Veganism : from restrictive, healthy taste to 'being a good person' : a sociological analysis of veganism from the perspective of distinction, with adaptations from reflexive theory

(1)

as part of the program Cultural Sociology at the University of Amsterdam. Submitted on the 9th of July, 2018, Amsterdam.

Veganism: From Restrictive, Healthy

Taste to ‘Being a Good Person’

A sociological analysis of veganism from the perspective of

distinction, with adaptions from reflexive theory

Student: Roos Wever (11790113)

rooswever@msn.com

First supervisor: Dr. Kobe de Keere

Second supervisor: Prof. Dr. Olav Velthuis

(2)

Preface

Hereby I present to you my master thesis, written as final part of the master Sociology, of the track Cultural Sociology. It has taken six months of searching for a topic and theory, conducting the field work and, finally, writing this thesis. I could not have done this without help from others, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my respondents for taking the time to talk with me and opening up to me about their lifestyle. Without their stories I could not have written this thesis. Furthermore I would like to thank my supervisor, Kobe de Keere, for guiding me through this research, providing me with helpful feedback and suggestions to direct me in the right way, even though I sometimes impulsively decided to head into another direction. I also would like to thank Olav Velthuis for being my second reader, and providing me with inspiration for this thesis when I was part of his course Culture, Consumption and Commerce. I want to thank my library-buddy Elo for reserving a seat for me, as I always showed up later than I planned, and for our ‘gezellige’ lunchbreaks, our large amounts of coffee, but mostly the mutual support. I want to thank my parents for supporting me during 5 years of study, both bachelor and master, emotionally and financially, and my sister, which, I don’t know why, always caught me in bad moments, or maybe she just knows how to pull those tears out of me. I hope that she isn’t concerned about me – I’m doing well, Mieke! Last, but definitely not least, I want to thank my boyfriend, for always being there for me, encouraging me, providing me with feedback and comfort. I know it has sometimes been hard, both working on our master theses, our house sometimes a mess and not having much time for each other, but I’m just happy that we’re still standing strong.

(3)

Abstract

This research examines veganism from the perspective of distinction, with adaptions from reflexive theory. As the amount of vegans is rising, as is the supply of vegan products and restaurants, it is useful to contribute to existing research on veganism by analyzing it as a form of distinction, following Pierre Bourdieu (1984). However, this research is also open to adaptions from reflexive theory, of which Margaret Archer (2000; 2003; 2012) is an advocate. Three parts of the vegan lifestyle are examined: the decision process in becoming vegan, the construction of the vegan lifestyle and social interaction. Interviews have been conducted with 18 vegans and analysis of these interviews revealed that distinction provides a useful lens for analyzing veganism, as several respondents in this research had a habitus that gave them the dispositions to become vegan. Moreover, veganism can be considered as a lifestyle, which, on some levels, can be associated with higher class. However, incorporating reflexivity in this perspective is also useful, since reflexive thinking occurs during the decision process, the construction of the vegan lifestyle and the construction of different interaction strategies used when engaging in interaction with non-vegans. Hence, food habits are not only a product of social class, but also of reflexive considerations of one’s environment.

(4)

1. Introduction

‘It’s Saturday the 2nd of December and we are celebrating Sinterklaas at my boyfriend’s family. My nieces are overtly exited, ripping the wrapping paper of their presents, which contain, among others, Lego friends, games and a handball (which was responsible for the break of several glasses five minutes later), and screaming: “THIS IS WHAT I WANTED!!!!!”

When all the presents are unwrapped and the poems are read, the uncomfortable part of the evening starts: dinner. Two quiches were placed on the table, containing bacon and fish, lasagna with minced meat and some sort of chicken sticks. Because my boyfriend does not eat meat or fish, his mother has cooked some pasta with spinach ‘a la crème’. I felt actually sorry for her, because she really did her best to cook vegetarian. She does not really have any idea about how to make lasagna without meat or other types of vegetarian dishes. That my boyfriend actually prefers to eat vegan is something that his family does not understand at all. This then, as usual, elicits a discussion about eating meat and dairy products. My boyfriend tries to explain how eating meat is bad for the environment (as he already attempted many times before), but when his brother starts to argue that traveling by train is just as bad for the environment as traveling by car, I know that this discussion is hopeless. I am sitting there at the table, feeling very uncomfortable, signaling to my boyfriend to stop the discussion and just eat, which eventually also happened.

Now, a few days later, I am still wondering how he can be so different from his family. Could this be education/class related? We are living in some sort of bubble, because a lot of our friends also eat vegetarian – but then again these are people that are higher educated. Or is this something that can be explained by geographical differences: people living in the city versus those at the country side (like my boyfriend’s family)?’

