Ms

(1)

Deviant Diets: An

Issufication of

Antiveganism and The

Carnivore Diet

MA Thesis

(2)

Introduction

The consumption of meat has been a significant and evolutionarily critical part of hominins’ diet for at least 2.6 million years (Zink & Lieberman, 2016). The caloric and nutritionally dense nature of meat is thought to have had a hand in the evolution of homosapiens, as the ability to process and chew meat efficiently meant that early humans’ jaws may have been able to move, making room for the brain to develop (Ibid.). Today, the consumption of meat is still a central component of many, if not a vast majority, of the world’s assortment of food cultures, and world-wide consumption of animal products continues to grow (Ritchie, 2019). The rates of eating meat are particularly high in the US, Australia, Argentina and Uruguay (Smith, 2018), and the rate of growth is dramatically increasing in some middle-income countries, especially in East Asia and China (Godfray et al., 2018).

Alongside the growth in per capita meat consumption globally, there are also increasing numbers of people that consume in defiance of this trend. The simultaneous, yet antithetical, growth of veganism, particularly in Western developed countries, has been widely acknowledged by the media (e.g. Hancox, 2018; Jones, 2018) and is a diet with no presence of animal products, and is thus completely plant-based. The Vegan Society defines veganism as “a 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” (The Vegan Society, 2014). A vegetarian diet is similar in that it does not include meat but does include eggs and dairy. Younger age groups of millennials and generation Z (Smithers, 2018; Conway, 2019) are largely responsible in driving the increasing demand for food that are free of animal products (Robinson, 2017). There are three primary reasons for adhering to a vegan, plant-based diet, and vegans typically justify their diet with some combination of the following: a concern for animal welfare, a desire to reduce impact on the environment as well as for personal health reasons. For a brief explanation of these motivations, to go vegan for the animals’ usually means that there is a belief that as all animals used in agriculture are sentient and capable of suffering, their exploitation and mistreatment within the industry should be avoided wherever possible (Veganuary, 2019). Compassion and ethics are key components of this motivation. To go vegan ‘for the environment’ involves an ambition to mitigate the effects of climate change, as avoiding meat and dairy has been hailed as one of the most effective ways an individual can reduce their impact on the planet (Carrington, 2018a). Perhaps the most controversial and individualistic of the motivations, for health reasons, rests on findings that diets that exclude animal products reduce, eliminate or reverse

(6)

certain health conditions, including cancers, diabetes and coronary heart disease (Campbell, 2006).

There are countless statistics and examples that can be used to support the proclamation that veganism is on the rise, including how huge fast food chains and institutions are now offering vegan options, sales of vegan products are generally on the rise and the European Commision is working on making vegan and vegetarian a legally protected status (Parker, 2018). In the UK, where more vegan products have recently been launched than in any other nation, there are 600,000 vegans in 2018, compared to 150,000 in 2014, 42% of which decided to make that change in that same year (Mintel, 2019; The Vegan Society, 2019; GlobalData, 2018). However, this undeniable rise in the number of vegans has not necessarily been met with welcome arms. Also in the UK, the editor of Waitrose Food magazine left his job after suggesting in an email to a vegan contributor “a series on killing vegans, one by one. Ways to trap them? How to interrogate them properly? Expose their hypocrisy? Force-feed them meat? Make them eat steak and drink red wine?" (Di Stefano, 2018). While his hostile response may have been a ‘joke,’ it is indicative of the attitude that many have towards vegans and veganism. Those who are opposed to veganism, and hold views that counter the motivations of vegans, are, for the purposes of this thesis, known as antivegans.

There has been some previous work and literature concerning the phenomenon ‘vegaphobia’ (e.g. Cole & Morgan, 2011; Delmestri, 2018). This has been primarily oriented around discriminations and prejudice against vegans themselves. This term will be expanded on in later sections. Antiveganism, here, is a broader, though similar, term that ecompasses vegaphobic practices, but is also concerned with all groups and individuals who are opposed to veganism, for whatever reason or rationale, rather than just the incidents in which vegans are being discriminated against. It has been clarified there are nuanced reasons for an individual to pursue a vegan lifestyle, though the question stands as to whether there are equally, or perhaps even more, nuanced reasons for people to be antivegan.

In conducting preliminary research from this thesis, it immediately became clear antiveganism was strongly present within the carnivore diet community. This can be said to make logical sense as the diets are, in practicality, total opposites of each other as whatever a vegan diets requires to be excluded is exactly what carnivores exclusively consume: it is an antivegan diet in the literal sense. A carnivore diet consists of eating absolutely no plant-derived food products, consuming only animal products. There is some variation in the carnivore diet, as some may choose to eat dairy, eggs and/or salt, and coffee is sometimes permitted when beginning the diet so as to reduce withdrawal symptoms, but in its most

(7)

extreme will consist of eating only meat and animal organs, sometimes raw and sometimes cooked. The carnivore diet is currently on a much smaller scale to plant-based diets, though there have been a number of contributing factors to its rise in popularity in recent years. First, an increased interest in ketogenic and paleolithic/paleo diets may have set the precedent for the more extreme carnivore diet to be taken at all seriously (Hill, 2018). A ketogenic diet is a restrictive diet that can be used to treat both diabetes and epilepsy, but also has popularity in being used as a weight loss diet. It works by depriving the body of glucose and thus forcing it into a state of ‘ketosis’ which can aid in burning fat and losing weight (HSPH, 2018). The paleo diet is also used for weight loss, and is based on the idea that humans’ bodies are genetically disposed to eat foods acquirable 2.5 million to 10,000 years ago, in the Paleolithic era by hunting and gathering means. It typically includes lean meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds (Mayo Clinic, 2017). The carnivore diet overlaps with these diets, as it is technically both a ketogenic and paleo diet itself. At present, there are very limited academic studies that have explored the potential health repercussions of a diet consisting entirely of animal products, and zero studies that have looked at the culture and individuals around the carnivore diet.

The carnivore diet has become more well-known ever since The Joe Rogan Experience, a highly popular podcast , interviewed both Jordan Peterson and then his daughter, Mikhaila1

Peterson in 2018 (Gabbatt, 2018). Before this, Rogan had interviewed carnivore Shawn Baker in 2017 (Zaleski, 2019). Jordan Peterson is a prominent political commentator, and this publicity likely drew attention to the diet. Adherents to the carnivore diet, including Baker and the Petersons, make various health claims for the diet, including that it can aid in weight-loss, muscle gain, mental health and in abating many symptoms of auto-immune conditions (Solon, 2018). However, the carnivore diet is usually dismissed by nutritionists as being a fad diet, with one nutritionist suggesting it is more akin to a “belief system” than anything else (Langer, 2018). Therefore, the question stands as to if the carnivore diet is a manifestation of antiveganism, or is it primarily a health driven movement, as carnivores claim, or something else entirely?

