I have been unable to decide if I should call it becoming-vegetarian or becoming-vegan. For me, the term would technically mean the same thing: a process of subjectivity that would at the same time be an ethical relationship with other animals. That would mean, at the minimum, that we probably didn't eat their flesh, put them in cages, take away their young, conduct violent and invasive tests, etc. But with that said, which term?
I like the term vegetarian a lot. I like the history of the term, that the vegetarian society claims it comes from the latin for lively. And, originally with the vegetarian society, vegetarian meant pretty much what vegan means today. But, the term vegetarian nowadays has some pretty specific eating criteria. You avoid flesh, but remain okay with eggs and milk. Furthermore, in general it is seen as a non-political term. You seldom meet a vegan whose primary concern is not an ethical relationship to other animals. The same cannot be said for vegetarians.
But my understanding about the history of the term vegan is the people who coined simply took the first and last parts of vegetarian, and they simply made the world because it felt right. Which is fine, but lacks the same sort of wordpoetry that vegetarian conjures up for me.
So, thoughts?
Things I’ve actually Heard..
19 minutes ago
10 comments:
I'm not sure vegetarian is as easy as you claim. I've met many vegetarians who eat fish and chicken on a regular basis. What they mean by vegetarian is that they don't eat beef or pork. This might be a Canadian idiosyncracy, however, and, if it is, that's really interesting why just here. My parents and my partner's father don't understand why we don't eat fish and chicken. Slowly they are coming accept that we don't eat animals regardless of whether they swim, fly or stampede (that has been for like eight or nine years). My mother finds it annoying that insist on reading labels of any food she offers to me. She doesn't understand why I wouldn't eat from a bag of chips that contains lactose as an ingredient or eat bread that has whey as a filler. She seemed really annoyed a few weeks ago when she offered me a bottle of some sort of coffee liqueur. "It has cream." "You don't drink cream?" "No." Meanwhile, my partner's father thinks that this is a doctor mandated diet to bring down cholesterol or something like that. No clue where he got that idea!
The fish I have to deal with a lot, I don't normally I have to deal with anyone thinking vegetarian means chicken (I have a few sad stories from deep south GA, but in all those cases they didn't even know what vegetarian meant. The real stumbling block was over the question of what is 'meat.' It seems for many people 'meat' simply refers to cow flesh). But I currently live (for the next couple of weeks, before I move) in Ithaca, NY. Home of the moosewood. The moosewood serves fish, and considering what a landmark restaurant it is, I can understand how some Ithacians think vegetarian means you can eat fish flesh.
My Dad can't ever remember what I can or can't eat. He remembers that I can't eat any animal flesh, but after that has no clue. I have a lot of sympathy, I guess, because all three of his children have weird and different eating habits that have changed a lot based on changing ethical practices and food allergies. My mom does understand what we can and cannot eat. I don't know if she resents reading labels, but she doesn't do it very often. In that case again, her eyesight is pretty bad at this time in her life, and I don't think reading small labels is very practical for her, especially to find small ingredients in a huge list. The bolded allergy information containing milk has been pretty useful, though.
Ok, still, what should I call it? I don't think vegetarian is easy (I guess I did say it had a specific meaning, but yeah, it clearly doesn't. Though part of my point was that clearly the definition of the word has already undergone some real changes), but I've never been particularly wedded to the term 'vegan.' Maybe I should just go with becoming-vegan, it probably is the clearest term we currently have.
I guess your vote is for becoming-vegan?
It seems to be the clearest word, but also even more obscure than vegetarian. Many people have at least heard vegetarian.
"Meat" has an interesting history, as does "flesh." Only recently have they come to refer almost exclusively to animal meat or flesh. Pull out your KJV, for instance, "meat" means any consumable that isn't a liquid: apples and horses are equally meat in this case. I'm not sure when or why the meanings split.
Yeah, I know. I also know it is the same in french. Not sure about other languages, yet.
