January Edition

It is puzzling to see people take a neutral or apolitical stance on a topic. ‘I’m not interested in politics’, or ‘I’m abstaining from choosing a side’ are phrases you may have heard too. Only recently, though, has apoliticality been recognised as a political choice in itself - your silence or abstinence inevitably implies compliance to the system. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, human beings always either comply or voice their dissent against the same. Among these various such ‘systems’ constituting our lives, the food we eat is a playground of political choice. What we choose to put into our bodies subsumes us, as actors, into the ethics of its creation - right from the sowing of seeds to the stir frying of grains. Veganism, thus, is a movement that came out when a group of individuals decided to recognise and take a grip on their role as actors in the system - denying to surrender to hidden means of production.

Veganism stems from vegetarianism, which is a meat-free, vegetable-based diet and regimen that originated in the late 1830s (Preece, 2008). The former evolved as a stricter branch of the latter, which went ahead to exclude all animals and animal products from their overall lifestyle, in addition to their diet. The term ‘veganism’ itself was coined in 1944 by an Irish animal activist, Dr. Donald Watson, who later founded the vegan society. Today’s philosophy of veganism comes from the ideals of this society, who voice their concern for: 1) the animals, 2) the individual, and 3) the planet. First, the society seeks to ‘emancipate’ animals from their commodification by man, specifically through ceasing their use in work, hunting, vivisection, or diet. Secondly, a vegan diet was propagated to human beings on the grounds of longevity, as well as better physical and mental health. Thirdly, they state that veganism is the more environmentally conscious choice - prioritising plants over meat production reduces carbon dioxide emissions, while simultaneously improving soil health.

Like all other things political, the vegan movement has received its own share of hatred. Cole and Morgan (2011) explore derogatory attitudes of British mass media towards vegans. For instance, they state that news outlets (eg. Time magazine or the Sun) label the latter as militant, outspoken, killers, or even terrorists. Similarly, Dhont and Hudson (2014) find that most of these haters, in an American context, are right wing adherents - in addition to the embeddedness of meat eating in their culture, they stand by the philosophy of ‘speciesism’ (speesheecism) which is that we, as human beings, are distinct and anthropologically superior to our animal counterparts, which entitles us to treat them as we wish.

It can be argued that these polarities of difference illustrate the ‘integrated threat theory’, of sociology and psychology, which talks of how social groups are threatened (Stephan et. al., 2009). In this case, anti-vegans or staunch meat eaters (a large chunk of whom are right wingers) experience a threat to their political and economic power as veganism grows. They respond with biases on vegan attitudes and behaviour, which forms the bulk of memes you see on the quintessential vegan lifestyle.

Their most popular circulating claim is that the latter is a privilege which not many can afford, and to become a vegan is simply to openly flaunt this privilege.

This isn’t entirely false. Christopher et. al. (2018) finds that a mere five percent of USA’s population is vegetarian, of which only two percent are vegan. Further, the typical vegan profile is that of a politically liberal, college-educated white woman - there’s no doubt that she holds the awareness and resources to pursue veganism which the masses lack.

On the other hand, Greenbaum (2016) problematizes the idea of vegan privilege through a couple of arguments. First, she clarifies that wealth need not be a precursor to veganism; there are unemployed or low income vegans whose shopping cart simply looks different from their wealthier counterparts. In general, ‘premium’ food products are targeted at wealthier individuals, which applies to both meat eaters and vegans. While you may argue that your average Joe does not have the ‘luxury’ of environmentally conscious lifestyle choices in their scramble to economise existing wages. Greenbaum (2016), however, would urge you to consider this - even these ‘average joe(s)’ exercise a degree of privilege through their access to supermarkets, restaurants, and time to prepare meals, which inevitably renders them an access to a degree of vegan lifestyle if they wished to pursue the same. While it is true we are each placed differently on this spectrum of privilege, it is also generically true that meat is no more easily accessible than vegetables, cheese, or bread. Of course, differences in pricing and availability across geographies definitely do apply (which may render the argument irrelevant) - yet this is typically a thumb rule unless you land up in a remote hard-core seafood or meat-eating hub, in places like Japan or Argentina.

Second, conversations around vegan privilege often overlook the variety of diets apart from veganism. There’s the whole30, paleo, keto, or loom diet - and having the chance to take up any of these is a privilege. By this reasoning, veganism isn’t a privilege by itself, but one among the available choices which a privileged consumer can opt for (Greenbaum, 2016).

Third, Greenbaum (2016) points out the hidden privileges of ‘carnists’ or meat eaters, which are denied to vegans. The former are unobligated to think, feel, or observe the effect of their diet on animals and the environment - they can ignore hidden ingredients in food packaging and restaurant deliveries, and eat at any fast food joint. Likewise, there are privileges that vegans intentionally give up by choosing veganism. They give up eating at restaurants, picnics, barbeques, and gatherings, get mocked at, often need to explain food choices, are accused of giving up cultural authenticity, or even pushing a radical agenda, and are commonly criticised for following a fad diet and privileged lifestyle. Most ironically - many of these vegan haters are equally economically privileged meat eaters.