In any event, both the carnivore diet and veganism are diets that deviate from the dominant food choice of most of society, which is to eat both plant and animal products. As will be expanded on throughout this thesis, those who tend to deviate from mainstream ideologies are often met with negativity and disdain, and dietary choices present no exception to this. In a book entitled Food, the Body and the Self, Lupton (1996) highlights how it is that food

1 _{As of 12/6/2019, The Joe Rogan Experience} _{was the fourth most popular podcast on iTunes}

(8)

choices and food cultures are in dire need of sociological research and interpretation, despite ‘eating’ being such a mundane activity for so many. She explains the significance of food and eating habits in the following way:

Food and eating habits and preferences are not simply matters of 'fuelling' ourselves, alleviating hunger pangs, or taking enjoyment in gustatory sensations. Food and eating are central to our subjectivity, or sense of self, and our experience of embodiment, or the ways that we live in and through our bodies, which itself is inextricably linked with subjectivity. As such, the meanings, discourses and practices around food and eating are worthy of detailed cultural analysis and interpretation.

(Lupton, 1996, p.1) Due to how it is the case that food cultures are so central to many people’s sense of self, when an individual's food choices are questioned, so to can their own identity. As a result, veganism, antiveganism and the carnivore diet are bound to be hotbeds of tension, debate and controversy. As such, this element of disagreement and inconclusiveness between actors, this controversy can be said to “constitute the best settings for observing the construction of social life” (Venturini, 2012, p.798). To study this controversy, platforms on which discourse surrounding antiveganism and the carnivore diet can be utilised. For this thesis, three platforms will be studied to research these stances, all of which have a very high number of active users (Clement, 2010), host content concerning antiveganism and the carnivore diet, and can be examined with a digital methods approach to identify relationships and associations. These three platforms are YouTube, Reddit and Facebook. This thesis will explore the associations of antiveganism and the carnivore diet as they exist on these platforms, rather than compare how the stances vary on each platform. This thesis’ research questions are as follows:

RQ1) What are the associations with antiveganism, as expressed on YouTube, Reddit and Facebook?

RQ2) What is the role of antiveganism in the carnivore diet?

These research questions have been formulated in a way that will position the research in this thesis to support an issue mapping of antiveganism and the carnivore diet on the chosen

(9)

platforms, thus leading to conclusions on the motivations behind these stances. The first research question will guide a general exploration into the associations with those who hold an antivegan stance, thus leading to the identification of motivations. Simultaneous to this, associations will be identified for the carnivore diet, so as to answer the second research question. This research will be structured by first providing an overview of existing literature that may aid in the understanding of these attitudes and diets, followed by an explanation of the issue mapping and digital methods approaches that will guide the research process. Subsequently, the methodologies used and findings retrieved from each platform will be presented before a thematically organised discussion of the results, and then finally the conclusions derived from the research.

Review of Existing Literature and Studies

This literature review will first position veganism as a subculture that challenges a number of dominant ideologies present in much of Western society, which can subsequently be applied to the concept of moral panic. Following this, there will be an overview of existing literature and studies that have made associations with pro-vegan, nonvegan and antivegan stances. Doing this will contextualise the associations that become apparent during the research carried out in this thesis. It should be noted that many of the studies used in this literature review have used vegetarianism, rather than veganism, as the central focus of this study. Whilst being hesitant to make the assumption that attitudes towards veganism are identical to that of vegetarianism, since the diets are similar it would be detrimental to exclude studies that have focussed on vegetarianism. Where it is relevant to speak of both vegetarians and vegans, the terminology “veg*ns” will be used to represent both animal-product-elimination diets.

Dominant Ideologies

Carnism

Carnism is a phrase coined by Joy (2009) to refer to the “invisible belief system” that deems eating certain animals as “ethical and appropriate” (p.29), reflecting the dominant ideology that overarches how most people view food and what is acceptable to eat. Its seeming ‘invisibility’ is comparable to how the “patriarchy existed for thousands of years before feminists named” it so, and thus similarly the carnist ideology has now been named (p.32). Using the word carnism makes it clear that carnists share a common ideology, where “an

(10)

ideology is shared set of beliefs, as well the practices that reflect these beliefs” (p.30), in the same way that, for example, the ideology of right-wing conservatism is a shared set of beliefs that typically manifests in political voting behaviour or other societal practices. Joy argues that carnism is a violent ideology, in which its invisibility, made so by both powers from the industry and the willingness of the consumer, is its strongest asset in reproducing the means of its operation. Given that the ideology that propels many vegans involves an awareness and rejection of the suffering of animals within the animal agriculture industry, to be aware of and also accept this suffering is considered a moral conflict of carnists. Therefore, veganism and vegan activism can be said to question the carnist-norm and instigate this moral conflict that judges the slaughter and subsequent sale and consumption of certain animals as ideologically and ethically acceptable.

Hedonistic Consumerism

An additional relevant dominant ideology to highlight here is that of consumerism, another ideology that veganism can be said to challenge. In recent years, there has been a great deal of media attention and reports on the ways human consumption practices are highly damaging to the environment, of which a significant proportion is from the demand of animal products. Whilst there is not space here to go into detail on all the ways this occurs, as an overview, animal agriculture produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases, uses vast amounts of water and land through deforestation, pollutes water supplies, and is incredibly damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity on land and in the oceans (Smith et al., 2014; Walsh, 2013; O’Mara, 2011; Thornton et al., 2011; Margulis, 2004; Gilliom & Hamilton, 2006; Hill et al,. 2005). Overall, the avoidance of meat and dairy has been cited as “the single biggest way” a consumer can reduce their harmful impact on the planet, and even as “essential” to avoid the critical point of environmental breakdown (Carrington, 2018a; Carrington 2018b). Whilst it is unknown how widespread the knowledge is of how harmful animal agriculture is on the environment, it is far from an unknown issue, as evidenced by many mainstream media organisations covering the issue (Pierre-Louis, 2018; McMahon, 2019). Additionally, the documentary Cowspiracy, which details the impact of animal agriculture on climate change, was made globally available on the streaming service Netflix in September 2015 (Armstrong, 2015). Shortly after this, Google search trends for “animal agriculture climate change” significantly and consistently increased (Figure 1), indicating the movie may have launched the matter into mainstream consciousness.