During my master program Sociology I was enrolled in the course called ‘Culture, Consumption and Commerce’. The story above is a blogpost I had written for the blog we maintained with the students enrolled in the course. When we arrived at the topic of sustainable consumption, my interest in different attitudes towards sustainable consumption had risen. Finding myself in the situation described above evoked questions within me about differences in understandings of veganism, but also how vegans cope with these situations.

(7)

Half a year later, on the 31st of May, the Dutch public television broadcasted a documentary called ‘Butter, cheese nor eggs’ (BNNVARA & Hartogensis, 2018). In this documentary, Dutch presenter Milouska Meulens offered the viewer a look into her life: her vegan life. For twelve years now, Milouska does not eat meat, fish, milk, eggs and other products that might contain something that is derived from animals. In this documentary she shows the challenges she faces being vegan: how to discuss veganism with your social environment? Do you want your children and partner to be vegan as well? And what about the vitamins one needs to take, such as b12?

The fact that the documentary has recently been made comes not as a surprise: in recent years, veganism has become increasingly popular. The number of vegans in the Netherlands is in 2016 estimated between the 50.000 to 70.000 vegans (Schyns, 2016). This is an increase compared to 1996, when the number of vegans was estimated around 16.000. Moreover, in recent years there has been an increase in the supply of vegan food, in the form of new vegan restaurants, vegan brands, and vegan products in supermarkets such as Albert Heijn, and veganism has gained more media attention (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Veganisme, n.d.). Also, initiatives such as ‘Veganuary’, in which people are encouraged do eat plant-based products for a month, have gained more popularity since there has been an increase in people that participated in this challenge (Veganuary, n.d.).

It is clear that the number of people following a vegan lifestyle has grown and that there is an increase in attention given to veganism. But what exactly is veganism? Founded in 1944, the oldest vegan association ‘The Vegan Society’ defines veganism as:

‘a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.’ (The Vegan Society, n.d.)

According to this definition, veganism does not only entail excluding animal products from one’s diet, but also excluding them from their general consumption pattern. This way, it could be perceived as a lifestyle, rather than just a diet. Reasons why people would adhere to such a lifestyle or diet mainly revolve around three motivations (Janssen, Busch, Rödiger & Hamm, 2016), some which are also included in the definition of the Vegan Society. Firstly, some

(8)

vegans object the exploitation of animals and oppose the bio industry. Others are concerned with the damaging effects of the consumption of animal products on the environment. Moreover, a small amount of vegans believe that excluding animal products from one’s diet benefits one’s personal health. Often these three motivations overlap.

As veganism has grown, research on veganism has grown as well. Such research focusses on the effects of veganism on people’s health and vitamin intake (Smith, 2006), the process of becoming vegan and its motivations (Janssen et al., 2016; Larsson et al., 2003; McDonald, 2000) or the stigmatization of vegans and veganism (Bresnahan, Zhuang & Zhu, 2016; Greenebaum, 2013; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). Research on veganism has often been combined with research on vegetarianism (Beardsworth & Keil, 1991; Greenebaum, 2013; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). It must be understood, however, that vegetarianism and veganism are different and therefore must be approached separately. The current research will only focus on veganism and thus disregards any overlap between vegetarianism and veganism.

The current research aims to extend existing research on veganism by examining how veganism can be understood from a sociological perspective. It aims to analyze veganism as a form of distinction, following Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) theory on cultural taste, which, he argues, is a product of class-based structures. However, this research is also open to adaptions from the perspective of reflexivity (Archer, 2003): it might be that adhering to a vegan lifestyle entails making reflexive decisions and requires reflexive thinking about social structures in which people find themselves. In order to examine this, three research questions have been formulated, each addressing a different aspect of veganism:

 RQ1: Which mechanisms underlie the decision process in becoming vegan?

 RQ2: How can veganism be understood as a lifestyle?

 RQ3: How do vegans interact with others about their lifestyle?

In order to answer these research questions, a qualitative research has been conducted, consisting out of 18 interviews with people who define themselves as vegan. The results of this research will be presented in this thesis.

Before these results will be presented, however, a short introduction into the sociology of food will be given and an overview of the existing literature on veganism will be presented in order to provide a theoretical background on the topic. This will be discussed in chapter 2. The third chapter covers the methodological features of this research, which includes a

(9)

description of the recruitment of the respondents, an overview of the data collection, a description of the sample and some ethical considerations. The chapters 4, 5 and 6 present the results of the interviews, each addressing one of the research questions: chapter 4 covers the decision process, chapter 5 the vegan lifestyle and chapter six social interaction. In the last chapter, chapter 7, the findings will be discussed and the final conclusions will be presented. It moreover addresses the limitations of the research and proposes suggestions for future research.

