Master thesis,
as part of the program Cultural Sociology at the University of Amsterdam.
Submitted on the 9th of July, 2018, Amsterdam.
Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
A sociological analysis of veganism from the perspective of distinction, with adaptions from reflexive theory
Student: Roos Wever (11790113)
First supervisor: Dr. Kobe de Keere
Second supervisor: Prof. Dr. Olav Velthuis
Word count: 18.816 Roos Wever 1 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Preface
Hereby I present to you my master thesis, written as final part of the master Sociology, of the track Cultural Sociology. It has taken six months of searching for a topic and theory, conducting the field work and, finally, writing this thesis. I could not have done this without help from others, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my respondents for taking the time to talk with me and opening up to me about their lifestyle. Without their stories I could not have written this thesis. Furthermore I would like to thank my supervisor, Kobe de Keere, for guiding me through this research, providing me with helpful feedback and suggestions to direct me in the right way, even though I sometimes impulsively decided to head into another direction. I also would like to thank Olav Velthuis for being my second reader, and providing me with inspiration for this thesis when I was part of his course Culture, Consumption and Commerce. I want to thank my library-buddy Elo for reserving a seat for me, as I always showed up later than I planned, and for our ‘gezellige’ lunchbreaks, our large amounts of coffee, but mostly the mutual support. I want to thank my parents for supporting me during 5 years of study, both bachelor and master, emotionally and financially, and my sister, which, I don’t know why, always caught me in bad moments, or maybe she just knows how to pull those tears out of me. I hope that she isn’t concerned about me – I’m doing well, Mieke! Last, but definitely not least, I want to thank my boyfriend, for always being there for me, encouraging me, providing me with feedback and comfort. I know it has sometimes been hard, both working on our master theses, our house sometimes a mess and not having much time for each other, but I’m just happy that we’re still standing strong.
Roos Wever 2 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Abstract
This research examines veganism from the perspective of distinction, with adaptions from reflexive theory. As the amount of vegans is rising, as is the supply of vegan products and restaurants, it is useful to contribute to existing research on veganism by analyzing it as a form of distinction, following Pierre Bourdieu (1984). However, this research is also open to adaptions from reflexive theory, of which Margaret Archer (2000; 2003; 2012) is an advocate. Three parts of the vegan lifestyle are examined: the decision process in becoming vegan, the construction of the vegan lifestyle and social interaction. Interviews have been conducted with 18 vegans and analysis of these interviews revealed that distinction provides a useful lens for analyzing veganism, as several respondents in this research had a habitus that gave them the dispositions to become vegan. Moreover, veganism can be considered as a lifestyle, which, on some levels, can be associated with higher class. However, incorporating reflexivity in this perspective is also useful, since reflexive thinking occurs during the decision process, the construction of the vegan lifestyle and the construction of different interaction strategies used when engaging in interaction with non-vegans. Hence, food habits are not only a product of social class, but also of reflexive considerations of one’s environment.
Keywords: veganism; distinction; reflexivity; decision making; lifestyle; interaction strategies
Roos Wever 3 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Table of contents
Preface ...... 1 Abstract ...... 2 Table of contents ...... 3 1. Introduction ...... 5 2. Theoretical framework ...... 9 2.2 Eating as a class disposition ...... 10 2.3 Decision process ...... 12 2.4 Vegan lifestyle ...... 14 2.5 Veganism in the social sphere ...... 16 3. Methodology ...... 20 3.1 Research population: criteria and recruitment ...... 20 3.2 Data collection ...... 21 3.3 Description of the research population ...... 22 3.4 Ethical considerations ...... 23 3.5 Data analysis ...... 24 4. Becoming vegan ...... 25 4.1 The vegan habitus ...... 25 4.2 Reflexivity ...... 28 4.3 Peer group influences ...... 30 4.4 Reinterpreting vegan reflexivity ...... 31 4.5 Conclusion ...... 32 5. The vegan lifestyle ...... 34 5.1 Worldview ...... 34 5.2 Consumption ...... 35 5.3 Activities ...... 37 5.3.1 Vegan related activities ...... 37 5.3.2 Class related activities ...... 38 5.4 Social environment ...... 39 5.5 Conclusion ...... 40 6. Social interaction ...... 41 Roos Wever 4 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
6.1 Explaining veganism: objective and calm ...... 42 6.2 Estimating the opponent ...... 43 6.3 Being prepared ...... 45 6.4 Avoid confrontation or situation ...... 46 6.5 Eating animal-derived products ...... 47 6.6 Conclusion ...... 48 7. Conclusion ...... 49 7.1 RQ1: Which mechanisms underlie the decision process in becoming vegan? ...... 49 7.2 RQ2: How can veganism be understood as a lifestyle? ...... 50 7.3 RQ3: How do vegans interact with others about their lifestyle? ...... 51 7.4 Final conclusions and implications ...... 53 7.5 Limitations and suggestions for future research ...... 53 8. Bibliography ...... 55
Roos Wever 5 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
1. Introduction ‘It’s Saturday the 2nd of December and we are celebrating Sinterklaas at my boyfriend’s family. My nieces are overtly exited, ripping the wrapping paper of their presents, which contain, among others, Lego friends, games and a handball (which was responsible for the break of several glasses five minutes later), and screaming: “THIS IS WHAT I WANTED!!!!!”
When all the presents are unwrapped and the poems are read, the uncomfortable part of the evening starts: dinner. Two quiches were placed on the table, containing bacon and fish, lasagna with minced meat and some sort of chicken sticks. Because my boyfriend does not eat meat or fish, his mother has cooked some pasta with spinach ‘a la crème’. I felt actually sorry for her, because she really did her best to cook vegetarian. She does not really have any idea about how to make lasagna without meat or other types of vegetarian dishes. That my boyfriend actually prefers to eat vegan is something that his family does not understand at all. This then, as usual, elicits a discussion about eating meat and dairy products. My boyfriend tries to explain how eating meat is bad for the environment (as he already attempted many times before), but when his brother starts to argue that traveling by train is just as bad for the environment as traveling by car, I know that this discussion is hopeless. I am sitting there at the table, feeling very uncomfortable, signaling to my boyfriend to stop the discussion and just eat, which eventually also happened.
Now, a few days later, I am still wondering how he can be so different from his family. Could this be education/class related? We are living in some sort of bubble, because a lot of our friends also eat vegetarian – but then again these are people that are higher educated. Or is this something that can be explained by geographical differences: people living in the city versus those at the country side (like my boyfriend’s family)?’
During my master program Sociology I was enrolled in the course called ‘Culture, Consumption and Commerce’. The story above is a blogpost I had written for the blog we maintained with the students enrolled in the course. When we arrived at the topic of sustainable consumption, my interest in different attitudes towards sustainable consumption had risen. Finding myself in the situation described above evoked questions within me about differences in understandings of veganism, but also how vegans cope with these situations. Roos Wever 6 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Half a year later, on the 31st of May, the Dutch public television broadcasted a documentary called ‘Butter, cheese nor eggs’ (BNNVARA & Hartogensis, 2018). In this documentary, Dutch presenter Milouska Meulens offered the viewer a look into her life: her vegan life. For twelve years now, Milouska does not eat meat, fish, milk, eggs and other products that might contain something that is derived from animals. In this documentary she shows the challenges she faces being vegan: how to discuss veganism with your social environment? Do you want your children and partner to be vegan as well? And what about the vitamins one needs to take, such as b12?
The fact that the documentary has recently been made comes not as a surprise: in recent years, veganism has become increasingly popular. The number of vegans in the Netherlands is in 2016 estimated between the 50.000 to 70.000 vegans (Schyns, 2016). This is an increase compared to 1996, when the number of vegans was estimated around 16.000. Moreover, in recent years there has been an increase in the supply of vegan food, in the form of new vegan restaurants, vegan brands, and vegan products in supermarkets such as Albert Heijn, and veganism has gained more media attention (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Veganisme, n.d.). Also, initiatives such as ‘Veganuary’, in which people are encouraged do eat plant-based products for a month, have gained more popularity since there has been an increase in people that participated in this challenge (Veganuary, n.d.).
It is clear that the number of people following a vegan lifestyle has grown and that there is an increase in attention given to veganism. But what exactly is veganism? Founded in 1944, the oldest vegan association ‘The Vegan Society’ defines veganism as:
‘a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.’ (The Vegan Society, n.d.)
According to this definition, veganism does not only entail excluding animal products from one’s diet, but also excluding them from their general consumption pattern. This way, it could be perceived as a lifestyle, rather than just a diet. Reasons why people would adhere to such a lifestyle or diet mainly revolve around three motivations (Janssen, Busch, Rödiger & Hamm, 2016), some which are also included in the definition of the Vegan Society. Firstly, some Roos Wever 7 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ vegans object the exploitation of animals and oppose the bio industry. Others are concerned with the damaging effects of the consumption of animal products on the environment. Moreover, a small amount of vegans believe that excluding animal products from one’s diet benefits one’s personal health. Often these three motivations overlap.
As veganism has grown, research on veganism has grown as well. Such research focusses on the effects of veganism on people’s health and vitamin intake (Smith, 2006), the process of becoming vegan and its motivations (Janssen et al., 2016; Larsson et al., 2003; McDonald, 2000) or the stigmatization of vegans and veganism (Bresnahan, Zhuang & Zhu, 2016; Greenebaum, 2013; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). Research on veganism has often been combined with research on vegetarianism (Beardsworth & Keil, 1991; Greenebaum, 2013; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). It must be understood, however, that vegetarianism and veganism are different and therefore must be approached separately. The current research will only focus on veganism and thus disregards any overlap between vegetarianism and veganism.
The current research aims to extend existing research on veganism by examining how veganism can be understood from a sociological perspective. It aims to analyze veganism as a form of distinction, following Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) theory on cultural taste, which, he argues, is a product of class-based structures. However, this research is also open to adaptions from the perspective of reflexivity (Archer, 2003): it might be that adhering to a vegan lifestyle entails making reflexive decisions and requires reflexive thinking about social structures in which people find themselves. In order to examine this, three research questions have been formulated, each addressing a different aspect of veganism:
RQ1: Which mechanisms underlie the decision process in becoming vegan?
RQ2: How can veganism be understood as a lifestyle?
RQ3: How do vegans interact with others about their lifestyle? In order to answer these research questions, a qualitative research has been conducted, consisting out of 18 interviews with people who define themselves as vegan. The results of this research will be presented in this thesis.
Before these results will be presented, however, a short introduction into the sociology of food will be given and an overview of the existing literature on veganism will be presented in order to provide a theoretical background on the topic. This will be discussed in chapter 2. The third chapter covers the methodological features of this research, which includes a Roos Wever 8 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ description of the recruitment of the respondents, an overview of the data collection, a description of the sample and some ethical considerations. The chapters 4, 5 and 6 present the results of the interviews, each addressing one of the research questions: chapter 4 covers the decision process, chapter 5 the vegan lifestyle and chapter six social interaction. In the last chapter, chapter 7, the findings will be discussed and the final conclusions will be presented. It moreover addresses the limitations of the research and proposes suggestions for future research.
Roos Wever 9 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 The sociology of food
Food is much more than only the things we eat. What we eat, how we eat it, when we eat, the (unequal) distribution of food: it touches upon cultural, political and economic dimensions and is therefore sociologically relevant (Mennell, Murcott & van Otterloo, 1992; Poulain, 2017). Whereas in the past limited attention has been payed to the act of eating and the meaning of food, the sociology of food has developed itself into a discipline within sociology. Within this discipline, different perspectives have developed, which approach food from different angles. The main perspectives are functionalism, structuralism, culturalism and developmentalism (Mennell et al., 1992; Poulain, 2017), and will be outlined shortly.
The first of the four perspectives, functionalism, is mainly concerned with the expression of social relationships through the preparation and use of food (Mennell et al., 1992, p. 7). They, for example, argue that food can be perceived as a social institution, which structures and organizes social life (Poulain, 2017, p. 118). The act of eating, for instance, can be seen as a form of socialization, in which children learn the norms and values about table manners and sharing. Moreover, the preparation of food, often associated with the female cooking, can be considered as an expression of social relationships.