(11)

There is an argument to be made that along with carnism, (hedonistic) consumerism is a prevailing ideology in many Western economies that veganism can be said to bring into question. In such capitalist economies, it is generally accepted that the ideology of consumerism is fundamental to the functioning of capitalism (Migone, 2007). As inequality has steadily increased in these economies, particularly the United States, it has been theorised that the lowered costs of consumer goods have been used to supplement the stagnating wage growth of the working class. This acts to reproduce the conditions by which capitalism functions, that is through increased consumption of these cheap goods (Wolff, 2005). In order for this to be acceptable compensation for the working class, an ideology where consumption of goods being equitable with social value and self-worth has become the accepted ‘system of values’ (Wolff, 2005, p.230; Migone, 2007). Through equating consumption with self-worth, the practice has become a hedonistic one, and has been labelled “the highly wasteful and discriminatory pattern of consumption that predominates in current capitalist models” (Migone, 2007, p.174), largely contributing to the ecological crisis the world now faces.

With the acceptance that financially supporting the animal agriculture industry through the consumption of (cheap) animal products is damaging to the environment, it would follow that

(12)

in order to reduce negative impacts on the environment, one may be obliged to reduce or eliminate animal product consumption. However, to many, the consumption of animal products, particularly meat, is a highly enjoyable experience. There are also studies that reveal an association with consuming meat and the perception of affluence (Gossard & York, 2003; Chan & Flatevska, 2019). Therefore, a reduction in quantities of animal products consumed may feel equivalent to a reduction in wealth. In this way, veganism can call into question the value system of self-worth propagated by hedonistic consumerism within capitalism.

Subcultures and Moral Panic

Veganism as Subculture

In this section, a discussion of veganism, and how it might be considered a subculture, thus potentially prompting antiveganism, will be discussed. So far, those who adhere to veg*nism have been positioned as an out-group, as norm violators who deviate from the dominant ideologies that are carnism and hedonistic consumerism. Gelder (2005) defines subcultures as “groups of people that are in some way represented as non-normative and/or marginal through their particular interests and practices, through what they are, what they do and where they do it” (p.1). This is certainly coherent with veganism. However, there is a possibility that this paradigm dynamic is subject to change as veganism becomes increasingly popular and less of a distinctly deviant lifestyle due to am accelerated awareness of the reasons people adhere to the diet.

There are a number of phenomena associated with subcultures that strengthen veganism being considered as a subculture, and are able to add a deeper understanding of the reactions to the movement as it becomes increasingly ingrained into the mainstream. First, from Hebdige (1979), is the concept of recuperation which many subcultures become subject to. As subcultures, by their definition, question and disrupt the status-quo, they can have a significant “power to provoke and disturb” (p.91). As a result of this breach in the societal order, conscious and unconscious efforts from various apparatus act for the subculture to be “incorporated as a diverting spectacle within the dominant mythology from which it in part emanates” (p.94). This means that establishments that have the power to do so react to movements that question dominant ideologies so as to normalise them, and the subculture is no longer a threatening presence to their world view. Hebdige formulates that this happens in two ways; through the commodity form and the ideological form. These forms will now be explained in the context of the rise of veganism.

(13)

As the introduction of this thesis has laid out, veganism is indisputably on the rise in the Western world. This has been seen to manifest in new vegan-friendly products constantly being released and there are countless articles that discuss how “veganizing your business” will be a profitable and effective marketing tactic (e.g Fox, 2017). This might be considered to be coherent with Hebdige’s (1979) commodity form of recuperation, where a subculture’s physical symbols become mass-produced objects. As a subculture’s symbols of consumption become more of a part of the mainstream, this will ”inevitably lead to the diffusion of the subculture’s subversive power” (p.95). The ideological form has its roots in the work of Cohen (1972), and refers to when dominant groups in positions of power, such as the government, law enforcement and the media, participate in “the ‘labelling’ and redefinition of deviant behaviour” (Hebdige, 1979, p.94). Hebdige argues that this ideological redefinition, that aims to deal with the threat that the subculture brings to the dominant ideology, occurs by operationalizing “two basic strategies” (p.97). The first of which acts to produce a similar outcome to the commodity form, in that the subcultural activities are “trivialized, naturalized, domesticated” so as to equate the deviance to ‘sameness’ and belittle its questioning of norms (p.97). The second strategy takes a different approach, and rather than normalising the subculture to the point it becomes relatable, the adherents become a dehumanised, laughable spectacle. These reactions typically manifest, spread and become common knowledge through the media, specifically mass-media, as this was the dominant media format at the time of Cohen’s (1972) and Hebdige’s (1979) work. The theory of Cohen that Hebdige particularly drew on was that of moral panic, which is when “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media” (Cohen, 1972, p.1). Cohen notes that this stance originates from those in right-wing mind sets. The following sections will now apply this concept to how factions of the media, traditional and other, have responded to veganism, where veganism is considered a subculture. These responses will then be evaluated in regards to antiveganism.

Moral Panic: Traditional Media

Evidence of moral panic in reaction to veganism comes from a study by Cole and Morgan (2011), which examined the discourse surrounding veganism in UK national newspapers in 2007 in order to evaluate prevailing narratives that influence how society views veganism. This study coined the term ‘vegaphobia,’ meaning “a derogatory portrayal of vegan and veganism” (p.134). Overall, they found there to be a vastly negative portrayal of veganism in their dataset. They found that the vegaphobia expressed toward veganism manifested in a

(14)

number of ways including its ridicule, dismissing it as a fad and stereotyping vegans as boring, strict, over sensitive and hostile. These findings might be interpreted as clear examples of trivialisation (dismissing it as a passing trend) as well as moral panic-inducing. There is, however, a case to be made that certain portions of mainstream media now are not so critical of veganism in the way that they used to be. The study from Cole and Morgan (2011, p.138) found that The Guardian, for example, had over half of their 2007 articles that mentioned veganism spoke of it in a negative light. Now, however, whilst a small example, none of The Guardian’s articles categorised under ‘veganism’ published in May 2019 are at all negative about the diet (Figure 2). This is far from conclusive evidence that all the more traditional mass-media outlets are making this shift, especially considering the left-wing of The Guardian. However, it does signify a change in the narrative surrounding veganism as veganism becomes an increasingly prevalent diet and ideology.

