Anouk, v svojem postu nisem nikjer primerjala domača in industrijska jajca...pač pa tisti nadomestek za jajca, prašek, karkoli že je.
Don't get me wrong. Ne poskušam ničesar dokazati. Samo moti me, ker se sem in tja namiguje, da vegetarijanci so pa 'hinavci', češ, da to ni to...
Morate tudi upoštevati, da obstajajo različne vrste vegani, nekateri se za to odločijo samo zaradi zdravja recimo, pa nadaljujejo z nošnjo usnja.
Pa jih je treba 'obsojati', ker niso 'tapravi'? Oziroma, se sploh lahko kličejo vegani? Definicij in interpretacij je zelo veliko, kot tudi pogledov, kaj je najbolj prav in moralno.
Aja ups, sploh ne vem, od kod sem to pobrala . My bad.
Drugace se pa dela razlika med veganstvom (kot celostno filozofijo/zivljenjskim stilom, ki poleg prehrane vkljucuje se razna druga podrocja) in vegansko (rastlinsko) prehrano - tudi v znanstvenih clankih, ki se navezujejo na nutricionistiko ipd. se s tem namenom uporabljajo fraze kot so "vegan diets", "plant-based diets", "plant-centered diets", "plant rich diets".
Slovenscina je pri tem malo bolj okorna, pa tudi uporaba razlicnih izrazov v razlicne namene (se?) ni dovolj dosledna, da bi bilo to ocitno, ceprav se ze nekaj let trudimo tudi na tem podrocju ozavescati. Posebne besede za t.i. "prehranskega vegana" pa (zaenkrat?) ni, rastlino-jedec se pa ne slisi nekaj bas ... tako da bo ocitno ekstra pridevnih zaenkrat se moral biti notri, dokler je nuja/zelja po nalepkah. Bomo videli, kaj se bo izcimilo iz tega .
The term veganism has been coined in 1944 to represent an ideological construct that recognizes the inherent values of all animals and pledges for relations with non-human animals that are non-exploitative (The Vegan Society, 2014). As such, veganism refers to a lifestyle, in a great part consciously and reflexively chosen, and extends beyond merely one's dietary choices and practices, often becoming an important aspect of practitioner's identity (Jabs, Sobal, & Devine, 2000). Still, the concept of vegan diets - also known as strict vegetarian, pure vegetarian, plant-based, plant-rich and plant-centered diets -, occupy most of daily discourses, as food is central to our daily first and foremost as means of survival but also extending way past that alone.
Pa se tole, ce koga daje nespecnost:
In practice, veganism entails avoid all products and practices that make use of animals for commercial gain, such as production of animal flesh, milk, eggs, leather, fur, wool, feathers etc. The investigation of other domains for inherently exploitative practices (such as keeping of animals for experimentation and entertainment purposes) testifies to the entrenchment of these practices in our society.
Central to this notion of human-animal relationships is also the concept of speciesism, whereas the term referrs to discrimination against other sentient beings on the basis species membership that can further serve as a justification for the oppressive behaviour, prejudice or cruelty towards them (Godlovitch, Godlovitch, & Harris, 1972). Speciesism means giving different rights to different species (Joy, 2005), and is closely connected to anthropocentrism or humanocentrism (and subsequently with the universal concept of human rights), whereas human species is inherently seen as superior to other species and therefore claims rights or privileges that are denied to other sentient animals. Within this paradigm, animals are conceived as ‘absent referents’ or commodities, and our ability to respect and care for these sentient beings is significantly impaired (Zollitsch, Waiblinger, & Haslberger, 2007). The implication is that our attitude towards other species has little to do with between species differences in anatomy and physiology, but rather with our cultural environment and socialization. Speciesism as such thus draws upon and stresses basic similarities that matter when it comes to allocation of certain rights, examples being presence of consciousness and the ability of being distressed, as well as pain perception (Godlovitch et al., 1972). It is through this that we can assume that, by and large, differences among certain individuals of our own species are bigger than differences between species.
This is, however, not reflected in the allocation of rights and privileges to non-human animals at the present time. Denying minds and inherent value to animals was also recognized in the work of Joy (2002)on Carnism (sic) - ideology that conditions people to eat certain species of animals but not others, that operates under the umbrella of '3 Ns': normalization, naturalization and necessity. By taking part in these, people engage in numbing, denial, justification and perceptual distortion, preventing cognitive dissonance to surface, and by extension influences people to violate their core values. The dissonance can, however, be unveiled though self-reflection, not least one following a food scare. This is well illustrated in the recent scandal concerning horse meat in allegedly cow's meat products, such as burgers, following which a number of people have decided to abstain from meat consumption alltogether (The Guardian, 2013).
