"Being a Vegan Makes me a What?!" by Erik Olsen

Becoming a vegan is no easy task. Aside from giving up most foods, veganism isn't often something taken lightly by friends and family. By the meat eating population, veganism and vegetarianism are seen as blatant statements of the emasculating sensation of empathy. As a 'meat eater' myself, I can't truly speak for what effect these labels have on those with these eating preferences. However, I find it interesting how we socially portray vegans and vegetarians. In television shows, movies, literature and many other forms of media, non-meat eaters are predominately weird, extremely devoted environmentalists, or conceited snobs. But why does this label exist and how is it perpetuated? 

The Vegetarian-omnivore conflict

Western culture hates vegans. While very little attention is paid to eating preferences in the United States, 2011 study in the United Kingdom showed that 74.3% of people would categorize the word "vegan" as negative compared to the 5.5% that viewed it as positive. Therefor, You would expect that a contributing factor to globalized industrial animal farming is the social pressure placed on vegan individuals because of western ideals. However, there's another side to the conflict. During interviews with both omnivores and vegans, the omnivores are more likely to use more tame descriptions of meat versus vegans who are more likely to use vivid buzzwords such as "slaughter", "kill" and "torture" to describe the meat industry.  Out of the ten omnivore interviewees, all of them described this rhetoric as being confrontational. Some would even go so far as to say that vegan rhetoric is judgmental, thus either affirming or perpetuating the negative implications of veganism for these individuals. As one woman states, “I just always feel attacked [around vegans], like they feel superior and are judging my choices. I can tell they look down on me. I hate getting ganged-up on”. Therefore, it should be no mystery why the negative light is cast down on shades of vegetarianism. Despite this, most omnivores report that report disapproval on current methods of large-scale food production.  With this in mind, it would seem that the vegan movement is greatly hindered by perceived harsh and pushy methods of recruitment. Another idea suggests that this hindrance is also caused by the anthropocentric leanings of western culture and the dominant omnivore viewpoint.

Rampant Stereotyping Everywhere!

There are endless films depicting vegans and vegetarians as being whiny or 'feminine' and 'emotional'. However, the television show "South Park" shows a crude, satirical macro-perspective on the perception of aforementioned eating preferences. In the episode Fun With Veal, one character decides to become a vegan after learning where vegans come from. After becoming a vegetarian and attempting to rescue a baby cow from a farm, female genitalia grow all over his skin and he is endlessly criticized by everyone representing a hyperbolic view of society's condemnation of veganism. However blunt and perverse, the vaginae on his skin are effective in showing the emasculating lens cast on vegetarians by western society.  In one scene, Stan, the boy turning vegetarian, asks "Then why the hell do they call it 'veal'?" when told that veal is made of young cows. The rancher replies, "Well, if we called it 'little baby cow', people might not eat it." This scene satirizes the objectification and fragmentation of meat, an argument similar to Adams's piece, "The Rape of Animals, The Butchering of Women" which we read for class.  In another scene, an FBI agent responding to Stan's theft of a calf from a farm says, "But if we don't do something soon, there could be 50, even 60, people who have to go without veal for dinner. Are you prepared to let that happen?" This scene satirizes the value we place on meat in western culture. The fact the FBI responds out of fear that people will have to suffer the injustice of going without veal. The show thereby reveals an objective, thought-provoking view of the conflict between omnivores and vegetarians and doesn't conform to the stereotypes about Hollywood's portrayal of vegetarianism.

How Does This Conflict Effect the Vegan/Vegetarian Agenda?

There are many reasons why people make the choice to go vegetarian or vegan. Those who do it as a political statement against animal cruelty in agribusiness or out of environmental consciousness need other people to join their cause in order to make a difference. Veganism/vegetarianism seems like an altruistic, ethical concept, but why is it so widely rejected in popular culture? With regard to certain exceptions, 'emotionally-driven' concepts such as veganism and vegetarianism are trumped by conservative and anthropocentric values. To solve this, one should examine the causes and effects of popular culture on people's willingness to consume meat and other products derived from the farming of animals. So far, the reasons I've identified include the negative stereotypes surrounding veganism and vegetarianism. It's either seen as 'wimpy' and 'emotional', or militaristic and radical in pushing their agenda, resulting in heightened social pressure to defend one's eating choices or sociopolitical stance. This chain of events would theoretically deter a large number of people who would otherwise choose not to consume meat, and also pressure people who've previously turned to not eating meat to change their ways. This is supported by studies showing that there's a demographic of people that otherwise have no qualms with the concept, but more the portrayal of certain participating individuals. Therefore, the polarization of both those who disapprove of vegetarianism and veganism, and the more radical proponents of the vegan agenda slow the growth of a movement with a sizable  societal impact. 

Is There a Solution?

In the age of media and misinformation, how can we disperse some of the negative sentiment surrounding veganism and vegetarianism?In reference to the predicament involving the misrepresentation of individuals with non-meat eating preferences, there are a few possible solutions. Proponents of veganism and vegetarianism make an argument that is aggressive in nature. Critics resent the perceived hostility and condescending nature of the argument against meat eating. The "us versus them" mentality is mainly detrimental to those fighting for the end of the nationwide over-consumption of meat. A solution, then, would be to tone down the aggressive and divisive rhetoric used to portray the meat industry. While some might say the gory reality is necessary to be effectively persuasive, I believe that this aggravates omnivores. Instead, proclaim the benefits of veganism without being overly critical against meat eaters. This may draw people into accepting diets not incorporating meat products and make the concept more desirable to be associated with. 

In regard to veganism's status as 'feminine', the solution may be more difficult. This problem stems from the personal attribute of being emotional as also being considered weak. The emotional connection between the idea of saving animals and femininity is so heavily solidified in western culture that fear of emasculation deters a large number of potential vegans and vegetarians. Based on surveys approximately 80% of vegans are female. While this statistic may not wholly represent the male population, it shows that it's likely for men to be deterred by social pressure. Because global changes in society's perception of masculinity are not entirely plausible, a more likely solution would be to lessen the emphasis of moral arguments in support of veganism. The less emotions are involved, the more the demographic vegetarianism targets would widen to cover those more entrenched in more conservative beliefs in gender generalizations.

 

Word Count: 1207