Moral Panic: New Media

Whilst it may have used to be the case that mainstream, traditional media sources were the instigators of moral panic and subcultural diffusion, the mass-media’s current role in this is now less clear. Previous to the rise of the Internet and social media, the public had very little choice but to consume their news and information about the world from mass media. Today, however, the media landscape is significantly different. In the UK, 64% of the population get their news from the Internet and this figure is at 93% for the US (Ofcom, 2018; Pew, 2018), and about two thirds of Americans occasionally or regularly get news from social media

(15)

(Matsa & Shearer, 2018). With 82% of UK 16-24 year olds consuming their news primarily from the Internet, this figure looks set to rise (Ofcom, 2018). Therefore, it would be unwise to dismiss the role that social media may have in instigating and sustaining moral panics, given that the influence once held by mainstream, traditional media sources may now be in the hands of more dispersed powers.

As veganism becomes more mainstream, there have been a number of incidents that have added to the media inventory of moral panic, traversing traditional and new media. One such example of this came from the UK newspaper The Sun (both Scottish and UK edition), who made the editorial decision to make the story of a sweet, Percy Pig, becoming vegan-friendly their front page story in May 2019 (Figure 3 ). Another incident occurred in early 2019 when a UK bakery chain released a vegan sausage roll to which Piers Morgan, a controversial media personality, called the bakery “PC-ravaged clowns” in response on Twitter (Robertson, 2019).

Cohen’s (1972) conceptualisation of moral panic included how the media constructs an inventory of deviance which aids in the production of a moral panic. Such an inventory will typically consist of “(i) Exaggeration and Distortion; (ii) Prediction; (iii) Symbolization” (p.25). In the case of the veganisation of

Percy Pig, The Sun can be said to be

“exaggerating grossly the seriousness of the events,” (p.26) equating the incident to a killing. Concerning the same story, an again

outraged Piers Morgan mirrored this

exaggeration and called from veg*ns to “leave our pig sweets alone!” (Waters, 2019). Such an exclamation might be interpreted as Cohen’s (1972) meaning of ‘prediction,’ in that it implies that “what had happened will inevitably happen again” (p.35), positioning it as an imminent threat that provokes hysteria. Finally, the symbolisation present in the construction of a moral panic occurs with the “mass communication of stereotypes” (p.36). The vegan sausage roll incident is immediately reminiscent of the second strategy of ideological recuperation, in which the subculture is

(16)

reduced to a clown-like spectacle (Hedbige, 1979, p.124). Such labelling and ridicule of vegan-friendly business practices can be said to add to the array of stereotypes used to belittle the vegan movement, as will be discussed shortly. Additionally, as Piers Morgan’s expressed disgust towards the release of the vegan sausage roll took place on social media, this brings to light how antivegan sentiment and moral panic inventories towards veganism, are now migrating to the online sphere.

Vegaphobia

Vegan Stereotypes

The negative stereotyping of veg*ns has been recognised by a number of studies as a causal factor in the stigma and subsequent discrimination of the dietary lifestyle’s adherents (Cole & Morgan, 2011; Rodan & Mummery, 2019; Delmestri, 2018; Horta, 2017; MacInnis & Hodson, 2015). This is not an exclusive phenomenon to vegans by any means, and stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination are well-known to be interrelated and supportive of one-another in the field of sociology (e.g. Fiske, 1998). Stereotyping vegans in certain ways enhances the idea that carnism exists as the majority norm and vegans are ‘the other’ minority, which in turn amplifies the notions expressed within the stereotypes as they become a part of everyday language and media portrayals (Cole & Morgan, 2011; Rodan & Mummery, 2019). This can all be said to add to and be fuelled by the sense of moral panic surrounding veganism. All research papers that have explored vegan stereotypes have come to the conclusion that stereotyping vegans fuels ‘vegaphobic’ practices. Additionally they all recognise the stigma derives from the questioning of established carnist beliefs, and act as a defense mechanism with the desire to create cognitive boundaries between carnists, non-human animals being slaughtered for food and vegans who wish for this practice to end. There is, however, a lack of recognition for other motivating factors for being vegan, i.e. a concern for the environment or personal health, that call into question other dominant ideologies typically held by carnists.

Indeed, evidence of social psychological bias being directed to veg*ns has been empirically identified by MacInnis and Hodson (2015, p.740). They conducted three studies proving that carnists, though particularly those who are right-wing, view veg*ns, especially male veg*ns, negatively. This can be considered coherent with the associations between meat and masculinity, and also with the patriarchal tendencies of the right-wing, as will be discussed in the coming sections. In this same study, only drug addicts were evaluated more negatively than veg*ns. Their other studies found ethical veg*ns were classed by carnists as the most

(17)

negative dietary lifestyle choice, and “vegetarians and especially vegans reported experiencing negativity stemming from the diets” (p.721). The finding that ethically motivated veg*ns were viewed the most negatively of all types of vegans suggests antiveganism frequently derives from the questioning of carnists’ moral values.

Vegan Privilege

So far, it has been discussed how vegan stereotypes can lead to stigma and discrimination. However, this accusation is a contentious issue primarily due to how veganism is usually positioned as both a choice and privilege, and any discrimination targeted towards a vegan might be discontinued should should the vegan choose to no longer be vegan (Wilkinson, 2018; Greenebaum, 2016). Veganism is something which, a majority of the time, can be easily hidden and does not overtly present itself in the same manner as much more indisputability oppressed identities, such as race and gender. Therefore, extreme caution should be carried out in placing vegans in comparably oppressed categories, despite evidence of vegaphobia. Greenebaum (2018), however, argues, the accusation of vegan privilege can be dismantled. The belief that being vegan implies a level of privilege within society is prevalent for a number of reasons, perhaps primarily due to the assumption a vegan diet is a costly one, as well as in how having the option of adhering to a diet that deviates from the norm denotes a privilege that not all in the world are able to have (Greenebaum, 2016). To be clear, privilege is here defined as “the invisible, unearned, and often unwanted advantages granted based on membership to ascribed social groups such as race, class, and gender” (p.356). Greenebaum argues against the claim that being vegan is indicative of an exclusive form of privilege, and in fact it more likely the case that any ability to make food choices is a privilege. Crucially, accusations of vegan privilege differ depending on whether they come from vegans or nonvegans. Where vegans are critical of vegan privilege, it is typically intended to make other vegans aware they should “move beyond a limited focus on equality and justice for animals and broaden our circle of compassion to people” (p.358). This dynamic and motivation alters when accusations of vegan privilege come from nonvegans, according to Greenebaum. In that case, such accusations are essentially used as a tool to distract from the arguments for veganism and aims to reinforce “an ideology that endorses the legitimacy of eating animals” (Ibid.). It is arguably the case that in a dominantly carnist society, it is the meat-eaters that experience a privilege that veg*ns do not, in that they are willing to consume a larger amount of food options available to them in stores and when eating out (Greenebaum, 2016). In confronting and challenging the stereotype that all vegans are privileged due to them being “arrogant, judgmental, wealthy, and white” (Ibid., p.367), with a recognition that these are traits not held exclusively by vegans nor are they characteristics of

(18)

all vegans, the discussion can move on to an analysis of all individuals that have the purchasing power to eat whatever food they choose to consume. This discussion of vegan privilege acts as an example of the nuanced forms of antiveganism, and the way antivegan expressions can be interpreted to reveal defensive attitudes regarding the choice to consume animal products.