The structuralists emphasize the cultural and social structures that underlie food practices and taste (Mennell et al., 1992, p. 8). As pioneer of this perspective, Lévi-Strauss (1968) was concerned with the analysis of the opposing structures between different cuisines in order to find the underlying logic that constitutes food habits. He, for example, argues that food and cooking structures are constructed around oppositions, such as the opposition between local versus exotic ingredients, or the basic ingredients that are central in the meal versus the ingredients that are added on the side (Poulain, 2017, p. 124). These structures, furthermore, constitute the basis of the societal structures and underlie human behavior. Other structuralists, such as Mary Douglas, sought to unravel the structuring principles of food practices, such as differences in importance of meals. Douglas argues, for instance, that meals on Sunday or on holidays are valued differently than during the week (Mennell et al., 1992, p. 10).
The culturalist perspective, which is mainly anthropological, maintains that eating practices can be traced back to culture (Poulain, 2017, p. 121). Especially Margaret Mead was interested in differences in food practices and the influence of culture on these practices. Roos Wever 10 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Culturalists are concerned with how food practices contribute to the construction of one’s identity and how culture influences consumption patterns. This way, differences in food practices between different cultures can be analyzed and the cultural norms of a community can be determined.
Lastly, developmentalism follows Norbert Elias (1978) in explaining food patterns by tracing it back into history and looking at how food practices have developed through the ages until the point where it is now (Mennell et al., 1992, p. 14; Poulain, 2017, p. 148). Elias emphasizes the process of civilization as a central mechanism within this development, as this process signifies the incorporation of emotions and tensions into the self, instead of expressing these emotions in a battle with others. This way, following the development of food practices will show how these food practices are internalized and how, for example, table manners can be explained.
These perspectives approach food practices from different angles, emphasizing mechanisms that underlie differences in use of food and the distribution of food. This thesis approaches the food practice of veganism from the perspective of Distinction, introduced by Pierre Bourdieu in 1984. The research is, however, also open to adaptions from reflexive theory. Before the results will be presented, Bourdieu’s Distinction theory will be outlined and existing research on veganism will be summarized.
2.2 Eating as a class disposition
If we aim to shed light on the sociological mechanisms that underlie veganism, we must understand how different food consumption patterns in society have developed. How can we explain that one group wishes to exclude animal products from their consumption pattern, whereas others are not concerned with this? The question, then, is: how can differences in consumption patterns be explained? What are the mechanisms that underlie these differences?
Pierre Bourdieu (1984) brings differences in consumption patterns back to differences in social class. In his book Distinction (1984) he shows how, in the French society, cultural taste corresponds to the class position people maintain within society. This position corresponds to the capital people possess. Bourdieu distinguishes several kinds of capital, including economic capital, understood as economic resources such as income and property, social capital including social relationships and networks, and cultural capital referring to cultural knowledge and skills one has (Bourdieu, 1986). Based on these differences in capital, Roos Wever 11 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ the society is divided into different social classes, in which higher classes possess higher volumes of capital, whereas lower classes lack capital.
These differences in social position influence how people act, as social position one maintains is incorporated into the habitus. The habitus can be understood as the embodiment of the social structures which leads to individual action, and these structures correspond to the social position of individuals in society (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 170). It ‘bounds a set of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours which belong to a particular group of people; it is a series of systems which, developed over time and generations, is the ‘milieu’ in which individuals live with a collective (un)consciousness.’ (Wills et al., 2011, p. 727). Hence, several aspects influence one’s habitus, such as the social environment someone engages in, the position one maintains in society and the way someone is raised. The habitus, then, leads to individual action, but it also functions as a ‘structuring structure’ in society (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 170).
Together with differences in capital, the habitus constructs the social position people maintain in society (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 101). These different positions in society, moreover, create differences in taste. Bourdieu found that these differences in cultural taste are homologous to each other (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 176). In the case of the French society, for example, he found that the higher classes exhibit a taste of luxury, which means that they have a taste for fine products that are light and exotic, whereas the working class prefer heavy, nutritious foods. Moreover, the higher classes are characterized by ease and asceticism, whereas for the working class their taste is functional and necessary (Bourdieu. 1984, p. 176).
Even though this book has been published several decades ago, recent studies detected the same differences in consumption patterns. Magne Flemmen and colleagues (2018), for example, found that in Norway consumption behaviour is constructed around several homologous axes, such as the opposition between eclectic and restricted taste, and the opposition between healthy and unhealthy products. When connecting this to social classes, Flemmen and colleagues observed that the healthy and eclectic consumption patterns are mostly associated with upper classes, whereas the lower classes are more likely to consume unhealthy and restricted.
Atkinson and Deeming (2015), moreover, observed differences in cultural taste in Great Britain and found that these tastes were also homologous constructed: the light and exclusive products versus the cheap and substantive foods. They furthermore argued that Roos Wever 12 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ higher classes value the quality of products, but that they are also concerned with the ethical issues, such as animal welfare and environmental impact. This can be connected to the freedom they have when purchasing items, as lower classes are restricted in their budget and therefore exhibit a taste of the necessary. It must be pointed out, however, that there exist differences in the dominant class between, for instance, the cultural dominant group, who are more concerned with the ethical dimensions, and the business executives, who value this dimension less.
If we would connect this to veganism, can we, then, consider veganism as a taste of the higher classes? Can it be associated with a healthier life-pattern? Or can it be associated with the taste of freedom and exclusivity, instead of something that is necessary and cheap? Moreover, what role does habitus play in the case of veganism? Are vegans in the predisposed position to become vegan? Or are there also other mechanisms that underlie this taste, such as the ability to be reflexive in the decision to adhere to this lifestyle? In the following section research will be discussed that has been conducted on the topic of veganism. This research will be connected to sociological theories in order to grasp the mechanisms that underlie or explain veganism. This will be discussed in three categories: the decision process in becoming vegan, the construction of the vegan lifestyle, and veganism in the social sphere.
2.3 Decision process
One of the pioneers in research on veganism is Barbara McDonald (2000). Interested in how people learn about veganism and how they decided to follow this diet, she interviewed twelve vegans and found that her respondents went through several phases when they became vegan. The initial stage McDonald observed was the stage she called ‘who I was’, which she described as ‘the background and experiences that made the participants who they were prior to the learning experience’ (2000, p. 6). These experiences shaped their worldview and could have made them more interested in veganism. For example, some of her respondents reported having compassion for animals or having pets, but failing to make the connection between those animals and the meat and dairy products they ate. The process of becoming vegan was then followed by a catalytic experience through which the respondents became aware of animal exploitation, for instance watching a video about animal cruelty. This developed, sometimes after a short period of repressing this experience, into an orientation process in which the respondents learned more about animal exploitation and how to act upon this. Roos Wever 13 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Eventually, this resulted in the decision to become vegan. McDonald also showed how this process changed her respondents’ world view into one that values equal existence of human beings and animals.
From this research, two stages could be connected to sociological theory. First of all the receptiveness McDonald (2000) described of her participants to become vegan. The background of the participants implied that the participants were in the predisposed position to be open-minded about veganism. However, it was not McDonald’s aim to examine the role of habitus in this process. It is, therefore, impossible to say anything about the influence of this. Hirschler (2011) found that the 32 vegans he interviewed were major meat-consumers when they grew up. Some even recall crying when they had to eat a meal without meat. This suggests that they, while growing up, did not necessarily incorporated values into their habitus that could correspond with the values that underlie veganism. Thus, in this case habitus seems to play a minor role. Therefore there must be something else underlying this process, which might be the ability to be reflexive.
It is Margaret Archer who is an advocate of the human ability to be reflexive (Archer, 2003). She argues that individuals are rational human beings, capable of engaging in reflexivity. She defines reflexivity as ‘the regular exercise of the mental ability, shared by all normal people, to consider themselves in relation to their (social) contexts and vice versa’ (Archer, 2012, p.1). Archer contends that individuals engage in internal conversations in which they explore their possible actions and decide what is the best way to act within their social environment. Even though this reflexive process is internal, it can only be triggered by external structures and events in the social world. Archer argues that individuals are influenced by the structures in society: individuals reflexively think about these structures and then decide how to act upon these structures. As McDonald’s (2000) participants went through a catalytic experience which made them aware of structures in society which they disagree with, in this case animal exploitation, they start orienting and exploring possibilities on how to act upon this in order to change these structures. This orientation process is an example of engaging in reflexive processes. Moreover, Hirschler (2011) confirms this reflexive process in his research on veganism in describing how his respondents went through the same orientation processes as McDonald’s respondents. Cherry (2015) described that her participants engaged in a learning process, by reading literature on veganism and animal rights, and by purchasing vegan cookbooks. Sneijder and te Molder (2009) also show how, for Roos Wever 14 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ instance, vegetarians that are considering becoming vegan use internet forums to ask questions about their transition process.
As McDonald’s research mainly discusses one reason to become vegan, namely animal cruelty, more research has been conducted on the motivations of individuals to become vegan (Janssen, Busch, Rödiger & Hamm, 2016). These motivations can be connected to Margaret Archer’s idea of ultimate concerns (Archer & Tritter, 2000, p. 54). Archer argues that individuals are not mainly driven by self-interest, but that they are essentially caring. ‘We are who we are because of what we care about: in delineating our ultimate concerns and accommodating our subordinate ones, we also define ourselves’ (Archer & Tritter, 2000, p. 10). Thus, individuals constitute themselves by delineating what they care about. In the internal conversations, then, the individual is concerned with the delineation of the ultimate concern. Moreover, in this conversation the individual determines in which actions or behaviour he or she engages to address these concerns.
If we would follow Archer in arguing that human beings are essentially caring and that they act upon their ultimate concerns, we could discern several concerns that motivate vegans to become vegan. Research has found that vegans can generally be distinguished into three categories: (1) ethical vegans, (2) environmental vegans, and (3) health vegans (Greenebaum, 2012). The first category, ethical vegans, is most prevalent in research that has been conducted (Janssen, Busch, Rödiger & Hamm, 2016). These are the vegans that are concerned about the well-being of animals and object the bio-industry. They believe that it is morally wrong to consume animals and animal products. Environmental vegans chose to follow a vegan lifestyle because they are concerned about the impact of the animal industry on the environment. Climate change and environmental damages can be understood as consequences of this industry. The third category, health vegans, is concerned with their personal health and believes that eating plant-based products is the best way to stay in a healthy physical condition. It must be pointed out that these categories are not exclusive. Vegans can be categorized into more than one of the categories and can be concerned about, for example, both animal well-being and climate change (Janssen, Busch, Rödiger & Hamm, 2016).
2.4 Vegan lifestyle
Even though veganism might be referred to as a diet, by not eating any products derived from animals, one could also argue that veganism can be understood as a lifestyle. For example, Roos Wever 15 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Pierre Bourdieu (1984) maintains that differences in cultural taste and consumption can be connected to one’s lifestyle, which can be understood as ‘a unitary set of distinctive preferences which express the same expressive intention in the specific logic of each of the symbolic sub-spaces, furniture, clothing, language of body hexis’ (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 172). This would thus mean that veganism cannot be understood simply as a diet, i.e. only eating plant-based products, but that it also should be connected to other forms of consumption, such as clothing, or more broadly in embracing a worldview that corresponds to the ideals of following a vegan diet.
This is also something that has been found within the research on veganism. For example, McDonald (2000) described that the worldview of her respondents, in the last phase of the process of becoming vegan, developed into one which not only embraced not hurting animals, but also a more general principle of being harmless to the earth and its inhabitants. Moreover, some of Hirschler’s (2011) respondents referred to veganism as being a form of religion or spirituality, which would help them to make ethical decisions in life. Cherry (2015) reported that her respondents constructed their identity around moral and ethical ideals.
McDonald (2000) and Hirschler (2011) did not refer to the general consumption pattern of their respondents, but this consumption pattern is something Greenebaum (2012) did examine. Her vegan respondents reported not only excluding meat and dairy products from the food that they purchased, but also not purchasing and wearing wool or leather, and attempting to avoid cosmetic products that have been tested on animals. Greenebaum observed that these lifestyle vegans judged other vegans who followed a vegan, or plant- based, diet by calling them selfish because, according to the lifestyle vegans, they are only driven by personal motivations, such as health. The life-style vegans, on the other hand, aim to make the world better, and are compassionate with the earth and animals.
Another part or expression of the vegan lifestyle can be the participation in vegan movements. Elizabeth Cherry (2015) interviewed vegans that were active within social movements, often connected to the punk subculture. Most vegans reported gaining support from these movements to maintain this lifestyle. Moreover, being part of this subculture also encouraged the vegans to attend activities, such as potlucks in which vegans share vegan meals, or political gatherings in which they were able to share their political ideals. Sneijder and te Molder (2009) furthermore found the internet as a place of identity construction for vegans. They observed that vegans participate in an online forum on which they share Roos Wever 16 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ information and ask questions, and analyzed the discourse vegans used to constitute their identity, which mainly revolves around describing how easy and ordinary it is to be vegan, to contradict the societal misconceptions about the effort it takes to be vegan.