Bratanova et al. (2011) suggest that the mere act of classifying something or someone using different words might affect the way we perceive them, and in turn, go about it in terms of our behaviour towards them. While most people consider themselves as animal lovers and as good people that frown upon causing unnecessary harm upon others, most people also love eating meat - dead animal's flesh. Authors speculate that this categorization of animals as food - rather than (previously) living, sentient beings, might be co-responsible for reducing animals' perceived capacity to suffer, rendering them unworthy of moral consideration, by reducing the cognitive dissonance the conflicting practices (loving animals versus eating them) entail. The term Carnism may hence carry within an empowering and transformative potential, that will allow to render our private food choices as political by exposing the logic of underlying mechanisms of our choice-making.
Media has a further stake in politicizing issues or rendering them private, and it is vital to acknowledge that the popular represented stance may not always be the one that is fair or reflective of true experience of the represented (as in the case of the study by Cole and Morgan, 2011). Important as politicization of social justice issues is, politicization of animal rights issues as brought forward by the ethical vegetarians rather than coining it as a matter of dietary choices in the frame of personal preference, can be seen as inducing defensiveness in the majority of population when faced with the moral choices of the vegetarian minority (Minson and Monin, 2011).
A critical analysis of discourses of veganism as present in popular British national newspapers in 2007 by Cole and Morgan (2011) reveals power imbalances and bias that is reflected a concerning trend regarding the both the quality and the quantity of the current discursive content. Although the topic of veganism has not been a very hot one appearing in few magazines and newspapers, where it did come up, vegans were predominantly stereotyped in a negative manner as sentimentalists, faddists, ascetics and even hostile extremists, overwhelmingly ridiculed in dominant discourses that provide frame for readers understanding of issues at hand. While the audiences can certainly not be perceived as passive consumers, news stories are "interpreted and consequently reinforced within frameworks which derive at least in part from the assumption that there is a consensual nature of society" (Hall et al., 1978 in Cole and Morgan, 2011).
Discourses that counter the dominant ones are thus in arguably far more difficult position, having to assert its discursive power against the pre-existing terms of reference (Hall, 2005). Examination of language used to describe vegans and veganism in the study conducted by Cole and Morgan (2011) reveals the frequency of particular discourses, with vast majority (74.3%) being negative and ridiculing and only a small percentage positive (5.5%). As if these numbers were not concerning enough, the negative discourses tend to reinforce each other (Cole and Morgan, 2011), as explained with e.g. selective exposure theory.
The consequences of such negative and biased narratives are reflected in attitudes of readers of such texts and their behaviour towards the group in question. In the article on do-gooder derogation, Minson and Monin (2012) noted that putting down of morally motivated others occurs more prominently and prevalently after having been exposed to salient negative associations with vegetarians by others. This was reflected in overtly moral behavior eliciting annoyance and ridicule rather than admiration and respect. In turn, vegetarians report being harassed and "frequently pestered about their choice, to the point that self-help books have appeared to advise them on living among meat eaters" (Minson and Monin, 2011: 1). Not only this points to uneven relationships of power, but to hegemony and oppression, with the vegetarian minority being the oppressed 'underdog' as an extension of standing up for the oppressed animals.
Cole and Morgan (2011) denote that derogatory discourses surrounding veganism may serve as an indication of so-called 'vegaphobia' and dissociation with the underlying debate concerning our perception, and subsequently, treatment and exploitation of non-human animals on a mass scale, with more than 850 million land animals annually slaughtered for human consumption in UK alone. This points to institutionalization of human oppression of non-human animals and pervasiveness of speciesism, which similarly to racism and sexism predicate the treatment of individuals on the group membership and morally irrelevant differences between groups - in this instance, between the group of human- and non-human animals. Species membership alone is thus framed as an artificial construction overstressing some while undermining other traits between the discriminated and the ones discriminated against that might carry more significance, e.g. the ability to experience pain and pleasure. Vegans predominantly see themselves as exhibiting an anti-speciesist practice (Cole and Morgan, 2011), choosing to follow the chosen lifestyle stemming out of reflection of ethical beliefs and values in everyday actions and behaviour in a (more) consistent manner.
Interpretive perspective drawing on the emic knowledge with 'insider's view' thus reveals a very different image of vegans - as reasonable, rational and principled people that value consistency and being true to themselves, but also recognized that vegans - as any other societal group - come in a variety of flavours. This in turn brings consequences in terms of better understanding of the reasoning and relationships between people, making grounds for deeper engagement, along with potential for a paradigm shift and empowerment allowing us to make better choices. And since discourses consist of narratives, it is perhaps not surprising that the mere selection of words and language used might capture our attention and expose presuppositions underlying them.
While popular culture, as well as policies on various levels, reflect beliefs of the society, they also tends to reinforce them, or, alternatively, challenge them by providing ground for discussion and contestation (Hall, 2005). Any such change is almost always controversial, which stems from the dominant paradigm being seen as normal and thus neutral. As such, the assumption is that there must be something inherently wrong with minority alternative positions - or groups that hold them - that goes against the mainstream 'reality', the (likely to be unconscious) construct of masses of people that share common understanding of issues at hand (Hall, 2005). It is then important to account for the people (and the views they hold dear) that are engaged in production, along with commercial interests of powerful lobbies, in the textual outcomes that educate at the same time that they report and/or entertain.