The Political Power of Food Choices

There is a strong argument to be made that ones dietary decisions, and how they choose to present this decision, has significant political power. Lupton (2017) draws on the posthumanism of Braidotti (2002, 2013), Haraway (2015) and Barad (2003) to demonstrate that every activity from human and nonhuman sources is in someway interrelated, in terms of their significance to one another and how meaning is drawn from every interaction. In this way, assemblages are constantly being formed between human and non-human actors, where the non-humans have an often overlooked “thing-power,” and an awareness of this allows for a better understanding of nature and the universe. Assemblages are “ad hoc groupings of diverse elements, of vibrant materials of all sorts” (Bennett, 2010, p.23), where ‘vibrant’ refers to each actor’s, human and non-human, agency and ability to affect its external environment and, indeed, other potentially intertwined assemblages. To ignore the power that non-humans have would be to one’s detriment, according to Lupton (2017). She goes on to apply this to food cultures in the online setting, and how a human’s decision to present what they choose to eat, perhaps by posting their meal to a social media platform, is a form of visual imagery that can be a tool to express identity and thus contains political power. Doing this “draws attention [to] the broader conditions in which people are called on to regulate and manage their food practices and in which food is produced and marketed” (p.6).

Lupton’s proposition that one’s representation of dietary decisions has political implications is highly applicable when it comes to veg*nism, as posting a veg*n meal, especially in addition to relevant pro-veg*n captions and hashtags, associates the poster with the movement, whether that be a promotion of a healthier, more ethical or more environmentally aware lifestyle. The same principle applies to those who post food-culture related content with a distinctly antivegan and/or pro-meat rhetoric: “People who decide to engage in alternative food practices because of ethical or moral standpoints are both mocked and supported in digital visual media. Many memes make fun of the assumed righteousness and earnestness of vegetarians and vegans” (p.6). Lupton describes that in her search for “#meat” on Giphy, a platform for hosting GIF animations, “videos representing an obsessive and often violent or pornographic-like celebration of meat, typically coded as masculine” were

(19)

prominent (p.10). She found that these were frequently grotesque, violent, sexualised and hypermasculinized depiction of meat, with blatant misogyny throughout, including women “being assaulted with phallic meat products” (p.10). Thus, based on her earlier framework, it can be inferred that the humans that have made the choice to engage with and promote this content are participating in an assemblage which promotes these sorts of associations with animal products. Going forward, a discussion of how political and ideological associations can be made by these evidently powerful dietary choices.

Ideological Associations

Moral Priorities

In the pursuit of exploring the associations with antiveganism, it is necessary to first evaluate previous studies and literature that have explored the associations with veg*nism and antiveganism. Doing so will allow for the identification of expected findings to emerge from the research conducted in this thesis. As discussed in the introduction, there are a variety of reasons that an individual may choose to follow a veg*n lifestyle, with the primary reasons typically being health, environmental and animal welfare concern (Ruby, 2012; Fox & Ward, 2008).

Here, it is relevant to describe how it is the case that people adhering to certain political ideologies have been shown to generally adhere to “different sets of moral foundations”, meaning there are typically different ways that things are values as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ by adherents to different political leanings (Graham et al., 2009, p.1029). When “moral intuitions” are categorised into five sets, “Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity,” significant differences were found with conservatives when compared liberals in the US (Ibid.). To summarise what each of these categories of moral values mean, harm/care refers to “the potential to feel the emotion of compassion in response” to another’s suffering (Haidt & Graham, 2007, p.104); fairness/reciprocity is an expectation of ubiquitous altruism; ingroup/loyalty operates by “recognizing, trusting, and cooperating with members of ones co-residing ingroup while being wary and distrustful of members of other groups” (p.104); authority/respect refers to “respect, awe, and admiration toward legitimate authorities” whilst simultaneously believing that moves to question authority are antisocial (p.105); and finally purity/sanctity is the notion of avoiding and demoralising activities that provoke the emotion of disgust from “contaminant-related issues and supports a set of virtues and vices linked to bodily activities in general, and religious activities in particular” (p.106). The findings from one study were that “liberals were more concerned than conservatives about issues of Harm and Fairness,

(20)

whereas conservatives were more concerned than liberals about issues related to Ingroup, Authority, and Purity” (Graham et al, 2009, p.1035).

A veg*n-related study that used these moral indicators in their evaluation comes from De Backer and Hudders (2015), who found there to be moral attitudes and behaviours that are associated with being vegetarians less likely to be present in carnists. A higher level of concern for animal welfare and the idea “that human suffering must be avoided” corresponds to an increased change of reducing animal products from an individual’s diet (p.72). They identify this as having a moral priority towards consideration of ‘harm/care,’ whereas ‘full-time meat eaters’ are more likely to prioritise ‘authority/respect’ in their moral compass. This shows that there is a clear correlation in moral foundations with carnists and conservatives, as well as with vegans and more liberal political ideologies. This might suggest that moral priorities play a factor in determining certain political and dietary preferences.