2.5 Veganism in the social sphere
Veganism and vegans themselves are not always perceived as favourable in the contemporary society. For example, research has observed that there exists stigma towards vegans (Bresnahan, Zhuang & Zhu, 2015; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). Stigma can be defined as ‘the perception and enactment of bias toward others because they possess some trait, condition or status seen as undesirable or threatening’ (Bresnahan et al., 2015, p. 4). In this sense, veganism can be understood as a lifestyle that non-vegans perceive as unfavourable. MacInnis & Hodson (2017) examined bias towards vegetarians and vegans using survey data that they collected in the United States. They found that their respondents evaluated vegetarians and vegans more negative that other stigmatized groups, such as black people. Furthermore, their survey, conducted among vegetarians and vegans, showed that this group experienced negative reactions because of their lifestyle. Both of these results were found to be more negative among vegans than vegetarians. Greenebaum (2012) also reported that vegans and vegetarians felt victimized by stereotypes and that they sometimes found themselves in conflict with non-vegans. Hirschler (2011) found that the vegans he interviewed felt that they had to defend their choice to become vegan and that they considered this to be ‘unfair that they were put in a situation to defend their diet when the average omnivore is not expected to’ (Hirschler, 2011, p. 162). Moreover, Cherry’s respondents experienced difficulties when eating with non-vegans, misunderstanding from non-vegans and being teased about their lifestyle (Cherry, 2015).
Sara Ahmed’s (2010) theory about the killjoy is a useful illustration of these conflicts between vegans and non-vegans. Whereas Ahmed’s theory is initially about the feminist being the killjoy, this idea has been translated by Richard Twine (2014) into the vegan killjoy. Ahmed positions the feminist killjoy around the dinner table with family: a practice in which their exist a shared sense of happiness, characterized by eating and sharing food together, which is understood as an important social activity (Sobal & Nelson, 2003). This shared sense of happiness is characterized by a dominant social order, in the case of the feminist killjoy, as Ahmed (2010) depicts, around patriarchal and heteronormative norms, in the case of Roos Wever 17 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ veganism around the consumption of meat, fish or dairy products. If the killjoy then decides to speak out against the social norms that constitute the happiness, he or she creates a social disruption. The shared happiness is contested. In the case of the feminist killjoy, the killjoy must wilfully choose to discuss this topic. In the case of the vegan, however, it might be more explicitly clear that he or she is deviant, because he or she is not consuming any animal products. Questions might arise from other family members, which then leads to the topic of veganism. Ahmed (2010) differentiates several consequences of this social disruption. It might induce feelings of discomfort and unease and it creates an awkward atmosphere. It might alienate the killjoy from the social norms surrounding the dinner table. Moreover, Ahmed describes that the killjoy is usually the victim who is blamed to be the difficult one and the one who creates all the fuss.
The experiment that Bresnahan and colleagues (2015) conducted illustrates this theory properly. They explained vegan stigma partly by pointing out that veganism makes it harder to share food with each other, which Sobal and Nelson (2003) showed is an important factor in the social activity of dining. Moreover, Bresnahan, Zhuang and Zhu (2015) found that feelings of anger and discomfort played a role in this stigmatization. Participants in Greenebaum’s (2013) study explained these feelings by arguing that non-vegans are, deep down, aware of the fact that the meat and dairy they eat are the result of animal exploitation. When vegans point this out, feelings of guilt arise that might frustrate or offend the non-vegan because it makes them feel as if they are a bad person.
Interaction strategies
As vegans experience stigmatization, or when they encounter situations in which they function as the killjoy, the question is how vegans cope in these situations. Research showed that vegans developed strategies which they use to negotiate in such situations with non- vegans, which can include family, friends or other actors (Greenebaum, 2013; Twine, 2014; Turner, 2017).
A useful theory that could be drawn upon here is Erving Goffman’s (1967) theory on face-work and impression management. Interested in how people interact with each other, Goffman proposed that during social encounters, which he calls a ‘line’, people are concerned with maintaining a ‘face’. This face constructs a positive image of the individual and it makes sure that individuals stay comfortable during the conversations. This way the individual can Roos Wever 18 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ counteract ‘events whose effective symbolic implications threaten face’ (Goffman, 2003, p. 8). These practices are referred to by Goffman as face-work, or face-saving practices. Individuals develop a repertoire of these practices on which they draw when they are in similar social situations. Goffman also holds that these repertoires could be linked to subcultures or societies, and that the members of these cultures or societies have knowledge about their cultural repertoires. In this process of face-saving, the individual is not only concerned with saving its own face: he or she is also concerned with saving the face of the other. This is because the individual wants to protect the other from feeling threatened or offended.
Applying this to the case of veganism, Jessica Greenebaum (2013) found that vegetarians and vegans engaged in several face-saving strategies. One of them was avoiding confrontation. Her respondents reported that they used to confront others with their beliefs and ideals about veganism. However, they found that this tactic was misplaced and ineffective. The non-vegans with whom they were talking became defensive and the conversation became meaningless. Therefore, they chose to avoid these confrontations at all. Another strategy her respondents used was waiting for others to approach them to ask questions about veganism. They explained that, this way, they get the opportunity to educate non-vegans and inform them about their lifestyle. Moreover, describing the positive consequences of veganism for one’s health is considered as a useful strategy, since health is a topic that anyone can relate to. Finally, the respondents found that showing non-vegans how healthy and happy they are and that they are successful in maintaining this lifestyle is the best way to illustrate veganism. It is leading by example that encourages non-vegans to think about veganism. This last strategy is also found by Richard Twine (2014), even in a more explicit demonstrating way in which vegans provided non-vegans with vegan food, and showed the possibilities of cooking without any animal products. The respondents found that the reactions on these types of food were positive and this way, as Twine put it, ‘the material agency of the food is, in a sense, allowed to do the talking’ (Twine, 2014, p. 637).
Ryan Turner (2017) approached the discussion between vegans and non-vegans about veganism from the perspective of individualism. He argued that, even though many vegans in his sample believed that veganism is a moral imperative, thus according to them every individual should follow a vegan lifestyle, they engaged in a reflexive process which Turner calls ‘strategic individualistic behaviour’. This means that vegans individualized their choice to be vegan by emphasizing that their choice to become vegan was a choice they made on Roos Wever 19 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ their own and by describing their own reasons for this choice. Moreover, to avoid conflict the vegans in Turner’s sample (1) attempted to avoid the word veganism, because they felt this word has negative connotations and is experienced as morally demanding, (2) emphasized that this diet was their own choice and elaborated on their personal experiences which have contributed to making this decision, and (3) provided information about veganism, which creates a comfortable conversation instead of a demanding one. Roos Wever 20 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
3. Methodology
In order to explore the possible answers to the research questions, a qualitative research has been conducted. 18 interviews have been conducted with people who identified themselves as vegan. This type of method has been chosen because interviews provide an in depth perspective on veganism. During an interview, respondents have the opportunity to provide open, illustrating answers, in which they can describe their personal perspective on the topic or their own experiences. This way, the researcher gets a better insight in the topic and mechanisms at stake. The following section will outline how the data is gathered, provides a descriptive overview of the respondents and considers the ethical issues related to this research.
3.1 Research population: criteria and recruitment
For the purpose of this research, interviews were conducted with vegans. Even though, as shown in the introduction of this research, the Vegan Society has provided a strict definition of veganism, in reality this definition differs per person: some vegans attach more value to eating plant-based and less value to clothing or cosmetics, whereas others avoid all products which might include animal exploitation, which could also include avoiding to go to the zoo. Therefore, the respondents in this research are persons that define themselves as vegan. During the interviews they were asked to explain what veganism means to them.
This research aimed at the recruitment of vegans between the 20 and 35 years old. This age-category has been chosen, because respondents within this group are relatively young and are likely to have chosen to adopt a vegan lifestyle relatively recent. Therefore this age-category is more likely to have knowledge about how they made the decision to become vegan and to reflect upon this process. If the decision had been made to interview older vegans, there is a higher chance that the respondents have adopted the vegan lifestyle a longer time ago. They might be, then, more accustomed to their lifestyle and therefore less able to recall how they made the decision to become vegan. Moreover, this research aimed to recruit respondents who are living in cities in the Netherlands, in order to limit differences between rural and urban environments.
The respondents were recruited through snowball-sampling. This means that I asked around in my social environment whether my personal contacts knew any vegans. When they Roos Wever 21 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ did, I asked them if I could approach them, which I did by means of sending them a message in which I asked them if I could interview them for my master thesis about veganism. I approached 23 vegans, out of which 18 agreed to meet up for an interview. Out of those 23, two did not respond, two emphasized not being entirely vegan and one was lacking the time to meet up.
3.2 Data collection
The interviews were conducted in the months April and May in the year 2018. In total 18 interviews were conducted, lasting between the 34 minutes and 59 minutes, with an average of 48 minutes. The first two interviews were pilot-interviews in which the topic-list was tested and adjusted. These interviews provided me with useful information and are therefore included in the data. Most of the interviews took place in a café during daytime, or, in a few cases, at the house of the respondent.
The interviews were semi-structured by nature, which means that I had prepared a topic-list which would guide me through the interview. It was not necessarily the case that the topics were addressed in the order in which the topic list was constructed. The topic list, in that sense, provided me a guide of topics that should be discussed. This also meant that when the respondent gave an interesting answer, there was space to explore these answers. The topics can be mainly divided into four sections, which will be described shortly:
1. Introduction: the interviews started with a short conversation to get to know the respondent better. I asked about the social and educational background of the participants and his or her interests and hobbies. Moreover, the participant is asked to explain how they would define veganism in their case.
2. Decision process: The participant was asked about the decision process when he or she became a vegan. They were asked when they decided to become vegan and what their motives were in this decision process. Moreover, they were asked about the influences of the social environment, such as their family, but also their friends.
3. Personal experience of being vegan: Participants were asked about the difficulties they experienced when becoming vegan. How did they cope in the transition period, does veganism requires more creativity or does it cost more money? Also, they were asked Roos Wever 22 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
whether veganism can be understood as a part of their identity and whether it can also be connected to their general ideals and lifestyle.
4. Social experience of being vegan: This topic was twofold: firstly questions were asked about the public understanding of veganism, the position of veganism in the Dutch society, but also the opinion of the respondent about people that do consume dairy and meat products. Secondly, questions were asked about social situations and the reactions vegans encountered when they had to tell people that they are vegan and the tactics that they use to discuss veganism.
3.3 Description of the research population
The research population included 18 participants: ten of them were female and eight male. The age of the participants ranged from 20 to 33, with an average of 25,6 years. Nine of the participants were enrolled in a full-time bachelor or master program, six were working full- time, two were in a gap year and planning to study next semester and one was part-time enrolled in a master program and part-time working. The duration of the participants being vegan ranged from two months to five years. Their definition of being vegan differed from not eating meat, fish and dairy products, to abstaining from any product which contains animal products or has contributed to animal exploitation, in the case of food, but also clothes and cosmetics. Eleven respondents defined veganism as not using animal products in food, clothing and cosmetics, five reported not eating any animal products, one reported not eating meat, fish and dairy products but eating eggs, and one respondent reported avoiding food products that contain any animal substances as much as possible, but eating a sandwich of cheese a day. An overview of the respondents is presented in table 1, on the next page.
Roos Wever 23 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Table 1. Overview of Respondents
Pseudonym Sex Age Time vegan Nicole Female 23 8 months
Joanne Female 27 3 years
Amber Female 22 6 months Andrew Male 26 2,5 years
Sophie Female 23 1 year Lillian Female 25 9 months
Alwin Male 26 9 months Victor Male 25 4,5 years Angela Female 20 2 months Rudolf Male 30 1 year
Hailey Female 24 5 years
Levi Male 27 2 years Ingrid Female 33 3 years
Ernst Male 24 2,5 years Martijn Male 29 4 years
Eveline Female 23 2 years Paula Female 20 2 years Sidney Male 33 4 months
3.4 Ethical considerations
When the participants were recruited, they were asked to participate in an interview about veganism. They were told that they would be part of a research on veganism and were asked to share their personal experience of becoming and being vegan. Before the interview started they were informed that the interview would be anonymous and that the data of the interview are only used for this research. In order to maintain the participant’s privacy pseudonyms are used in this research. Moreover, the participants were asked whether the interview could be recorded, something which they all agreed on.