Also, on the whole becoming-vegan/vegetarian, not only do a lot of people have no clue what vegan means, but it seems to me that I will presenting my work to academics who are flesh eaters a lot of the time. And I think vegan might close down many people intellectually. I'm not sure if that is a vote for the political legacy of veganism, or a vote for the practical usage of vegetarianism.
What we have is a problem of rhetoric, it seems. We have a problem with the way we present ourselves and relate to our audiences (when we get them, that is).
I dig your blog & read it regularly, so I'm throwing in my two cents. I'm from the deep south & and from my experiences down here most people who are in their twenties and under are familiar with the terms "vegan" and "vegetarian" even if they don't comprehend the nuances between the two, or even understand what vegetarianism entails (a big Catholic population associates "vegetarian" with pesco-vegetarianism).
That said, I favor "becoming-vegan" over "becoming-vegetarian" since vegetarian almost exclusively denotes a relationship of eating & being eaten. I think that the kind of reordering that you are encouraging goes beyond merely the relationship of food, and to one in which we no longer relate to animals in terms of use-value, but of our familial relationship to them.
There once was an outstanding critical vegetarian blog called The Vegan Ideal, but the author decided to take it down.
One point that was made repeatedly is that veganism was a revolutionary theory coined by Donald Watson to critique both ovo-lactovegetarianism as well as vegetarianism as mere diet. Vegans may practice vegetarianism, but it cannot be reduced to food. The work of Peter Singer and other neoliberalist thinkers have since appropriated the original meaning of the word from its non-violence, anti-oppression roots. They would argue that by shying away from vegan rhetoric, one would be giving into mainstream values (in the same way animal welfare reform does not challenge speciesism).
To quote several of their posts:
"Veganism isn't something that can be purchased in the supermarket, but how we live our lives... When veganism is reduced to a personal diet...as opposed to part of an anti-oppression movement, then we are less likely to see vegan-based approaches to change... Veganism is a revolutionary praxis. It is the reflective-action of non-exploitation... once disassociated from its theory, 'veganism' becomes a hot commodity as a form of activism."
While the history of the word vegetarian is quite poetic, I think becoming-vegan is politically stronger in its implications. It seems to be here in Aus. that vegetarianism is largely a dietary concern, while veganism on the other hand, is staunchly a political stance for the treatment of animals and not simply a dietary interest. That said, I have to say I prefer becoming-vegan.
This may require some further (unwanted?) research, however, have you considered coining your own word aside from resorting to the issues vegetarian and vegan cause with comprehension. Some research into various langauges may prove helpful?
Nathan
Anon./Adam/Nathan:
Thanks all three of you for your comments. Hope you don't mind that I am grouping you all.
I think rather than write another comment here, I am going to make another whole blog post as a response. It should be up sometime later today.
Interesting post. We should remember that language is always negotiable. To say that people will "shut down" in an academic setting is perhaps too black-and-white of a suggestion for me. I admit that I used to say I'd never become vegan, but I also used to say I'd never become vegetarian. I knew next to nothing about the reasons for either. In an academic setting, of all places, the term vegan should be welcome. Plus, everyone in college knows vegetarians. Not everyone knows a vegan. It should pique their interest. Talking about veganism and accepting it as a viable identity, so that people will actually be able to say, "Hey, I know someone who's vegan!" actually promotes veganism (I did an anthropological study of this). What is perhaps more interesting is in those tricky situations where most people probably have little idea was "vegan" means and you have to tell them quickly. For example, if you're leafletting. I have leafletted with a "Vegetarian Starter Guide" that inside says it means what vegan means (no animal products), and people will say, "No, thank you. Actually, I will take one. My daughter/wife/sister is vegetarian" (this is unrelated, but I just realized it's always a female family member). I have no idea what it's like to leaflet with vegan handouts... I'd like to try sometime. I should probably be a little more skeptical than I have been about the claim that people will be afraid of the word "vegan."
Post a Comment