Conservatism and Carnism

Studies have shown that conservativism tends to be associated with lower levels of compassion compared with liberalism (Hirsh et al., 2009). Additionally, conservatism correlates with a desire to preserve traditional values for purposes of stability and also an acceptance of inequality within society (Jost et al., 2007). These are seen to be main components of conservative values. These characteristics of moral alignment in conservatism can be segmented into ‘two primary dispositional dimensions,’ known as right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) (Dhont & Hodson, 2014, p.12; Altemeyer, 1998). RWA “reflects cultural traditionalism, uncritical submission to authorities, and aggressiveness towards norm violators” and SDO “is operationalized as a generalized desire for group-based dominance and inequality among social groups” (Dhont & Hodson, 2014, p.12). These dimensions are largely believed to be the characteristics of conservativism that make its adherents prone to incidents of prejudice and exploitation of out-groups, including an inclination towards racist, xenophobic and sexist views and behaviour (e.g. Duckitt, 2001; Christopher & Mull, 2006; Osborne et al., 2017). Dhont and Hodson (2014) used these dispositions of conservatism to explore the reasons why those who are more right-wing in their belief system are more in favour of animal exploitation, given that there are already examples of studies that make it clear that “those endorsing right-wing attitudes and values are more likely to engage in animal exploitation,” consume more meat and “self identify as meat eaters” (p.12). They found that their hypotheses were confirmed and higher levels of SDO and RWA characteristics demonstrated a greater chance of viewing “vegetarian and anti-speciesist ideologies as a threat to the dominant and traditional carnist ideology which, in turn, is expressed in greater acceptance of animal exploitation and more

(21)

meat consumption” (p.13). This was the case for two predominant reasons. First, those higher in both RWA and SDO characteristics saw vegetarianism as a threat to the dominant ideological system that is carnism, as veg*ns represent both an out-group and as norm violators. Additionally, those with a higher presence of SDO as a personality trait were found to view other species of animals, i.e. the ones typically consumed by humans, as an out-group to which humans have superiority over, therefore are not required to avoid exploitation of. This highlights how the values of conservatism and right-wing politics make it prone to discrimination of the out-groups which are primarily non-human animals and secondarily those who actively question this non-human animal discrimination (i.e. veg*ns). The idea that right-wing characteristics are associated with human supremacy beliefs can also be related to how, historically, the Christian attitude towards the environment and non-humans has been a distinctly anthropocentric one, where humans were given dominion over the earth by God, and the planet’s resources are bountiful and for unabated use by humans (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2005). Whilst there have been Christian movements that aim to separate the religion from this environmentally exploitative mindset, the arguably anthropocentric view of climate change denial is largely prevalent within Christian groups (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2005; McCright & Dunlap, 2011). As just mentioned, the SDO trait, found to be fundamental to conservatism, relates to this notion of human supremacy. As conservatism, certain aspects of religion and environmental apathy and hostility appear to be significantly and positively associated (Peifer et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2019), there is reason to suggest that the religious roots of conservatism may be, at least partly, responsible for this political ideology’s stance on animal and environmental exploitation being permissible.

Meat and Masculinity

There has been a long-established linkage between meat and masculinity. This association was made prominent in 1990 in a book by Carol J. Adams entitled The Sexual Politics of Meat.

In a 2010 reflection, she outlines the main reasons for how many aspects of society’s meat eating habits are still entangled with feminist objectives 20 years after her book was published. The main part of Adams’ (2010) argument bases itself around how both human women and animals are regularly objectified in media production and consumption. There are countless examples of the female body being objectificed and sexualised in media and advertising, past and present, at a much higher rate than is the case for males (APA, 2007; Stankiewicz & Rosselli, 2008). This has been linked to the normalisation of sexual violation towards women (Swift & Gould, 2019). Similar to this connection, meat is frequently depicted in a sexualised manner in advertisiting and media, as already demonstrated to be the case on

(22)

GIPHY by Lupton (2017). Examples are prevalent elsewhere, perhaps most notably America fast food chain Carl’s Jr., in which both meat and women have been portrayed as sexual, consumption objects (Whitten, 2018). Whilst this brand has abandoned this advertising campaign amidst harsh criticism over the years (Ibid.) it is one example of many that have used similar strategies that result in the objectification and sexualisation of both women and meat . This objectification of meat is further enhanced by the terminology used to brand2 commercially distributed animals so that the consumer is able to avoid the idea that a part of their meal was once a sentient being, for example calling pigs ‘pork’ and cows ‘beef’. Adams (2010) refers to this as ‘the absent referent’ and it “functions to cloak the violence inherent to meat eating, to protect the conscience of the meat eater and render the idea of individual animals as immaterial to anyone’s selfish desires” (p.304). With increasing objectification comes increasing fragmentation, according to Adams, which enhances the normalisation of the consumption, both visually and in a meal, of women’s and animals’ bodies for pleasure’s sake. In other words, hedonistic consumerism. In summary, “in a patriarchal, meat eating world animals are feminized and sexualized; women are animalized” (304). It should be referred to here again that the politically conservative character traits RWA and SDO have been found to be associated with various manifestations of sexist attitudes (Christopher & Mull, 2006; Sibley et al., 2007).

Indeed, vegetarians have been found to be more likely to be women. Some figures show that up to 80% of US vegans are female (Katz, 2013) and Gale et al. (2007) found that vegetarians “were more likely to be female, to be of higher social class (both in childhood and currently), and to have attained higher academic or vocational qualifications, although these socioeconomic advantages were not reflected in their income. Higher IQ at age 10 years was associated with an increased likelihood of being vegetarian at age 30” (p.1). These results were still found to be statistically significant when adjusting for class and level of education.

There may be, however, more than a patriarchal society structure contributing to the intertwinedness of meat and masculinity. Love and Sulikowski (2018) suggest that there are possible evolutionary reasons for the association between meat and masculinity. In a study, it was found that men view meat as more delicious, healthy and generally more valuable than women do. This can be explained by a naturalistic assumption that meat is indicative of a man who is a good hunter, and therefore “women and other men may perceive successful hunters as attractive potential mates or fierce mating rivals, respectively” (p.11). In this way, the consumption of meat may act as a social signal that a man is good hunter, regardless of how the meat was actually obtained or how healthy it actually is, according to their study.

2 _{Various examples of this can be seen in this blog post from Vukovic (2014) on the blog}

(23)

Today, however, as very few men or women obtain their meat through hunting (Rott, 2016; US Department of Interior et al., 2016; Food Marketing Institute, 2017), the assumption that someone eating meat means that they are a good hunter, therefore more masculine and a better mating partner, should not hold normative implications, or at least should be questioned. Nonetheless, there is still a strong association between meat and masculinity, due to objectifications and sexualisations of meat that compare to similar treatment of women in many factions of society, as well as potentially biological instincts that associate the consumption of meat and survivalist inclinations.