As a researcher, one can influence the answers the participants might give. I was aware of the fact that my personal stance towards veganism might influence the interview and might affect the answers the respondents would give. Most participants were curious whether Roos Wever 24 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
I myself was a vegan, but they all agreed to discuss my position on veganism after the interview.
3.5 Data analysis
After the interviews were conducted, they were transcribed, analyzed and coded. As analysis strategy, the abductive method was used. Abductive analysis means that the researcher uses existing theory to get familiar with the topic that is studied (Timmermans and Tavory, 2012). This theory can be used while analyzing the data, since it makes the researcher sensitive for themes that emerge within the data, but it will also enable the researcher to find surprising results in the data. By moving back and forth between theory and the data, I got a proper insight in to the gathered data. This abductive approach is especially useful since it combines aspects of both grounded theory and extended case method.
The analysis started with an open coding process in which the transcriptions were read for the first time and parts of the transcriptions were coded that corresponded with the research questions. Codes included, for example, ‘decision process’, ‘vegan lifestyle’ and ‘social situations’. It must be noted that during this first coding process, interesting findings or sentences were also coded, as for example codes arose such as ‘vegan environment’, ‘normalization of meat consumption’ or ‘reflexivity into routine’. This way, the analysis was not only focused on answering the research questions, but also open to surprises in the data.
In the second round of coding, the quotes that were connected to the codes were divided into more specific codes. For example, in the case of decision process the codes were: ‘habitus+’, ‘habitus-‘, ‘reflexivity’ and ‘friends/environment’. In the case of vegan lifestyle and the differentiation between (face-saving) strategies, a third coding round was conducted in which overlapping codes and recurring themes were labelled. During these coding processes, memos were written which functioned as the basis for the result section. This result-section will be presented next and will provide an analysis of the outcomes of the interviews.
Roos Wever 25 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
4. Becoming vegan
Analysis of the interview data revealed that there are different mechanisms underlying the decision to become vegan. In the following, the influences of habitus, reflexivity, but also peer group will be discussed. Moreover, it will be shown that these mechanisms not necessarily exclude each other: they also interact.
4.1 The vegan habitus
With respect to the decision process, several vegans in this sample had the dispositions to become vegan. Their habitus has been formed into one valuing ideals associated with veganism. As there are different aspects shaping their habitus, this research found that one factor influencing this process is the upbringing by their parents. For example, when asked about the possible influences of their family or parents on their decision to become vegan, several respondents discussed the treatment and appropriation of the food they consumed during their upbringing. They explained that they were taught where their food came from and to treat their food sustainably. Lillian (25) illustrated: ‘I think my parents love good food. They like to cook, so there originates my love for cooking and interest in good products. And that’s where it starts, I guess. Knowing what you eat.’ Not only did the respondents learn to appropriate the products they consumed, but also the type of food they ate. For instance, several respondents reported that their parents bought organic food. Sophie (23) connected this consumption and appropriation of organic food to the importance of separating waste: ‘My mom is super clean on separating waste and... yeah... when the green waste wasn’t collected anymore in Amsterdam, we made our own compost pile. For the environment. And also... organic food and that kind of stuff.’ Later in the interview she told me that her parents valued ethics, and stimulated her to think critically about her environment. Valuing good products can be associated with the taste of the higher classes Bourdieu (1984) distinguishes in Distinction. He observed that lower classes exhibit a taste for nutritious and cheap products, whereas the taste of higher classes is characterized by refinement and delicateness (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 185). Furthermore, the appreciation of organic food corresponds with the results of the research of Atkinson and Deeming (2015), as they found that this taste is one of the higher classes.
Moreover, the restrictiveness, or ‘self-imposed austerity’ as Bourdieu called it, that characterizes the bourgeoisie in Bourdieu’s research (1984, p. 176) also emerges in the Roos Wever 26 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ current sample. For instance, several respondents reported being raised with the idea that meat is not essential within a meal. Andrew (26) said that it was not uncommon within his family to eat meals without meat. Moreover, describing her parents as the ‘unusual ones’, doing different things than the ‘standard’, such as not getting married, not having a driver’s license and a car, Nicole (27) explained that she was raised as a ‘flexitarian. One half of the week we always ate vegetarian and the other half of the week meat.’ The way Andrew and Nicole described this limited meat consumption can be connected to higher class taste: it implies that their family had the freedom to make the decision to purchase meat or not. This way their taste can be considered as the ‘taste of freedom’, opposed to the ‘taste of necessity’ of the working classes, who are, because of their amount of capital, forced to buy products that fit their budget and are not able to purchase meat or fish (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 177).
Others described characteristics of taste that, following Bourdieu, can be connected to higher class taste (1984, p.190). They said that, when they grew up, they always ate healthy, with a sweet or snack once in a while. Eveline (23) described it as, ‘a house-garden-and- kitchen diet’: a Dutch proverb for an ordinary diet. She continued: ‘I’m just raised healthy. Fruit, vegetables, but also candy and cookies and crisps and chocolate and… Just like every ordinary household in the Netherlands. (…) Just healthy dinner, vegetables, and fruit and potatoes and meat.’ Later on in the interview she described that being in control is something that characterizes her family. This description of her families taste revolves around the notions of health and restrictiveness. She described this taste as the taste of the ordinary Dutch household, but if we would understand it through Bourdieu’s perspective, this ‘ordinary diet’ can be considered as the diet of the higher class, characterized by healthy eating, without abundance and being in control over what you eat (1984, p. 196). These notions of restrictiveness are not only confined to food taste, but also to other forms of taste. For example, as noted above, Nicole’s parents deliberately chose to not get a driver’s license and a car. Moreover, when asked whether conscious consumption is something he learned from his parents, Ernst (24) replied learning to be conscious in the sense that their taste was not characterized by abundance or that he ‘didn’t get any scooters or cars for [his] birthday or something.’
Another factor shaping the respondents’ habitus is their education. In the current sample all the respondents, but one, are higher educated. Moreover, some of them are also enrolled in a study relevant to veganism, such as animal care, environment and resource Roos Wever 27 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ management, philosophy and applied ethics. This influence of education is illustrated by Angela:
‘Especially Anthropology. (…) You learn to look with respect to other systems. You know that your economic system is not the only one. (…) Anthropology made me think about: what is something we don’t see, but is there. We now know where products are from. It’s crazy, because someone else [has made it]. (…) And that’s what Anthropology taught me.’ (Angela, 20)
Coming from a family that stimulates debate and is concerned with issues such as water shortage, Angela learned to be critical about societal structures, as the treatment of the earth, but also its inhabitants. Being enrolled in university and following courses in Anthropology reinforced this.
It must be noted that not all of the interviewees possessed the habitus described above. For example, Amber (22) described her family as right-wing and undemocratic and Ingrid (33) and Martijn (29) said they were raised in a meat-consuming environment with nobody being critical about the industry. However, both Ingrid’s and Martijn’s parents are East- European and this difference in culture might explain the difference in habitusl. Moreover, having a lower education and originating from a ‘right-wing, undemocratic’ family, Amber might also have a different habitus than the other respondents.
Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that higher education does not necessarily equal awareness about consumption, ethics or environmental damage. This is especially the case with Ingrid:
‘I’ve done a minor, cognitive sciences (…) and we were told that animals can’t actually feel pain. Yes they can feel, but they can’t suffer. And then it’s not wrong. Because they don’t realize that they can’t feel pain. You know, I’m really pro-science and I took that for granted from those old professors, because that matched my worldview. So yeah, that was always my defense, like: oh science says they don’t suffer.’ (Ingrid)
Hence, as not all respondents possess the habitus which could have put them in the predisposed position to become vegan, there must be something else underlying this decision. Therefore, it is useful to examine what role reflexivity plays in this process.
Roos Wever 28 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
4.2 Reflexivity
Most respondents referred to their decision to become vegan as a conscious decision. It is therefore useful to look at the reflexive processes they engaged in, to see whether Margaret Archer’s (2000; 2003) understanding of reflexivity plays a role in the case of veganism. As Archer contends that individuals engage in an internal conversation before they act, there are instances in which the vegans in the current study described this internal conversation they engaged in:
‘A while ago I got into the spiritual world, five years ago or something. I was kind of looking for myself, because I’ve got a history of depressions and stuff, and I wanted to look for what I found important in life. What makes me happy and stuff. And then I actually ended up with thinking like... if there exists a god, then that’s the earth. Because the earth is that what we all originate from, you know, so then it makes sense to treat that with a little bit of respect.’ (Joanne, 27)
‘Around your 16th you’re going to think about: what kind of person do I want to be? Yeah... That’s where it started. Yes.’ (Angela)
‘At a certain moment I asked myself the question: how can I live a good life? Be a good person, live a good life, make ethical decisions. And then at a certain moment I started thinking about... where does meat actually come from? And, uh, that animals were killed for that.’ (Hailey, 24)
These quotes are descriptions of the internal conversation Joanne, Angela and Hailey engaged in, in which they were contemplating what kind of person they want to be. Questions as ‘how can I live a good life’ and ‘what is important to me’ demands a reflexive consideration of their priorities and, in turn, what kind of actions they must pursue to live a better life. In order to treat the world with respect, Joanne found the exclusion of animal products from her lifestyle a good way to act and a respectful way to treat the earth.
Others described being in a situation that stimulated them to engage in such an internal conversation. These situations are a ‘catalytic experience’ (McDonald, 2000) in which the vegans became aware of their ultimate concerns. For example, Amber described going to a slaughter-house with her school where she saw how they treat animals, which made her rethink her conception of the food-industry. Ingrid recounted having a cat for a few weeks, observing the cat and realizing that the cat, and animals in general, share many similarities Roos Wever 29 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ with human beings. She asked herself the question: ‘Why don’t I grant this freedom and love to the other animals that I now only see on my plate?’ Moreover, several interviewees describe watching documentaries or speeches about the animal industry and its environmental effects as the moment they realized that these are their ultimate concerns.
These internal conversations were then followed by an orientation process, as McDonald (2000) also describes, in which the vegans actively searched for information about veganism. They watched documentaries, such as Cowspiracy, What the Health and Knives over Forks, they searched for information on the internet, looked at vegan associations, or read books about veganism, which then resulted in the decision to become vegan. As Sidney (32) recalled: ‘eventually it were those documentaries that sort of… Cowspiracy and that sort of documentaries that gave the last boost to becoming entirely vegan.’
Interestingly, not all respondents engaged in a reflexive process prior to making the decision to become vegan. Sophie, Andrew and Victor (25) explained being influenced by their social environment when they made the decision, but then wanting to have their own reasons and motivations for their vegan lifestyle. They engaged in an orientation process after they decided to become vegan to find information about veganism and to justify their decision. Andrew, for example, illustrated how his girlfriend encouraged him to become vegetarian:
‘I got into a relationship with someone who was vegetarian (…) and she was like: I’d like it when you don’t eat meat as well. (…) And then I was like: why am I doing it? I mean, I never really found meat very interesting. (…) So it was very easy to say: well then I don’t eat meat. But I thought: I do want to have a reason for it. When you say you don’t eat meat, people always look at you: O why not? (…) And then I started searching on the internet, watching movies...’ (Andrew)
This example shows that engaging in reflexive processes does not necessarily has to happen prior to the decision making, but can also happen after the decision has already been made. Hence, instead of a reflexive process that motivates actions, this reflexive process functions as a justification of the action. This is in line with the argument of social theorists, as Stephen Vaisey (2009), who claim that justification of the act comes after the act itself.
As this example of Andrew illustrates, it was his girlfriend that encouraged him to eat less meat. This was also the case with Victor, whose girlfriend asked him whether he would Roos Wever 30 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ be interested to see why she had become a vegetarian. Moreover, several of Sophie’s friends were vegetarian or vegan, which made her decide to become vegan as well. It is therefore useful to consider the influences of peers in this decision process.
4.3 Peer group influences
In several cases, an important factor in the decision process was the friends and the social environment of the vegan. For example, half of the vegans interviewed reported becoming vegan together with their partner, as Sidney: ‘my girlfriend and I said like: let’s do the VeganChallenge. (…) If she wouldn’t have done that I would have struggled more. Then it would be different I think (…) It has made things easier, practically.’ In the case of Sidney, making the decision together made it easier to adhere to such a lifestyle. Also, Ingrid became vegan together with her girlfriend, and now, as she is vegan for three years, she would not like to be with someone who is not vegan: ‘I can’t imagine how it is to be [in a relationship with someone who eats animals]. I would refuse it.’ Victor and Andrew, as described above, both explained that their partner asked them to consider to eat less meat or to become vegetarian.