(10)

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 The sociology of food

Food is much more than only the things we eat. What we eat, how we eat it, when we eat, the (unequal) distribution of food: it touches upon cultural, political and economic dimensions and is therefore sociologically relevant (Mennell, Murcott & van Otterloo, 1992; Poulain, 2017). Whereas in the past limited attention has been payed to the act of eating and the meaning of food, the sociology of food has developed itself into a discipline within sociology. Within this discipline, different perspectives have developed, which approach food from different angles. The main perspectives are functionalism, structuralism, culturalism and developmentalism (Mennell et al., 1992; Poulain, 2017), and will be outlined shortly.

The first of the four perspectives, functionalism, is mainly concerned with the expression of social relationships through the preparation and use of food (Mennell et al., 1992, p. 7). They, for example, argue that food can be perceived as a social institution, which structures and organizes social life (Poulain, 2017, p. 118). The act of eating, for instance, can be seen as a form of socialization, in which children learn the norms and values about table manners and sharing. Moreover, the preparation of food, often associated with the female cooking, can be considered as an expression of social relationships.

The structuralists emphasize the cultural and social structures that underlie food practices and taste (Mennell et al., 1992, p. 8). As pioneer of this perspective, Lévi-Strauss (1968) was concerned with the analysis of the opposing structures between different cuisines in order to find the underlying logic that constitutes food habits. He, for example, argues that food and cooking structures are constructed around oppositions, such as the opposition between local versus exotic ingredients, or the basic ingredients that are central in the meal versus the ingredients that are added on the side (Poulain, 2017, p. 124). These structures, furthermore, constitute the basis of the societal structures and underlie human behavior. Other structuralists, such as Mary Douglas, sought to unravel the structuring principles of food practices, such as differences in importance of meals. Douglas argues, for instance, that meals on Sunday or on holidays are valued differently than during the week (Mennell et al., 1992, p. 10).

The culturalist perspective, which is mainly anthropological, maintains that eating practices can be traced back to culture (Poulain, 2017, p. 121). Especially Margaret Mead was interested in differences in food practices and the influence of culture on these practices.

(11)

Culturalists are concerned with how food practices contribute to the construction of one’s identity and how culture influences consumption patterns. This way, differences in food practices between different cultures can be analyzed and the cultural norms of a community can be determined.

Lastly, developmentalism follows Norbert Elias (1978) in explaining food patterns by tracing it back into history and looking at how food practices have developed through the ages until the point where it is now (Mennell et al., 1992, p. 14; Poulain, 2017, p. 148). Elias emphasizes the process of civilization as a central mechanism within this development, as this process signifies the incorporation of emotions and tensions into the self, instead of expressing these emotions in a battle with others. This way, following the development of food practices will show how these food practices are internalized and how, for example, table manners can be explained.

These perspectives approach food practices from different angles, emphasizing mechanisms that underlie differences in use of food and the distribution of food. This thesis approaches the food practice of veganism from the perspective of Distinction, introduced by Pierre Bourdieu in 1984. The research is, however, also open to adaptions from reflexive theory. Before the results will be presented, Bourdieu’s Distinction theory will be outlined and existing research on veganism will be summarized.

2.2 Eating as a class disposition

If we aim to shed light on the sociological mechanisms that underlie veganism, we must understand how different food consumption patterns in society have developed. How can we explain that one group wishes to exclude animal products from their consumption pattern, whereas others are not concerned with this? The question, then, is: how can differences in consumption patterns be explained? What are the mechanisms that underlie these differences? Pierre Bourdieu (1984) brings differences in consumption patterns back to differences in social class. In his book Distinction (1984) he shows how, in the French society, cultural taste corresponds to the class position people maintain within society. This position corresponds to the capital people possess. Bourdieu distinguishes several kinds of capital, including economic capital, understood as economic resources such as income and property, social capital including social relationships and networks, and cultural capital referring to cultural knowledge and skills one has (Bourdieu, 1986). Based on these differences in capital,

(12)

the society is divided into different social classes, in which higher classes possess higher volumes of capital, whereas lower classes lack capital.

These differences in social position influence how people act, as social position one maintains is incorporated into the habitus. The habitus can be understood as the embodiment of the social structures which leads to individual action, and these structures correspond to the social position of individuals in society (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 170). It ‘bounds a set of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours which belong to a particular group of people; it is a series of systems which, developed over time and generations, is the ‘milieu’ in which individuals live with a collective (un)consciousness.’ (Wills et al., 2011, p. 727). Hence, several aspects influence one’s habitus, such as the social environment someone engages in, the position one maintains in society and the way someone is raised. The habitus, then, leads to individual action, but it also functions as a ‘structuring structure’ in society (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 170).