Anti-feminist and Antivegan Parallels

As there is evidently a comparison to be made between feminism, which is the pursuit of equality between sexes, and veganism, which often aims for equal rights between species, there may be parallels in the push-back that each movement has received. Cole and Morgan (2011, p.135), in their study of vegaphobia in UK newspapers, recognise this connection and argue that anti-feminist and antivegan discourse both can act to “perpetuate and legitimate” patriarchal and speciesist social relations, respectively. Thus, for the purposes of this thesis’s specifications of exploring antiveganism in the online sphere, work that has explored the nature of antifeminist discourse online should be enquired into. In regards to antifeminism in general, Anderson (2015) argues that as there have been a number of feminist achievments made over the last century or so, and as feminism has become more mainstream and no longer viewed as so radical, a harmful era of post-feminist as emerged since the 1990s. This era functions by positioning feminist goals as already having been met, atleast at a structutal level, and therefore collective action is no longer necessary and consumerist, individualistic action is all that is required to complete the feminist agenda. This shifts activism into self-transformation rather than the structural transformation she deems as still being critical. Within this post-feminist mind-set is the stereotying, and subsequent stigmatisation, of feminist activists as “embittered, unfeminine and repugnant” (p.11), and a reluctance to be branded as a feminist with these characterstics means there are limitations to the involvement an individual might participate in the movement. This pattern of using derogatory stereotypes to delegitimise a movement that threatens traditional structures, thus putting people off being associated with the movement, can be said to be similar to much of the narrative surrounding veganism and antiveganism, as has previously been discussed. As feminism has become increasingly accepted as part of mainstream culture, including online culture, so too have antifeminist movements. So prevelant are these anti-feminist online subcultures that they have collectively been dubbed ‘the manosphere’. Nagle (2017, n.p) has

(24)

explored this informal network of communities focussed on issues ranging from “progressive men’s issues activists dealing with real neglect of male health, suicide and unequal social services to the nastier corners of the internet, filled with involuntary celibacy-obsessed, hate-filled, resentment-fueled cultures of quite chilling levels of misogyny.” There are, clearly, a wide variety of components that make up the largely misogynistic factions of the manosphere, though the common thread that binds these communities together is in their distaste for feminist attitutes. To them, feminism has “overrun/corrupted modern culture, in violation of nature/biology/inherent gender differences” (Dewey, 2014). Nagles (2017) describes how feminism is one of a number of progessive attitudes seen as adversaries to the manosphere and associated groups, which include political correctness, multiculturalism and legal and cultural Internet freedom restrictions. These communities often have associations with the right wing or the alt-right, and have the ambition of “fighting back against the culture war being waged by the cultural left” (Nagles, 2017). Nagle states that these online alt-right subcultural phenomena can be “understood as a response to a response to a response, each one responding angrily to the existence of the other.” This is very much coherent with the idea that the characteristics of right-wing views are so frequently hostile towards progressive movements, including feminism and veganism, as they can be said to threaten traditional social structures and dominant ideologies.

The review of the existing literature has revealed there would appear to be precedent for antiveganism expressed online to have conservative and right-wing associations. Additionally, there is potential for associations with Christian, human supremacy beliefs as well anti-feminist attitudes. The review of existing literature and studies makes it clear that much of the conflict between vegans and antivegans is rooted in disagreement as to whether contemporary issues are best dealt with by adopting new, progressive stances, or reverting to traditional attitudes. In gathering data that reveals associations to antivegan sentiment, as this thesis will do, ideologies that idealise conventionalism can be expected as findings. As there is currently no research on the carnivore diet, the question stands as to whether similar associations, entirely new associations, or some combination will be identified. Given that the carnivore diet can be interpreted as a more extreme version of the paleolithic diet, which presents a case for glorifying the diets of pre-societal humans, perhaps some notions of sentimentality to the past will be detected.

(25)

Issue Mapping and Digital Methods

The previous chapters of this thesis have made is clear the arguments surrounding veganism, are highly contentious, where many individuals do not agree with the reasons for being vegan, or indeed the reasons that people are opposed to the dietary lifestyle. The same degree of conflict and disagreements can also be said for antiveganism and the carnivore diet. As a result, this can be labelled an issue, to which the process of issue mapping can be applied in order to gain a better understanding of its nuances. This thesis will focus on issue mapping antiveganism and the carnivore diet. Issue mapping is a sociological research technique that can be summarised in the following way:

Issue mapping takes as its object of study current affairs and offers a series of techniques to describe, deploy, and visualize the actors, objects, and substance of a social issue. It is concerned with the social and unstable life of the matters on which we do not agree and with how the actors involved are connected to each other, or otherwise associated with each other. Ultimately, the aim is to produce mappings that will aid in identifying and tracing the associations between actors involved with an issue, and to render them both in narrative and visual form so that they are meaningful to one’s fellow issue analysts and their audiences.

(Rogers et al., 2015, pp.9-10) This technique, as described by Rogers et al. (2015), combines the social issue in question, mapping theories and digital methods. One mapping technique of social cartography that will be kept in mind throughout the data collection and analysis of this project draws heavily from Latour (2005). In his reconceptualisation of what ‘the social’ constitutes, he highlights how the social is composed of heterogeneous elements subject to constantly shifting associations and group formations. As such, when controversies arise in the social, there are five main areas of uncertainty that essentially become the instructions to a theoretical framework. First is the idea that there are constantly shifting group formations, and how ties and associations between human and non-human actors are always in shift; in other words, there are no fixed groups. This can be related to posthuman ideas on assemblages that are always being formed

(26)

and fragmented, and have agency (Bennett, 2010). Tracing the associations left by these group formations can provide far more abundant data for analysis than studying a fixed group alone, especially when considering that in a network of action, no single actor acts alone, and tracing these can reveal the chain of causality leading an agent to in a certain way, which is the second uncertainty. A key element in this, the third uncertainty, is the notion that “objects, too, have agency” (Latour, 2005, p.63), which is especially relevant in considering how debates around veganism and antiveganism always concern non-human animals as well as food decisions in their formation. Fourth is the consideration that just because factual evidence have entered into the issue does not mean that this is the end of the controversy. Facts are disputable and there are different interpretations as to what constitutes fact, and a tracing of how these ‘facts’ have entered into the issue will likely be more fruitful than ignoring the context from which they have emerged. Finally, there should be a degree of self-reflection into the research and the recording of associations themselves. This “second-degree objectivity” then translates into asking “When and to whom are matters concerns, and how are they expressed and formatted as such? Which facts are deployed by whom?” (Rogers et al., 2015, p.17). In summary, social cartography is primarily about tracing the associations between actors involved in an issue, whilst always being aware these actors are not always human and are subject to change, as are their associations. This recording of associations can be done highly effectively with digital methods, as interactions on the Internet generate traces that are prime sources for data collection, and the source of ‘matters of concern’ may be more easily located (Rogers et al., 2015).