Others described leaving their parental home and coming into contact with vegetarians and vegans. This change of social environment made the vegans aware of the existence of veganism and the ideals it is connected with. As Levi said:
‘I think I often didn’t even think about it. Until I went to college, I think, at the University of Amsterdam, Philosophy. When I moved to Amsterdam and got into contact with other people. Because before that [the consumption of animal products] was actually not an issue.’ (Levi, 27)
Levi told me that when he grew up there was not much societal awareness about meat consumption and he ate meat, just as he ate potatoes, without thinking about it. He explained this lack of societal awareness by referring to the fact that he grew up on the country side in the 1990’s, a time in which there was not much attention for vegetarianism and veganism. It was when he moved to Amsterdam and got into contact with other people that he got familiar with veganism and the ideals that connect with this lifestyle.
Not only did the social environment inspire some of the respondents to become vegan, it also made the decision easier to become vegan. Amber explained: Roos Wever 31 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
‘When I became vegetarian, I didn’t know a lot of people who were vegetarian, and I must say that that was harder. But vegan... my boyfriend is vegan for four years already, so that makes it a lot easier. (…) That makes it, I think, easier for me. Because he has provided me with a lot of information and what you can and cannot eat and how you should eat. And also a lot of friends have helped me.’ (Amber)
Originating from a social environment in which veganism was something completely unfamiliar, her current social environment provided Amber with information about veganism which made it easier for her to decide to become vegan.
4.4 Reinterpreting vegan reflexivity
The analysis has shown that both habitus, reflexivity and peer group play a role in the decision to become vegan. When analyzing differences in the presence of habitus or reflexivity in this process, respondents who did not have such a habitus as Ingrid, Martijn, Joanne, Hailey and Amber, did engage in reflexive processes. However, these reflexive processes were not limited to those who did not have such a habitus, as respondents that did learn to value good food and had the taste of the higher classes, engaged in reflexive processes too. Therefore, it must be noted that these mechanisms do not necessarily exclude each other: there also exist interplay between habitus and reflexivity. Paul Sweetman proposed the term ‘habitual reflexivity’, to refer too ‘a capacity for – and predispositions towards – reflexive engagement [that] is characteristic of certain forms of contemporary habitus’ (2003, p. 537). Thus, Sweetman argues that the habitus can be shaped into one embodying a ‘reflexive orientation towards the contemporary environment’ (p. 543). This has been confirmed in the current research. For instance, as Angela described coming from a family that always stimulated debate, it made her able to remain critical about societal structures. This way, her parents formed her habitus in one that values being critical and reflexive. Moreover, Sophie described that her study also stimulated reflexivity: ‘it was during the study Philosophy that I thought like: what kind of reasons can you… or what kind of grounds can you have for veganism?’ Hence, her education encouraged her to think about reasons one can have to adhere to a vegan lifestyle and motivated her to be reflexive. Roos Wever 32 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Not only does there exist interplay between habitus and reflexivity – peer group can also encourage the vegans to look reflexive at societal structures. As Victor, for example, explained:
‘I had a girlfriend at that time, she was vegetarian. And she said: “Do you want me to show you what convinced me to become vegetarian?” And then I thought: yes, okay, I’m open for this. Because at my study there were some vegetarians and on my [student] association as well. So I thought: okay, there are many people in my environment who care about this, I should have a look at this too. But, the sources actually gave me the idea: meat is not the only problem. It’s the whole industry... or... the whole system that’s behind it. Yeah, so then I decided to become vegan right away.’ (Victor)
As Victor illustrated, seeing vegetarians and vegans in his surroundings and being asked to look at the reasons why his girlfriend is vegetarian stimulated him to think reflexively about the consumption of animal products. He started orienting by watching documentaries, and watching a seminar about the connection between meat and masculinity. Interestingly, Victor was the only one mentioning this connection between meat and masculinity and wanting to object this societal perception, which can be associated with the working class perception (Bourdieu, 1984, p.192). Moreover, as his girlfriend stimulated him to become vegetarian, he made the decision to become vegan after engaging in this orientation process, during which he realized he objected the entire animal industry.
Finally, in the case of Sophie, all three mechanisms interplayed. Even though she comes from a family that values good, organic food, is concerned about food waste and values ethics, it was her peer group that made her decide to become entirely vegan. After this decision making, however, she also engaged in a reflexive process in which she started to look for reasons why she adheres to this lifestyle, which is an illustration of post-reflexivity.
4.5 Conclusion
This section has shown which factors play a role in the decision process of becoming a vegan and how these factors do so. Following Bourdieu, it has illustrated how the respondents’ habitus has been formed into one that gave them the dispositions to become vegan. Both upbringing and education played a role in shaping this habitus. However, this is not the only factor playing a role in the decision process, as respondents also engaged in reflexive Roos Wever 33 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ processes in which they delineated their ultimate concerns and decided to act upon this by excluding animal products from their lifestyle. Lastly, the respondents’ peers also played a role in this decision process by making them familiar with veganism, or becoming vegan together with them to make the transition easier. This analysis showed that these factors not necessarily excluded each other, but that they also interplay, in the case of habitus and reflexivity (habitual reflexivity), peer influences and reflexivity, or interplay between all three mechanisms.
Roos Wever 34 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
5. The vegan lifestyle
Pierre Bourdieu maintains that taste is part of a lifestyle and that each element of a lifestyle corresponds with the other (1984, p. 172). This section will show that veganism cannot only be understood as a diet that excludes animal products, but that it is also associated with parts of a lifestyle, which include worldview, general consumption patterns, activities and the social environment that the vegans engage in. Moreover, it will show that within this lifestyle, vegans engage in reflexive processes to construct this lifestyle.
Interestingly, some of the respondents pointed out that they do not explicitly call themselves ‘vegan’, but that they are ‘just following a plant-based diet.’ They are not concerned with the other parts of their consumption pattern, as they do wear, for example, leather shoes. However, they do engage in other activities that could be linked to their diet, or they do embrace a worldview that corresponds with the vegan lifestyle.
5.1 Worldview
Veganism is often associated with a broader ideal, such as the treatment of the world and its inhabitants, as McDonald (2001) and Hirschler (2011) found. This is also something that emerges within the current research. For example, Angela gave a detailed illustration of her believes:
‘For me veganism is not necessarily connected to animal-harm. It’s part of it, but for me it’s more a point of view of how we treat this society, actually how we treat our complete surroundings. So I always say: currently, we’re living in a society where we have a certain standard of living which is only possible because someone else is paying the price. And that could be nature, that could be the exploitation of animals, and that could be the exploitation of people.’ (Angela)
This worldview revolves around ideas of how to treat the world, but also about how to treat people and animals. It is about equal distribution of resources around the world, without exploiting other people. Alwin (26) stressed that meat consumption is a source of inequality, because it takes away welfare of people somewhere else on the world. This also implies the importance of human rights. In line with this are other human rights that the respondents are concerned about, such as gender equality, sexual freedom and anti-racism. As Ernst Roos Wever 35 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ explained: ‘It’s in the sphere of other ideas, principles (…) whether it’s human rights or counteracting abuse of women, of children. It’s just (….) a no-harm principle.’ He continued explaining that the current society is based upon capitalism, which he considers problematic: ‘It has some imperialistic backgrounds and it’s very focused on exploitation. As a matter of fact, you could say that the main goal of capitalism is exploitation.’ Others agree with this statement. For example Ingrid and Levi, both active at the political party Party for the Animals, argued that the current society and the political system only focusses on economic growth, whereas the eco-system is something that should be central within politics. If the eco- system becomes the central focus, other problems, such as human and animal exploitation, will be solved as well.
Other aspects that respondents are concerned with include the waste of food and trash, especially plastic. Rudolf (30), for example, said he is more concerned about food waste than about veganism. He would rather eat vegetarian food that will otherwise be thrown away, than that he will eat vegan. Moreover, during the interview Angela showed me shopping bags of sustainable plastic which she uses when she buys fruit and vegetables on the market, so that she does not have to use new bags every time she purchases these products.
These worldviews cannot only be associated with the lifestyle, but it is also an example of reflexive theory. In the construction of these worldviews, the respondents delineate what they find important and what their ultimate concerns are (Archer, 2000, p. 10). Moreover, they do not only embrace these worldviews, but also act upon it. Excluding animal products from their lifestyle is only one form of action, which will also be elaborated upon below. But also being active at a political party, using sustainable shopping bags or eating vegetarian food that would otherwise be thrown away can be understood as forms of action that reflect their worldview.
5.2 Consumption
In line with the definition of the Vegan Society and Greenebaum’s (2012) research, veganism, for most of the respondents in the current research, does not only include not eating animal products, but also includes not using animal products in other parts of their life. For example, several vegans do not wear leather, wool or fur, or, when it comes to cosmetics, some do not use cosmetic products that have been tested on animals. Several respondents also engaged in second-hand shopping and purchasing fair-trade products. Roos Wever 36 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
An interesting finding is that the respondents engage in a reflexive process when deciding what to eat, to wear and to use. For example, several vegans explained that they went through a transition process when they became vegan. Sophie described her transition process:
‘The first phase was (…) everything that was easy. So I didn’t buy pieces of meat in cellophane. (…) And pieces of cheese, you know, that you eat on your bread, and then replace it for humus and falafel and then… that’s relatively easy. (…) After that you’re going to look at what’s actually not vegan. That you thought like, o of course, bouillon cubes, honey, all that sort of stuff. (…) I was used to reading the labels of products, and then you find out that there is powdered milk in everything and you find out that there’s lactose in this and that you think like: yeah, uh… then I should not eat that anymore. So then you go… yeah I went on a sort of supermarket-safari. (…) And then after that came the social element. I thought like: how can I eat somewhere else?’ (Sophie)
As Sophie illustrated, she did not decide to become vegan in one day, but she deliberately took step by step, so that she could adjust to her new consumption pattern. Every time she had one element under control, she took the next step, from first excluding products in its most original form, such as meat, cheese and milk, to looking at the ingredients of more complex products, to make sure that there are no traces of products derived from animals in there. Lillian also explained that now she has her diet under control, she is currently attempting to exclude animal products from clothing and cosmetics.
Finding the right products also requires reflexivity. For example, in order to find out whether the make-up she uses has not been tested upon animals, Paula (20) googles the make- up brands before she buys them, or she goes to stores such as the Body Shop or Rituals, which are known as animal-friendly. Aiming to buy as much local and seasonal products as possible, Angela explained that every Saturday or Sunday morning she spends around two hours making a shopping list which includes these products. Moreover, she keeps up an online document with recipes that she likes, so that she can draw on these recipes in the future. When purchasing clothes, such as jeans for example, she googles which brands are sustainable and without human exploitation. These searching processes are illustrations of reflexive processes in which vegans engage in, through which they make sure that they buy the right products that complement their ultimate concerns. Roos Wever 37 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
An interesting observation is that most vegans reported engaging in reflexive behavior when they became vegan. They reported looking at the labels of products in order to find out whether it contained animal products, or using the internet to search for information about vegan products. However, as they were vegan for a longer time, they reported having knowledge about the products they are able to eat. As Joanne explained: ‘After three years it’s just… Of course it’s a natural habit that I check everything and you, you know, in the supermarket you’ve got your standard products that you take.’ This illustrates that, even though becoming vegan requires reflexivity, this reflexivity transforms into routine. This reflexivity and the routine of buying the same products becomes part of the vegan’s habitus, which we could then also call ‘habitual reflexivity’ (Sweetman, 2003, 537).
5.3 Activities
The activities vegans engage in or hobbies they have can be associated with their lifestyle. These activities can be divided into activities that are related to their vegan lifestyle, but some activities can also be understood as a traditionally distinction principle as Bourdieu maintained (1984).
