On "New" Vegetarianism and Sarah Palin

A regular Animal Person reader asked me a question that I thought I'd pass on to you (and I have permission to do that) about the word "vegetarian," which he says "means anything and therefore nothing."

Here are some of his points:

• People find it chic to self-identify as vegetarian, while veganism is seen as radical, hardcore, too moralistic, purist, etc. 
• "Vegetarian," the word, is a slippery thing that seems to have a tendency to flat out lie. At the same time, many groups -- Peta, etc. -- use the words interchangeably.
• Vegans will often come down really hard on neophyte "vegetarians" for being "vegetarians" -- who are still confused about the difference between vegan and vegetarian -- THUS reinforcing the stereotype that "vegans are hardcore purists." 
• Every single one of my Animal Rights conversations quickly devolves into linguistic minutia, in which nitpicking about the difference between the words "vegan" and "vegetarian" becomes the central topic, NOT the rightness or wrongness of killing animals for pleasure.
• Can you imagine civil rights campaigners in the South constantly having to explain what "vote" means?

(REPORTER: "So, you want the right to 'vote' in an political election, or just PTA meetings?"

CAMPAIGNER: "Well, some of us, the real purists... " )

• There are other problems too: Vegan has unshakeable associations with very partisan and negative attributes that, to my amazement, are still being reinforced by vegans themselves. "Vegans are a bunch of smug, self-righteous assholes" is the general agreement from the point of view of many rather mainstream folks. This is largely a fiction, but fiction sells, and many vegans keep reinforcing this. "Vegetarian" is a far less threatening word.
• The problem with this is that I've actually met people who WANT to live vegan lives, but resist being associated with "vegans"! They continue to eat eggs and dairy almost out of protest against or potential fear of embarrassment about the "hardcore" "purist" vegan fiction. That is a serious problem! And it's a language problem, not a moral issue. This is not about real values. It's about perceptions, associations, connotations.

QUESTION: Would it be worthwhile to try to take back the definition of Vegetarian? Or is it a lost cause?

A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: LAKOFF TO THE RESCUE?

I've been re-reading Lakoff's ideas on Reframing.

One idea might be to declare a new word: call it New Vegetarian. Define it simply as "vegan." Vegan and New Vegetarian would be totally interchangeable. And you can't easily add a hyphen in front of "New Vegetarian," So pesce-New Vegetarian aint going to work without exposing the speaker as a ridiculous hypocrite. If New Vegetarian caught on, it would then force the word "vegetarian" to define itself as "old vegetarian."

To use Lakoff's theory, right now, "Vegan" is framed INSIDE the "Vegetarian" frame. Vegan, lacto-ovo, pesce-, etc, are basically all within the Vegetarian Frame. But, if we create a new frame: New Vegetarian (which has the friendly "vegetarian" AND the progressive sounding "new"), then "vegetarian" would find itself framed within the (vegan) New Vegetarian frame.

Vegetarian becomes reframed as "old vegetarian." I can even drop the modifier New" and just say, I'm a vegetarian, they're Old Vegetarians. What's an Old Vegetarian? Well, someone who eats animals.

At this point, they can't get outside the new frame of New Vegetarian. I've defined the bigger, less ambiguous frame. "New" can only be countered by "Old." And, for outreach purposes, I can ask people to become vegetarian and say, New Vegetarians don't eat any animals. They're vegan. But if you like, you can start your journey as an old vegetarian.

I don't have to ask them to declare themselves "Vegan" which will set off all kinds of associations in their head. New Vegetarians are people who don't eat any animals. They're vegans, but if you don't like the word vegan, just say New Vegetarian.

What do you think?

On Sarah Palin

There's so much to say about John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. I think it's genius because he needs to reach certain groups and she fits the bill perfectly. It's very, very easy to mock her. I'm sure you've been e-mailed the same list of links to articles about her and pictures of her that would make you laugh if the prospect of her running the country weren't so frightening. So let's stick to what she stands for, like drilling in ANWAR, hunting and killing any and every nonhuman (even trophy hunting and the aerial hunting of wolves), the NRA, of course the Iditarod (and her husband is a musher), and taking the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy away from women.

Some thoughts:

• I've been hearing people say something outrageously ridiculous: That women are going to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket--and particularly Hillary Clinton supporters--because there's a woman on the ticket. Who actually believes that?
• For anyone interested in doing the right thing for animals, there's usually not much of a choice for the White House, except Dennis Kucinich. And by no means does Barack Obama appear to be someone who would stand up for animals, though he does have an impressive record of public service and standing up for the disenfranchised. But this is a clear case of one camp being unfriendly to nonhumans to the extreme.
• Meanwhile, the "pro-life" stance has always shocked me in its hypocrisy. These people are against a woman's right to choose. They are anti-choice. If they were pro-life, they wouldn't be in favor of killing people who are already outside the womb, don't you think?
• "Pro-life" is really "pro" human lives that have been deemed worth saving. This includes blastocysts that are not even sentient. Meanwhile they're pro-killing/anti-life of any nonhuman life they might want to take for just about any reason. I hope the average person is able to see the contradictions.