Digital methods is a research approach that essentially repurposes digital affordances in order to study social phenomenon (Rogers, 2013). It does this by considering the Internet as a tool for research and making use of natively digital data, rather than adapting traditional research techniques and digitizing them. An essential aspect of digital methods is in the importance of ‘following the medium’. This means that as access to certain data on internet mediums varies depending on the platform, and is subject to having its availability of access changed, that it is necessary to formulate research methodologies based on the affordances and accessibility of data of a particular medium. Doing this allows for a reorientation of “Internet research to consider the Internet as a source of data, method, and technique” (Ibid., p.27). The research methods used in this thesis have been inspired by this digital methods approach and is the reason why the three platforms, YouTube, Reddit and Facebook, each have entirely different methodological approaches utilised to collect data on the associations with antiveganism and the carnivore diet. The following three chapters will outline how the medium was followed on each platform to produce a significant quantity of results and findings concerning the associations of antiveganism and the carnivore diet.

(27)

General Limitations

Before beginning the methodology and findings sections of this thesis, general limitations of digital methods and issue mapping should be noted. These limitations have been given by Venturini (2014), and the first is in being aware that search engines are not always capable of retrieving all the relevant data when queried. Additionally, not all interactions concerning antiveganism and the carnivore diet have taken place on the publicly accessible web, and some data may exist in a private network or even in no digital form. For this reason, caution should be placed in assuming that conclusions reached via digital methods are representative of the entire issue. This is enhanced by acknowledging that not all have access to or choose to access the Internet and these platforms (Ibid.). Even so, a great deal of opinions and arguments concerning veganism, antiveganism and the carnivore diet take place online, making certain platforms opportune sites for this research to take place on.

Antiveganism and the Carnivore Diet on YouTube

YouTube Methodology

The first platform in which data has been collected concerning antiveganism and the carnivore diet is YouTube. YouTube is a platform in which content producers are able to upload videos on to their channels, and users are able to watch the videos and subscribe to channels. YouTube was chosen as a site for this research to take place as in previous research it had been identified that there is a substantial community of antivegans and carnivores to be studied on this platform . The associations with these interests can be identified by creating3

networks that appropriate two of YouTube’s suggested algorithms: related videos and related channels. These algorithms are presented on YouTube’s interface by a list of related videos adjacent to every video, and related channels within a channel’s main page (Airoldi et al., 2016). An analysis of the related channel network will provide insight into a broad overview of associated actors, including organisations and individuals. Whereas an exploration of the video network will give precise, immediate relations with the subject matter, as videos tend to

3 _{The methodology in this section was in-part inspired by a previous project co-authored by}

myself in which a related channel and video network was produced from a seed list of antivegan YouTube videos, in January 2019. This thesis uses fresh and more extensive data collection and explores the carnivore diet as well as antiveganism. The analysis of this data is also new (Foxton et al., 2019)

(28)

be more narrow in their subject matter than entire channels, allowing for more specific nuances of the carnivore diet and antiveganism to be identified. Harnessing two of YouTube’s recommendation algorithms in this way can provide meaningful insights into the associations of antiveganism and the carnivore diet. This is because whilst these algorithm exist in a black-box, meaning that their precise inner workings are unknown to the public, previous research has shown that YouTube’s suggestions are based upon the shared viewing behaviour of users (Airoldi et al., 2016; Bendersky, 2014). In other words, the related algorithms can provide an indication of what people who watch certain videos are also likely to watch, thus making common interests discernable and the associations significant.

These associations can be traced and recorded with the operationalisation of the YouTube Data Tools from Bernhard Rieder (2015). To use these tools, first a corpus of antivegan and carnivore diet-related videos had to be created. To do this, a variety of queries were entered into YouTube on a research browser. A research browser was used to avoid results being influenced by cookies and browser personalisations. The queries that were used were formulated by determining common vernacular that is frequently used to be derogatory to vegans and veganism, identified via preliminary explorations of antivegan communities on YouTube and Reddit. To collect videos related to the carnivore diet, a less diverse set of queries was required. The queries used to collect antivegan and carnivore diet videos are in

(29)

The queries were entered into YouTube and videos that were of antivegan sentiment or about the carnivore diet were collected, in two separate lists. Throughout this data collection process, videos were watched and screened for relevance. There were a total of 41 antivegan videos identified in this process, all of which were watched in their entirety in order to gain a good understanding of the discourse and narrative surrounding antiveganism on YouTube. However, many of these videos were from the same channels, and so as to optimise the use of the YouTube Data Tools a finalised list of 17 antivegan videos from different channels were used from this point onwards. These 17 videos were then coded by their justifications for being antivegan, as well as if the channel simultaneously promoted the carnivore diet whilst also being antivegan. The coded justification categories were created inductively and are as follows in Table 3. The list of 17 antivegan videos and their coding is in Appendix 3.

From ‘the carnivore diet’ query, 13 distinctly pro-carnivore diet videos were collected. Videos that were of content producers just trying out the diet for a relatively limited period of time, i.e. a day, week or month, were excluded from data collection so as to only include those who are fully committed to the diet rather than experimentally. These videos were coded for their justification and/or motivation for following a carnivore diet, as well as if any antivegan sentiment was expressed within them. The justification categories were determined inductively, therefore are very different to the antivegan justifications. In many of these videos, numerous health-related justification were provided by the video, therefore up to two

(30)

justifications were coded for each video. The categories are as follows in Table 4, and the list of these videos with their coded justifications is in Appendix 4.

This resulted in two datasets of videos, one of antivegan videos and one of carnivore diet videos, that had been coded for their justifications as well as if the antivegans were carnivores, and if the carnivores were antivegan. These lists of videos will be referred to as the ‘seed videos’ and their channels the ‘seed channels’. All of these videos had their video and channel IDs recorded that could be entered into the YouTube Data Tools. The related channel networks and video networks that were produced from the YouTube Data Tools were uploaded into Gephi , a network visualisation tool, to appropriately spatialise the data and4 make it interpretable.

Video Network Module

The video IDs of each of the seed videos were entered into the ‘Video Network Module’ of the data tool, with a crawl depth set to two. This means that the related videos of the seed videos would be scraped and then these videos would have their related videos scraped, and then finally these videos would also be scraped. The maximum crawl depth for this module was used to ensure the most comprehensive network. For the antivegan dataset this resulted in a

Ms