5.3.1 Vegan related activities
The activities that the respondents engage in that relate to veganism can be divided into professional activities and activities they do in their leisure time. Professional activities can be understood as working at a company or organization, or being enrolled in a study program that shares the same values as veganism, including sustainability, no animal-harm and critical thinking. For example, Rudolf works at a company that installs solar panels, and Ingrid works at the Party for the Animals. Moreover, Rudolf is part-time enrolled in the program Environment and Resource Management. Sophie and Hailey are enrolled in applied ethics and Ernst and Levi in Philosophy, and one might assume that these studies developed their ability to critically reflect upon (social) issues. Sometimes they explicitly applied this to the case of veganism, as Sophie explained: ‘I’m also writing a paper about the moral status of animals.’ Other examples are Alwin being enrolled in Sociology and being especially interested in the sociology of food and in his study in physics, Victor is especially concerned with the use of resources such as energy and water. Roos Wever 38 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
In their spare time, some of the vegans also engage in activities related to veganism. For example, Hailey reported engaging in activism aiming to start a conversation with non- vegans about veganism and the animal industry. She gave an example when she did activism:
‘With Earthlings [a form of activism] you stand with screens with images of slaughter houses (…). Half of us have a screen on which you can see [the images] and the other half has a sign which says: Watch so see why we are here. (…) And then, people will come to you.’ (Hailey)
With this activism she attempts to show people what she finds important and she hopes that people are interested in it and will ask her questions about it. These forms of activism are something she finds on social media, mainly Facebook, through which she also gets in contact with other vegans. Other respondents also reported being part of Facebook-groups. Victor explained he is part of two Dutch Facebook-groups, an American one and an international one. The vegans use these groups to share information with other vegans, such as vegan recipes, but also to warn each other about products that used to be vegan, but are not anymore. Joanne, furthermore, reported using social media to meet people and organize vegan potlucks: activities where vegans come together and bring food that they share with each other.
5.3.2 Class related activities
As the activities the respondents engaged in described above connect specifically to their vegan lifestyle, they also engage in activities that can be considered as classical distinction processes, the way Bourdieu (1984) proposed. As he defined the taste of the higher class along the notions of restrictiveness and health, he also connects this to activities they engage in in their lifestyle. This is also found in the current sample. Several respondents reported doing sports to stay healthy. Eveline, for example, likes to row and jog, Lillian goes to the gym several times a week, Ernst likes to go surfing and do yoga. This last activity is one that others also enjoy doing. Paula laughed when she told me: ‘Yeah, I do a lot of yoga. Because... ha, typical isn’t it, the vegan yoga.’ Sidney connected his passion to hike to his motivation to be vegan:
‘During the holidays I always go hiking with my friends in Norway or other Scandinavian countries, or I’ve been in South-Africa and then I think: yeah that’s… this should be preserved. That there are still places on the earth where cows aren’t grazing or pigs aren’t in stables’ (Sidney) Roos Wever 39 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
These forms of sport are illustrations of what Bourdieu distinguished as sports of the higher class (1984, p 214-217). The types of sports the vegans engage in are not considered as popular sports that:
‘combine all the features which repel the dominant class: not only the social composition of their public (…) but also the values and virtues demanded, strength, endurance, violence, ‘sacrifice’, docility and submission to collective discipline (…) and the exaltation of competition.’ (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 214)
Jogging, rowing, going to the gym, surfing and yoga require self-discipline because they are not necessarily practiced in collective and these sports, in most cases, exclude forms of competition or any form of bodily contact. Moreover, they require human control of the body, corresponding with dominant class values. Also, hiking can be considered as an activity that takes place on locations not available to everybody, just as rowing might not be accessible to all classes because of financial and material barriers.
Other activities that the respondents engaged in include, among others, going to the cinema. Several vegans possessed a cinema pass, with which they are able to go to small film houses, which mainly screen arthouse films. These films require more ‘cultural investment’ and are therefore associated with higher class taste (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 271). Blockbuster films, on the other hand, are more spectacular, made for easy entertainment and are therefore associated with lower class taste. Reading is also something most respondents liked to do. The types of books the vegans read include books that require (cultural) investment, such as informative books, research articles or literary romans, but it also included books with lower investment, such as chick flicks or ‘easy-going books’ as Angela called it. This taste in literature, then, contradicts Bourdieu’s ideas of higher class taste, and is more in line with Peterson’s (1992) omnivore thesis.
5.4 Social environment
Most of the respondents reported being part of an environment with vegans or vegetarians, or having friends that have the same ideals about human rights or environmental concerns. Rudolf called it the ‘green bubble’ in which he engages: ‘a certain groups of friends that is concerned with it. And then you talk about it, and you give each other tips.’ Even though his friends are not necessarily all vegan or vegetarian, they share the ideals. This is something others also reported. Responding to the question ‘Do you share the same ideals as your Roos Wever 40 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ friends?’ Paula responded, chuckling: ‘I don’t hang out with fascists, no.’ Amber, furthermore, noted that her social environment is developing into one in which she only has vegan and vegetarian friends. When she moved to Utrecht, she realized that her old friends had other ideals than her. She explained:
‘But that’s also because over the years I realized that I liked them less or that I found it less chill to hang out with then. So eventually I was like: yeah, okay, I’ll look for people who match with me. Also… because I notice that, uh, next to veganism, they also embrace the same worldviews. (…) Then I got the courage to dump those [old] friends, like, yeah, I don’t need you… I don’t need those kinds of toxic thoughts in my life.’ (Amber)
Interestingly, Amber seems to be reflexive about her environment and the cutting out of her old friends from her current life. As she realized that she did not match with her old friends and that they had other values than her, she decided that cutting out those friends from her life was the best way of action to eliminate these ‘toxic thoughts’.
5.5 Conclusion
This section has illustrated how veganism can be understood as a lifestyle. Following Bourdieu, it has showed that the lifestyle can be associated with a worldview that embraces ideas about a respectful treatment of the earth and its inhabitants, the exclusion of animal products from the general consumption pattern, professional and leisure activities and social environment. Moreover, it has also shown that some vegans engaged in more traditional distinction activities that are associated with the dominant class.
However, it has also shown that the construction of the vegan lifestyle involves reflexive processes. In constructing the worldview, for example, the vegans have delineated their ultimate concerns, and they also act upon these concerns. Moreover, the elimination of animal products from their consumption pattern requires reflexivity, but over time this also becomes part of their habitus.
Roos Wever 41 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
6. Social interaction
Even though most the respondents are surrounded by a social environment that supports veganism or embraces the same ideals, and their family provided them the habitus underlying this decision, this does not mean that veganism is always perceived as favorable or normal. Several respondents recounted situations in which they did not feel comfortable about their lifestyle or in which they were treated negatively because of it. For example, Amber recounted that her family called her a ‘left hippy’ when she told them she became vegan. Moreover, at dinner with the friends of her best friend, they were sending her pictures of dead animals, and were calling her plant-murderer and stupid hippy. Others reported struggling when eating together with friends, because those friends liked to have meat or other animal products, such as cream, in their meals. Lillian described a dilemma of her friends asking her to buy cream cheese at the supermarket, because they forgot to buy it. ‘Eventually I bought it.’ She said. ‘But I told them: I found it hard to do, so you know. In the future (…) I might do it again. But it’s the dilemma I find annoying.’ When telling their family they became vegan, most of the vegans said their family was mostly concerned about their health. Especially their intake of vitamin b12 was something their family was concerned about. Others also reported that their family found veganism extreme.
Interesting to note here is that there does not appear to be a difference between the duration that the respondents are vegan and the reactions they receive. One might think that when someone has been vegan for a longer time, they might get used to the reactions they receive or their social environment might get used to the vegan’s lifestyle. However, all respondents recounted situations in which they felt that their lifestyle has been contested or in which they receive comments from their family or friends.
When asking how the respondents coped with such situations, they outlined different strategies they use. It appears to be that reflexivity plays a role in this. Several vegans reported that they had reflexively constructed strategies which they use when encountering such situations. This reflexivity developed because some experienced that their initial discussion techniques were not working. As Joanne said: ‘When I became vegan, I was hardcore and then I ended up in a discussion with people and I argued with them and stuff. But quite fast I figured out that that was not [the best strategy].’ Ernst also illustrated:
Ernst: ‘In the beginning [me and my girlfriend] were asking questions like: what do you think about this? Or did you see the film about Roos Wever 42 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
this factory farm, you know, and now, yeah, we don’t do that anymore.’
Researcher: ‘Why not?’
Ernst: ‘Because… at that moment… well it works… we don’t really get to some sort of solution. The discussion keeps repeating itself.’
Joanne and Ernst, but also other respondents, agreed that arguing about veganism is not the right strategy to discuss veganism. This strategy costs a lot of energy, especially when others are not interested or convincible, and it also kills the joy, as Sarah Ahmed (2010) described. Hence, they have developed strategies which they use when they talk about veganism. It must be noted that, as they constructed these strategies reflexively, these strategies have become part of their repertoire, and that they are therefore habitual. This is another example of reflexivity turning into routine. Interestingly, these strategies not only include face-saving strategies, as Goffman (1967) called it, but it also includes strategies which prevent the vegans from coming into such a conversation in which their face might be threatened. Strategies include objective and calm explaining, estimating the person one is talking to, avoid confrontation or situation, being prepared and eating animal-derived products.
6.1 Explaining veganism: objective and calm
When they were asked how they cope in such situations, most vegans replied: explain what veganism is. As Amber said: ‘for someone who knows nothing about it: what is it exactly. What does it entail? And especially if they’ve got questions, answer them. But as open as possible.’ She continued emphasizing being honest about veganism.
‘I’ll tell them what happens to the animals. In the industry. And I’ve got people saying: oh but those chickens walk happily around on grass. And then I’m like: yeah, maybe they do that, but do you know what happens after that? And then I just tell them. Even though they don’t like that. (…) And yes, it’s going to be hard. Veganism, when you start, it will be hard.’ (Amber)
Others also reported telling information about veganism as objective as possible and staying with the facts. Levi said: ‘I’ll show objectively what the consequences are of a consumption pattern based on animal products.’ Most of the respondents agreed that there are a lot of Roos Wever 43 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ misconceptions about veganism and stereotypes about vegans. Providing their discussion partner with information might take away these misconceptions. In terms of Goffman’s face- saving strategies, providing their discussion partner with information can also be understood as a technique to make sure that the discussion partner does not lose his or her face because of the wrong information he or she might have. Moreover, the use of factual information is a face-saving technique of the vegan itself because facts, more specifically scientific facts, are difficult to counter and therefore referring to facts could prevent ending up in an argument, and maintaining a positive ‘line’ in the conversation.
When bringing this information and explaining veganism, most respondents emphasized that this should be done calmly. They agreed that losing temper and getting emotional is not the right way to discuss veganism. Angela explained: ‘It sounds stupid, but emotional involvement… yeah… it makes people uncomfortable.’ When making the discussion partner uncomfortable one risks losing control over the conversation because emotional reactions can be unpredictable. This way the face can be threatened, just as the vegan becoming emotional might threaten the face of the discussion partner.
Lastly, when explaining veganism, vegans make sure that they use the right words. Paula illustrated: ‘I always think very carefully about what to say. You know. Because you want to talk about it, but you don’t want to point the finger and make people feel awful’. Personalizing their motivations to become vegan and not imposing these motivations on others is connected to this. Many of the vegans report that, although they believe that veganism is the right lifestyle to live, they say that ‘pointing the finger’ is not the proper way to talk about it, which is in line with Turner’s (2017) findings on individualizing the choice to be vegan.
6.2 Estimating the opponent
According to Goffman (1967), people have knowledge of how to maintain a line in the conversation or how to maintain a face, i.e. they have social skills. When starting a conversation, one must discover what social skills the discussion partner has, or, in Goffman’s words, one should exercise perceptiveness. This perceptiveness is also something that can be found among the respondents in the current research. When it comes to interaction strategies, respondents said that they estimated what kind of person they are talking with. They, for example, estimate whether their conversation partner is open-minded about veganism, or Roos Wever 44 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ when they are ‘sincere’, as Eveline called it. Levi joked: ‘When I see that someone it vulnerable (…) I can [talk to him about veganism].’ Vulnerable in this sense refers to whether this person is open to veganism and might already have certain values that match with the values that are associated with veganism. These persons might be more interested in the subject and have more respect for veganism. As Sophie explained: ‘I always approach it like: people who don’t want to change will not change.’
Some also described that it not only depends on the open-mindedness of the person in front of them, but also on how well they know the person. When it is someone close to them, some find it easier to say something about their friends’ or family member’s consumption pattern than when it is someone they do not know very well. Alwin, for instance, said: ‘If it’s someone close to me, who knows how I think about it in general, then I would let them know that I think that person eats a lot of meat.’ Answering on the question how he lets that person know, he replied that he wants to have a ‘moral conversation’ in which he is able to refer to facts about the consequences of meat consumption, but also keeping his emotion in control, as described in the previous section.