Ultimately, carnists and meat eaters come from different ethical positions. While carnists find solace in their meat-eating heritage, and the inherent superiority of animal consumption, vegans would rather prioritize their longevity, the well-being of animals, or the natural environment. This is further complicated when we realise that the categories of carnists and vegans are unstable in themselves - all individuals demonstrate a certain degree of veganism or carnism, which may change with certain times of the week, month, or year; they may or may not identify with the labels assigned to them, and may require dietary changes as per medical conditions (eg. deficiencies or pregnancy). The politics of veganism is thus a layered, heterogeneous, and dynamic one; of which privilege is merely a piecemeal component.

When we try to understand and investigate non-human animal minds, one of the primary questions that come to mind are, “Do they see and feel things the way we do?”, “How complex are animal emotions?”, “Can they feel love the way we do?”, “Do animals know about death?”, “Do animal vocalizations count as language?” These are valid questions that even comparative psychologists are trying to figure out as they study animal behaviours in their respective habitat to understand the purpose of their behaviours in proper context.

Evolutionary Psychology states that human minds are not mutually exclusive from animal minds, but are more evolved. Stating this would imply that animal and human minds have some similarities and some differences, and are not entirely different. While animals express emotions through vocalizations (which does indicate that they can feel emotions), that in itself cannot be counted as language, as the said vocalizations serve a very basic purpose and cannot be used to convey complex abstract messages. Followers of B.F Skinner (a behavioural scientist) look at animals simply as machines or creatures of habit that learn and automatically engage in certain behaviours in response to changes in their surroundings without having any understanding of the purpose of the said action. However, even in their apparent resemblance to machines, animals that possess a central nervous system are quite conscious and capable of living and being aware of their experiences. In that sense, it can be said that the pain and pleasure experienced by them is very real. Furthermore, some studies even go as far as to suggest that chimpanzees, orangutans and bonobos possess a theory of mind i.e. “The ability to understand that others have mental states and perspectives different from our own”.

Keeping in mind that animals with a central nervous system are sentient and conscious, another interesting area to investigate is their personal understanding of “Death” as a phenomenon. Ernest Becker, an accomplished anthropologist was of the opinion that animals do not understand the concept of dying at all. However, this notion is being challenged by new studies that suggest that at least some animals do have a certain understanding of the irreversibility of death, and experience some form of aversion to death. This was highlighted in an observational study on chimpanzees by James Anderson, a psychologist, who observed that an elderly chimpanzee who was dying was being tended to by a younger chimpanzee. Anderson notes that the elderly chimpanzee passed away at night and the younger chimpanzee stayed with the body throughout the night, and subsequently avoided the site of death. However, while some animals do behave in certain ways indicating awareness of the irreversibility of death, they may be unaware of the inevitability of death. Jonathan Bernett, a contemporary philosopher would affirm the same by his argument that the knowledge of universal beliefs is only possible through language. He further substantiates this by saying that if there is no possible way the said piece of knowledge could be exhibited by behaviour, then there is no way that the piece of knowledge could be communicated and subsequently, such knowledge would be impossible to access. Applying this logic, there is no known way so far that animals could communicate the inevitability of death as a concept merely by behaviour, and explain to others of their kind that death awaits them all.

Finally, to investigate if animal minds are capable of feeling emotions the way we do has been a matter of contention for a long time amongst scientists, due to the simple fact that there are no fixed parameters to define “emotion”. From the aforementioned example of the young chimpanzee that waited by the elderly chimpanzee’s dead body throughout the night, we could at least speculate that the said chimpanzee experienced some form of grief which is a subsequent emotion caused by attachment that could in turn possibly indicate their capablility of experiencing love as an emotion. However, anthropomorphization of animal behaviour (interpreting animal behaviour with a human bias) has been a commonly noted problem in this field of study, and therefore scientists have to be extremely careful and use more basic theories to explain animal behaviours instead of inferring them from the lens of human experiences. If animals could truly experience a complex emotion such as grief, it would imply that unlike what is believed by B.F Skinner and behavioural psychologists of the like, animals are much more than creatures of habit whose behaviour could simply be determined by reward and punishment mechanisms. It is interesting to note that the fear of the aforementioned anthropomorphism is criticized by Dr. Barbara J King, a professor of anthropology as intellectually limiting and has stated some simple criteria to identify grief in animals- If upon the death of a companion, the animal fails to eat, sleep, travel and isolates himself/herself. Dr. King pointed out that it is extremely important to address grief experienced by animals to be more appreciative of animal rights and welfare.