partially dead, the softly hard, the dry wetness, etc.: yeap, veganism is being at the very least, very openly horrifically mocked! That’s what’s happening to veganism!