Letting people come to them with questions and not initiating the conversation also seems to be a useful strategy. Hailey believed that that is the best way to start a conversation. She also connected this to activism, which also uses this method:
‘It’s like, this is the way I live my life and if people find it interesting they can ask questions. And I think with activism (…) it’s actually the same. (…) You’re not approaching those people, but they come to you, because they’re curious. And then they watch your images. And then you talk to them, like, what do you think of this? How do you feel about it? People come to you with questions. With interest.' (Hailey)
There are also situations in which the vegans notice that their interaction partner is not open for veganism. Levi described:
‘Sometimes you are (…) in a conversation with someone where you can estimate on forehand that he puts his foot down and only tries to make up arguments to bring down your story. And those are people that are not open for it, but do have questions and want to go in discussion about it.’ (Levi)
Knowing that the line of the conversation starts to go into the wrong direction, most of the vegans then attempt to break off the conversation, asking their partner to change the topic of Roos Wever 45 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ discussion or starting to talk about something else. Lillian explained: ‘often I say like: shall we not talk about this all night? Because I don’t like that. (…) Let’s talk about you guys and what you do in your life.’ Moreover, Hailey described that when she started the master Applied Ethics, one of her fellow students found out that Hailey was engaged in animal activism. She recalled feeling that her fellow students were distancing themselves from her and were not initiating conversations. In order to solve this, the attempted to find similarities with them to connect on another level, which in the end resulted in a good relationship with her fellow students.
6.3 Being prepared
The strategies described above are mainly strategies that the vegans used when they are in conversation with someone else. They could, therefore, be considered as a face-saving strategy. However, not all strategies are face-saving strategies. The vegans also described having strategies that prevented them from entering uncomfortable situations or conversations. One of these strategies is ‘being prepared’ and prevented the vegans from entering situations in which there is not food for them.
For example, when eating with friends some respondents said they often offer to cook in order to make sure that there is vegan food. Lillian told me: ‘I try to be in that position. That I’ll cook. I like to cook too. (…) And it’s nice if their repertoire [of recipes expands]’. She described that often, when she eats at her friends place, they provide her with a salad, because they do not know what else to make. This is also what other vegans experience and try to prevent. Offering to cook takes away the problem that their friends or family might not know what to cook. Lillian explained that, when cooking herself, she knows that she will eat something nice and that her friends try the vegan food and get excited about it. A tactic that Joanne also uses: ‘You know, just provide people with nice food, it helps. Because love goes through the stomach.’
Not all vegans reported trying to be in the position to cook. Victor, for example, reminds his friends when he will eat with them that he is vegan and makes sure to know if they consider that as a problem. The same goes for Eveline. She said: ‘I’m not picky you know, so just… give me something.’ She did report making sure that she always has food with her: Roos Wever 46 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
‘I always make sure that I’ve got dried fruit in my bag. Crackers, enough fruit, vegetables, nuts – enough nuts. I’m a nut addict. But that is also very filling. I’m always chewing on something, so you don’t need to worry about me.’ (Eveline)
Moreover, when going to a restaurant, Eveline always calls the restaurant beforehand, to make sure that there is a vegan option. She told me: ‘Some time ago I went out to eat tapas. And I know that those dishes are often with cheese and stuff. I was like: shit… So I called them and they made a whole different menu especially for me!’ Others also reported calling to the restaurant or checking the menu online to see whether there are vegan dishes on the menu. Moreover, several vegans told me that they also tried to actively participate in seeking a restaurant where they could eat. This way they could make sure that they would go to a restaurant with nice vegan options. Rudolf, for example, said: ‘also when I’m going out to eat with my parents, I always try to say like: okay, maybe we can go there.’
6.4 Avoid confrontation or situation
Several respondents, mostly the females, acknowledged avoiding confrontations in order to stay out of uncomfortable situations. The descriptions of these conversations share many similarities with Sara Ahmed’s (2010) killjoy. Ernst, for example, described how he and his girlfriend, when going on a family visit, agreed beforehand that they would not talk about veganism: ‘Because her family lives further down South and we don’t see them very often. And it’s bad to then… You want to talk about other things too, about nice things, stuff that happens in life.’ He explained that his girlfriend’s family is not very pleased with them being vegan and Ernst and his girlfriend are considered to be the trouble makers when they do not want to eat meat. Hence, when talking about veganism, the joyful atmosphere that might have existed before can be disrupted. In Ernst’s case he also mentions that they do not see each other often, and that they want to maintain a good atmosphere, instead of disrupting this happiness. In order to stay maintain a comfortable and good relationship with her friends, Hailey strictly separates her vegan lifestyle from her social life. She drew an interesting parallel with religion:
‘I do activism and then I’m informing people, but I try not to do that with my friendships. Because I think like… it creates an odd sphere. (…) Imagine that I would have a friend who was Muslim. And that she actually has a sort of Roos Wever 47 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
agenda to convert me to the Islam. It creates a sort of non-sincerity in the friendship and inequality in contact or something. That I would have to convince you or something.’ (Hailey)
Creating this ‘odd sphere’ is something the killjoy is specifically good at. Hence, in order to avoid such an odd sphere, Hailey willfully decides not to speak out about veganism. Moreover, she explained that she avoids situations such as barbecues, because she does not like to be at activities that revolve around the consumption of meat or animal products. Lillian recalled a situation in which she went to a restaurant with her work called ‘Royal Cannibal’. Even though she had delicious vegan food, the enormous consumption of meat in that restaurant made her uncomfortable. She told me that she would not go to such restaurants again in the future.
6.5 Eating animal-derived products
Five respondents reported eating animal-derived products when they are in social situations. They would cook vegan if they are able to cook for themselves, but are vegetarian when they are eating with other people or when they are somewhere where there are no vegan options. Nicole, for example, said: ‘when I’m at my in-laws I would not [refuse non-vegan food]. I already find it intense that they have to cook vegetarian for me, because I’m the only one eating vegetarian.’ Nicole, just like some others, feels like she is not in the position to demand others to cook vegan for her. Others also explained that not everybody is familiar with cooking vegan. Levi illustrated:
‘Like with my sister, for example, who’s not familiar with veganism, I think, because she lives near Alkmaar and she doesn’t really have a… she has different social environment and, yeah, a different societal interest than I have. And (...) when she invites me to come over for dinner and, yeah, there’s cheese in something, or honey or eggs, then I can be pragmatic. But in any case no meat.’ (Levi)
Connected to this is also not wanting to put a burden onto someone or being the difficult person. Sidney, for example, described being on a conference that only had sandwiches with cheese for lunch. He said: ‘I’m not going to the caterer to ask if I could get something else. No. (…) That’s a too big of a deal. And maybe (…) a little bit uncomfortable as well. To be honest.’ Asking for vegan options is considered by Sidney as too much effort, but moreover, Roos Wever 48 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ he also acknowledged that he finds it uncomfortable as well. This awkwardness, also a characteristic of the killjoy, is also something that Nicole tries to avoid. When going out to a restaurant, she does not ask the person serving her whether she could get a vegan meal:
‘It might be making things difficult... (…) I don’t want to be the annoying customer like: can I have it without this, I’m allergic for that. Because I know that cooks find it very annoying when someone is allergic or someone doesn’t want something. Because then it has to be done completely different.’ (Nicole)
This also illustrates the feeling of vegans that they put a burden on someone else, or that they are being unnecessarily difficult. Eating animal-derived products, then, could be considered as a strategy to avoid difficult situations.
This strategy was mostly used by the vegans whose description of veganism can be interpreted as less strict. Whereas some vegans emphasized that they excluded any animal products from their general consumption pattern, the vegans using this strategy defined veganism as attempting to exclude as much animal products from their diet as possible, but still eating animal products every now and then, such as eggs or one cheese sandwich a day.
6.6 Conclusion
This section has shown that vegans have reflexively developed strategies to discuss veganism or strategies to make sure that they do not encounter situations in which they might be uncomfortable. As some strategies, such as explaining veganism objectively and calm, and estimating your opponent, are examples of Goffman’s face-saving strategies, other strategies prevent vegans from finding themselves being the killjoy or finding themselves in situations in which their lifestyle is being contested.
Roos Wever 49 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
7. Conclusion
In this last chapter, the findings of this research will be presented and the research questions will be answered. Moreover, the limitations of this research will be discussed and suggestions will be given for future research.
7.1 RQ1: Which mechanisms underlie the decision process in becoming vegan?
In chapter 4, I have presented an outline of the mechanisms that underlie the decision process of my respondents to become vegan. As shown, the three mechanisms underlying this decision are habitus, reflexivity and peer group influences. First of all, most of the respondents were in the predisposed position to become vegan. As there are different factors influencing the formation of the habitus, this research mainly examined how parents and education formed the habitus, and has formed it into one valuing good (organic) products, being critical about societal structures, and a taste characterized by health and restrictiveness. This taste can, furthermore, be associated with higher or dominant class taste, as Bourdieu (1984) proposed.
However, not all the respondents were in the predisposed position to become vegan, which is where reflexivity provided a second mechanism in the decision process. Several respondents reported engaging in internal conversations or delineating their ultimate concerns, upon which, in turn, they decided to act in the form of excluding animal products from their lifestyle. Moreover, they engaged in searching or orienting processes in order to gather information about the animal industry and veganism. It must be noted here that not only the respondents without a ‘vegan habitus’ engaged in reflexive processes, but that those respondents with such a habitus also were reflexive. Moreover, reflexivity not only takes place before the decision as a motivator, but also functions as a justification mechanism after the act itself, which is in line with Vaisey’s (2009) argument.
The analysis has also shown that a third mechanism played a role in the decision process, which is the peer group of the respondents. Half of the respondents said that they became vegan together with their partner, making the decision and transition easier. Others reported being introduced by their peers to veganism or being provided with information about the lifestyle. Roos Wever 50 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Important to note is that these three mechanisms do not necessarily exclude each other, but that there is interplay between them. As some theorists attempted to hybridize habitus and reflexivity (Sweetman, 2003; Adams, 2006), this research illustrates how the habitus can be shaped into a reflexive one, i.e. a reflexive habitus (Sweetman, 2003, p. 542), as the respondents are stimulated by parents and education to remain critical and, hence, reflexive. Moreover, peers encouraged some of the respondents to delve into veganism, which was then followed by a reflexive process and the decision to become vegan.
7.2 RQ2: How can veganism be understood as a lifestyle?
In chapter 5, I have attempted to show that veganism can be understood as a lifestyle, rather than only a diet based upon plant-based products. Following Bourdieu, who argues that taste is not only confined to food, but also to other cultural products and activities, this chapter has outlined activities and tastes that are associated with the vegan lifestyle. For example, most of the respondents embraced a worldview that revolves around ideas of respectful treatment of the world and its inhabitants, human rights and opposing (food) waste. Moreover, in their wider consumption pattern they also exhibit a taste for products that have not been tested on animals, such as cosmetics, or are not made under human or earth exploiting conditions. The activities the respondents engage in can be divided in two categories: first, activities associated with veganism, which include working at organizations that value sustainability, being enrolled in study programs relating to these topics, engaging in animal activism, or being active in vegan social network groups, and second, activities associated with higher class activities, which include doing higher class sports and going to arthouse cinema. Lastly, most vegans engage in a social environment that values the same ideals or embraces the same worldview as they do.
With adhering to such a lifestyle, do the vegans of this sample, then, distinguish themselves from non-vegans? When being asked if their identity is something they actively carry out, most respondents replied that they do not do that, or they said: ‘No, I’m not that kind of vegan’, implying that there exist a type of vegan that actively disseminates its identity. In this sample none of the vegans considered themselves to be ‘that kind of vegan’ and, therefore, are not aware of their distinction behavior. Some also emphasized that they do not want their vegan lifestyle to influence their personal relationships, as Hailey for example said that it would create non-sincerity in her friendships. She, moreover, tries to emphasize the Roos Wever 51 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ similarities she shares with other people instead of looking at the differences between people, something Rudolf also stressed. Others emphasized not wanting to be different from their friends.
However, there are some examples of distinction behavior. For example, Amber cutting her old friends with ‘toxic’ thoughts out of her life can be considered as distinction behavior. As Paula said she ‘does not hang out with fascists’, she distinguished herself from people with another worldview, even though she meant it as a joke. Moreover, others also acknowledged that they are living in a ‘green bubble’, or that they are surrounded by vegans and vegetarians, and therefore, maybe unconsciously, distinguish themselves from others. Hence, there does exist some distinction behavior among the respondents, even though they are not necessarily aware of it.