Again, it's really, really easy to take shots at Palin. But seriously, what do you think about McCain choosing her?

And yes, I realized I was going to write about caging versus killing cats and dogs, and I'll do that tomorrow. Sorry.

Comments

[Lyda]

Actually this is why I try to "take back" the word vegan. I will tell people that I'm vegan and if they act funny I explain. I guess I don't look like a stereotype of a vegan so people don't expect it. But when I say it loud and proud then people can see that "normal" people are vegan too.

[Elaine Vigneault]

"I've actually met people who WANT to live vegan lives, but resist being associated with "vegans"! They continue to eat eggs and dairy almost out of protest against or potential fear of embarrassment about the "hardcore" "purist" vegan fiction. That is a serious problem! And it's a language problem, not a moral issue. This is not about real values. It's about perceptions, associations, connotations."

I simply don't think that's true. People say all kinds of things and use all kinds of excuses to justify their behavior. People's verbal rationales for why they do what they do are not always accurate. We can't simply trust everyone who says they continue to eat animal products because _. Sometimes they're lying, even when they don't know it.

This is evidenced by the fact that many people claim to continue eating meat because it tastes good, yet they same people can't reliably and accurately distinguish the taste between real meat and faux meat.

Obviously, anyone could stop eating eggs and dairy and also not associate with vegans. Lots of people recycle or drive hybrids yet don't identify as environmentalists. Lots of people choose not to vote yet don't identify as anarchists. So when someone says they postponed veganism because the vegans they'd met were rude and obnoxious, that person is likely deluding themselves. In reality, they postponed veganism because they simply weren't ready yet. They were too lazy or it was too inconvenient or there were other social pressures to continue eating animal products...

Anyone can choose to eat a plant-based diet and call it whatever they want.

The vegan image of being hardcore, purist, self-righteous, or whatever is not the problem. And even if it were, those who perpetuate the myth (the anti-vegans) would simply find a new way to discount veganism and promote carnism. We don't need to reframe our messages. We need to eliminate their messages.

[Nick]

In response to the first half of your post, I think it is essential to stick to the word "vegan," and to distance ourselves from "vegetarian." Using the word "vegetarian" just confuses people. We need to take back the image of veganism, and since PETA is so reticent to use that word, this should be easy. If people really don't like the word "vegan," they can call themselves something else, but leave the word "vegetarian" out of it. Personally, I think the word "vegan" is excellent.

As for the election, I'm voting for Ralph Nader. But I must admit that Palin is scary enough to make me lean slightly toward Obama. I am absolutely terrified of the prospect of McCain dying and having her take over.

[Mary Martin]

My response was part Nick and part Lyda. Here's some of it:

I think "vegetarian" is a lost cause, at least for now. And making it “new” is really going back to the old, when what we might want to continuously remind people of what it really means.

We have a lot of words now. Strict vegetarian, for example denotes someone who doesn’t eat animals but might wear leather (last time I checked). I have problems with the word strict, for obvious reasons. And pure is even worse. Real is sort of condescending to the "fake" vegetarians, and fake, well . . .

We could start a new vegetarian movement, or we could work with what we have, and take back vegan and promote it as best we can, and by example show people that not all of us fall into the stereotype of a certain look or a certain attitude. We're just people from all walks of life who don't want to kill anybody unless we have to (that's my quick answer to "Why don't you eat meat?" and it's a great conversation prompt, but certainly not for every situation).

[Dan]

Elaine is correct. This whole topic of the “vegan image” is much ado about nothing. I’ll just keep promoting veganism and ignore the ignorant drivel and half-baked excuses like “I agree with the reasons for veganism, and I would be vegan, but I don’t like some of the vegans”.

[Bea Elliott]

For me, I'd rather stick with "vegan" as I believe it defines who I choose to be best. For me "vegan" conjurs up a political/spiritual belief added to a diet which represents those values. When I was an "old vegetarian" I thought I was "vegan" simply because I had never heard the word "vegan" or "factory-farm" before. I think I was an "ethical vegetarian", as so many are that do not know their dairy & eggs support the very institutions of cruelty that they loath. Keeping and using the term "vegan" helps to change those misconceptions.

And about McCain's campaign hoping to pull in previous Hillary supporters - I heard her words loud and clear: "If you supported me, you'll support Obama. Obama is my candidate for next President of the United States." I echo Senator Clinton's persuasions.

[mel]

how about stop being so elitist and appreciate that ANY effort a person makes to reduce their impact on animal suffering is GOOD and a step in the right direction.

[Dan]

Mel:

Being elitist is thinking that we are so much “better” than animals that we should exploit and kill them. There is no excuse for it. It is pure cultural prejudice and elitism to defend or excuse animal exploitation and killing.

[Beth]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "vegitan" as an option.

http://www.vegsource.com/articles/vegitan_diet.htm