As distinction theory provided some interesting insights in analyzing the vegan lifestyle, it must be noted that the construction of this lifestyle requires some reflexivity. For example, while constructing their worldview, the vegans delineate what they find important and what their ultimate concerns are, something Margaret Archer also stressed (Archer & Tritter, 2000, p. 54). Moreover, they decide how to act upon their worldview, in this case excluding animal products from their general lifestyle. This exclusion itself also requires reflexivity, since they needed to adjust their consumption pattern and actively had to seek which products they could and could not buy, and how they could replace them. Some vegans also explained that they did this adjustment in a transition process, hence reflexively shaping their consumption pattern. The longer they were vegan, the easier it got: they developed a consumption pattern based on the same products they got familiar with, but the reflexivity remained. Staying reflexive, then, has become part of the habitus. Hence, they have developed habitual reflexivity (Sweetman, 2003).
7.3 RQ3: How do vegans interact with others about their lifestyle?
Chapter 6 has illustrated several situations in which the respondents have felt uneasy because of their lifestyle. These situations share some interesting parallels with Sara Ahmed’s theory about the killjoy. As, in the case of the feminist killjoy, the killjoy speaks out against the traditional gender roles performed, the vegan killjoy speaks out against the consumption of meat and other animal derived products. These gender norms or these consumption practices constituted the shared happiness around the dinner table, which then is contested. Some of the Roos Wever 52 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ vegans, as Ernst and his girlfriend, willfully do not speak out against these consumption practices, as they do not want to disrupt the joyful atmosphere when being with their family. Moreover, as Ahmed explained, the killjoy may experience discomfort or risks exclusion when he or she decides to speak out. Hailey provides a good example in this case, as she emphasized not speaking bout veganism when being with friends as she does not want to be in an uncomfortable discussion, or experiencing exclusion when she started her master. An interesting finding is that there does not appear to be a difference in the experience of discomfort and the duration of the respondents being vegan.
As they have found themselves in these uncomfortable situations, the respondents have developed strategies to cope in these situations. Some respondents acknowledged finding out that being explicit about their lifestyle and arguing with people is not the right way to act. As a result, they have reflexively constructed strategies which they use in conversations. Some of these strategies are ways to maintain their face during the conversation, as Goffman (2003) proposed. One of these face-saving strategies was to objectively and calmly explain about veganism, which enabled the vegans to maintain their face as facts are difficult to counter, and to keep control over the conversation as emotions make the conversation unpredictable. Moreover, providing their discussion partner with proper information is a way to protect the partner’s face, so that the partner does not make wrong presuppositions. The second face-saving strategy is ‘estimating the opponent’, which means that the vegan estimates what kind of person their discussion partner is: do they have the social skills to maintain a respectful conversation and are they interested in veganism? This way, the vegan is able to maintain a line in the conversation. If the partner does not have the skills or is not interested, the vegans attempt to break of the conversation or start to talk about something else.
Not only do the respondents use face-saving strategies, they also use other strategies which prevent them from entering uncomfortable situations. One of these strategies is always being prepared by making sure that they always have something to eat, in the sense offering to cook when eating with others, making sure that their friends, but also restaurants where they will eat, are aware of the fact that they are vegan, or by making sure that they always have something to eat in their bag. Another strategy is avoiding confrontation by cutting off conversations that will be about veganism or avoiding situations that revolve around consumption of meat. The last strategy is to eat animal-based products in order to prevent being perceived as ‘the difficult one’. This last strategy was only found among those Roos Wever 53 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’ respondents who acknowledged attempting to exclude animal products from their lifestyle as much as possible, but not completely.
7.4 Final conclusions and implications
Approaching veganism from the perspective of distinction has provided some interesting insights, as it showed how habitus can influence one’s food habits, as in the decision to become vegan, and it encourages to look at food habits, as veganism, as a larger lifestyle. However, as Bourdieu showed that the higher classes he examined actively distinguish themselves from lower classes, this is not necessarily the case among the vegans in this sample. Some explicitly emphasize that they do not want to differentiate themselves from others. Hence, as distinction theory does not fully account for veganism, reflexive theory has provided some useful contributions to the analysis. Food habits, then, are not only a product of social class, but also of reflexive considerations of one’s social environment. Looking at food habits from a reflexive perspective, moreover, reveals how food habits can be politically charged, as they can be considered as a method to counteract structures that characterize modern society – in the case of veganism the exploitation of animals and the environmental impacts of the food industry.
Hence, research should not overlook these reflexive processes, as ignoring these processes might give an incomplete perspective on food habits. It is easy to say that the distinction mechanism is more present than reflexive thinking, or the other way around. It must be understood that there is interplay between these two mechanisms, as Sweetman (2003) and Adams (2006) propose.
7.5 Limitations and suggestions for future research
As this thesis has aimed to contribute to existing literature on veganism by providing a new perspective on this lifestyle, the limitations of this research should also be discussed. The main limitation of this research is the sample. The sample is small and it is therefore not possible to generalize these findings. Moreover, the group of vegans interviewed for this research is very specific: they are around the same age, live in the city, are not vegan for a long time and are mostly higher educated. Differences in these characteristics might result in a different analysis, which future research can examine. Roos Wever 54 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Another limitation is the lack of information about the social class of the respondents. As they are mostly higher educated, they might be considered as higher class, but due to the lack in information about their social background, specifically the occupations of their parents, it is hard to say something about the influence of their social class. Moreover, as almost all the respondents are higher educated, there might be an overrepresentation of higher class taste, whereas there might be vegans with a lower education, and therefore maybe lower social class, as well. This class is not included in this sample. Future research, then, can investigate differences between social classes. Moreover, as this research mostly focused on the influence of parents and education on the formation of the habitus, there are more factors that shape the habitus. Future research might focus on other factors that play a role in habitus formation.
One must always keep in mind that there might be discrepancy between what the respondents say and what they actually do, something which Jerolmack and Khan call ‘attitudinal fallacy’ (2014, p. 178). Especially in the case of using interaction strategies, respondents might act different in situations than when they recount these situations later in a conversation. Observing how vegans act in these types of situations can be something that future research can examine. However, one must keep in mind that it might not always be possible to evoke these kinds of situations, or that eliciting of these kinds of situations might evoke different behavior than when it is not elicited.
Lastly, it must be emphasized that analyzing qualitative interview data entails interpretation of the researcher. Therefore, one must keep in mind that the findings of this research and the relations made with sociological theory are the result of my personal interpretation.
Roos Wever 55 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
8. Bibliography Adams, M. (2006). Hybridizing Habitus and Reflexivity: Towards an understanding of contemporary identity? Sociology, 40(3), 511-528. doi:10.1177/003803850663672 Ahmed, S. (2010). The Promise of Happiness. Durham & London, UK: Duke University Press. Archer, M. S. (2000). Being Human: the Problem of Human Agency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. & Tritter, J. Q. (2000) Rational Choice Theory: Resisting Colonization. London, UK: Routledge. Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. (2012). The Reflexive Imperative in Late Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Atkinson, W. & Deeming, C. (2015). Class and cuisine in contemporary Britain: The social
space, the space of food and their homology. The Sociological Review, 68, 876-896. doi:10.1111/1467-954X.12335 Beardsworth, A. D. & Keil, E. T. (1991): Vegetarianism, veganism and meat avoidance: Recent trends and findings. British Food Journal, 93(4), 19-24. doi:10.1108/00070709110135231
BNNVARA (Producer) & Hartogensis, R. (Director). (2018). Boter, Kaas noch Eieren
[Motion Picture]. The Netherlands: BNN-VARA.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education , 241-258. New York, USA: Greenwood.
Bresnahan, M., Zhuang, J. & Zhu, X. (2016). Why is the vegan line in the dining hall always the shortest? Understanding vegan stigma. Stigma & Health, 1(1), 3-15. doi:10.1037/sah0000011
Chernilo, D. (2017). Debating Humanity. Towards a Philosophical Sociology. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. Roos Wever 56 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Cherry, E. (2015). I was a teenage vegan: Motivation and maintenance of lifestyle movements. Sociological Inquiry, 8(1), 55-74. doi:10.1111/soin.12061 Elias, N. (1978). The Civilising Process. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Flemmen, M., Hjellbrekke, J. & Jarness, V. (2018). Class, culture and culinary tastes:
cultural distinctions and social class divisions in contemporary Norway. Sociology,
52(1), 128-149. doi:10.1177/0038038516673528 Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Interaction. Oxford, England: Aldine. Goffman, E. (2003). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Reflections 4, 7-13. Greenebaum, J. B. (2012). Veganism, identity and the quest for authenticity. Food, Culture & Society, 15(1), 129-144. doi:10.2752/175174412X13190510222101 Greenebaum, J. B. (2013). Managing impressions: ‘‘Face-saving’’ strategies of vegetarians and vegans. Human & Society, 36(4), 309-325. doi:10.1177/0160597612458898
Hirschler, C. A. (2011). “What pushed me over the edge was a deer hunter”: Being vegan in
North America. Society & Animals, 19, 156-174. doi:10.1163/156853011X562999
Janssen, M., Busch, C., Rödiger, M. & Hamm, U. (2016). Motives of consumers following a
vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite, 105, 643-651.
doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.06.039
Jerolmack, C. & Khan, S. (2014). Talk is cheap: Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy.
Sociological Methods & Research, 43(2), 178-209. doi:10.1177/0049124114523396
Larsson, C. L., Rönnlund, U., Johansson, G. & Dahlgren, L. (2003). Veganism as status
passage: The process of becoming a vegan among youths in Sweden. Appetite, 41, 61-
67. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00045-X
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1968). Le triangle culinaire. Food and History, 2(1), 7-20.
doi:10.1484/J.FOOD.2.300271
MacInnis, C. C. & Hodson, G. (2017). It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward
vegetarians and vegans from both source and target. Group Processes & Intergroup Roos Wever 57 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
Relations, 20(6), 721-744. doi:10.1177/1368430215618253
McDonald, B. (2000). “Once you know something, you can’t not know it”. An empirical look
at becoming vegan. Society & Animals, 8(1), 1-23. doi:10.1163/156853000X00011
Mennell, S., Murcott, A. & van Otterloo, A. H. (1992). The Sociology of Food: Eating, Diet
and Culture. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Nederlandse Vereniging voor Veganism (n.d.). Vegan Jaaroverzicht 2017. Retrieved March
8, 2018, from https://www.veganisme.org/2017/12/27/vegan-jaaroverzicht-2017/
Peterson, R. A. (1992). Understanding audience segmentation: From elite and mass to
omnivore and univore. Poetics, 21(4), 243-258. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(92)90008-Q
Poulain, J.P. (2017). The Sociology of Food: Eating and the Place of Food in Society.
London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
Schyns, P. (2016). Kiezen bij de kassa. Een verkenning van maatschappelijk
bewust consumeren in Nederland. Den Haag, NL: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.
Smith, A. M. (2006). Veganism and osteoporosis: A review of the current literature.
International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12, 302-306. doi:10.1111/j.1440-
172X.2006.00580.x
Sneijder, P. & te Molder, H. (2009). Normalizing ideological food choice and eating
practices. Identity work in online discussions on veganism. Appetite, 52, 621-620.
doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.02.012
Sobal, J. & Nelson, M. K. (2003). Commensal eating patterns: a community study. Appetite,
41, 181-190. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00078-3
Sweetman, P. (2003). Twenty-First century dis-ease? Habitual reflexivity or the reflexive habitus. The Sociological Review, 51(4), 528-549. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 954X.2003.00434.x
The Vegan Society (n.d.). History. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from h
ttps://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/history
Timmermans, S. & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: from Roos Wever 58 Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’
grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167-186. doi:10.1177/0735275112457914 Twine, R. (2014). Vegan killjoys at the table—Contesting happiness and negotiating relationships with food practices. Societies, 4, 623–639. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/soc4040623 Turner, R. (2017). Veganism: ethics in everyday life. American Journal of Cultural Sociology. doi:10.1057/s41290-017-0052-8 Vaisey, S. (2009). Motivation and justification: A dual‐process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1675-1715. doi:10.1086/597179
Veganuary (2017). Launched in the UK in January 2014, Veganuary (pronounced vee-GAN-
uary) is a registered charity (1168566) that encourages people to try vegan for
January. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from https://veganuary.com/about/
Wills, W., Backett-Milburn, K., Roberts, M. L. & Lawton, J. (2011). The framing of social
class distinctions through family food and eating practices. The Sociological Review,
59(4), 725-740. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2011.02035.x