Together with differences in capital, the habitus constructs the social position people maintain in society (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 101). These different positions in society, moreover, create differences in taste. Bourdieu found that these differences in cultural taste are homologous to each other (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 176). In the case of the French society, for example, he found that the higher classes exhibit a taste of luxury, which means that they have a taste for fine products that are light and exotic, whereas the working class prefer heavy, nutritious foods. Moreover, the higher classes are characterized by ease and asceticism, whereas for the working class their taste is functional and necessary (Bourdieu. 1984, p. 176).

Even though this book has been published several decades ago, recent studies detected the same differences in consumption patterns. Magne Flemmen and colleagues (2018), for example, found that in Norway consumption behaviour is constructed around several homologous axes, such as the opposition between eclectic and restricted taste, and the opposition between healthy and unhealthy products. When connecting this to social classes, Flemmen and colleagues observed that the healthy and eclectic consumption patterns are mostly associated with upper classes, whereas the lower classes are more likely to consume unhealthy and restricted.

Atkinson and Deeming (2015), moreover, observed differences in cultural taste in Great Britain and found that these tastes were also homologous constructed: the light and exclusive products versus the cheap and substantive foods. They furthermore argued that

(13)

higher classes value the quality of products, but that they are also concerned with the ethical issues, such as animal welfare and environmental impact. This can be connected to the freedom they have when purchasing items, as lower classes are restricted in their budget and therefore exhibit a taste of the necessary. It must be pointed out, however, that there exist differences in the dominant class between, for instance, the cultural dominant group, who are more concerned with the ethical dimensions, and the business executives, who value this dimension less.

If we would connect this to veganism, can we, then, consider veganism as a taste of the higher classes? Can it be associated with a healthier life-pattern? Or can it be associated with the taste of freedom and exclusivity, instead of something that is necessary and cheap? Moreover, what role does habitus play in the case of veganism? Are vegans in the predisposed position to become vegan? Or are there also other mechanisms that underlie this taste, such as the ability to be reflexive in the decision to adhere to this lifestyle? In the following section research will be discussed that has been conducted on the topic of veganism. This research will be connected to sociological theories in order to grasp the mechanisms that underlie or explain veganism. This will be discussed in three categories: the decision process in becoming vegan, the construction of the vegan lifestyle, and veganism in the social sphere.

2.3 Decision process

One of the pioneers in research on veganism is Barbara McDonald (2000). Interested in how people learn about veganism and how they decided to follow this diet, she interviewed twelve vegans and found that her respondents went through several phases when they became vegan. The initial stage McDonald observed was the stage she called ‘who I was’, which she described as ‘the background and experiences that made the participants who they were prior to the learning experience’ (2000, p. 6). These experiences shaped their worldview and could have made them more interested in veganism. For example, some of her respondents reported having compassion for animals or having pets, but failing to make the connection between those animals and the meat and dairy products they ate. The process of becoming vegan was then followed by a catalytic experience through which the respondents became aware of animal exploitation, for instance watching a video about animal cruelty. This developed, sometimes after a short period of repressing this experience, into an orientation process in which the respondents learned more about animal exploitation and how to act upon this.

(14)

Eventually, this resulted in the decision to become vegan. McDonald also showed how this process changed her respondents’ world view into one that values equal existence of human beings and animals.

From this research, two stages could be connected to sociological theory. First of all the receptiveness McDonald (2000) described of her participants to become vegan. The background of the participants implied that the participants were in the predisposed position to be open-minded about veganism. However, it was not McDonald’s aim to examine the role of habitus in this process. It is, therefore, impossible to say anything about the influence of this. Hirschler (2011) found that the 32 vegans he interviewed were major meat-consumers when they grew up. Some even recall crying when they had to eat a meal without meat. This suggests that they, while growing up, did not necessarily incorporated values into their habitus that could correspond with the values that underlie veganism. Thus, in this case habitus seems to play a minor role. Therefore there must be something else underlying this process, which might be the ability to be reflexive.

It is Margaret Archer who is an advocate of the human ability to be reflexive (Archer, 2003). She argues that individuals are rational human beings, capable of engaging in reflexivity. She defines reflexivity as ‘the regular exercise of the mental ability, shared by all normal people, to consider themselves in relation to their (social) contexts and vice versa’ (Archer, 2012, p.1). Archer contends that individuals engage in internal conversations in which they explore their possible actions and decide what is the best way to act within their social environment. Even though this reflexive process is internal, it can only be triggered by external structures and events in the social world. Archer argues that individuals are influenced by the structures in society: individuals reflexively think about these structures and then decide how to act upon these structures. As McDonald’s (2000) participants went through a catalytic experience which made them aware of structures in society which they disagree with, in this case animal exploitation, they start orienting and exploring possibilities on how to act upon this in order to change these structures. This orientation process is an example of engaging in reflexive processes. Moreover, Hirschler (2011) confirms this reflexive process in his research on veganism in describing how his respondents went through the same orientation processes as McDonald’s respondents. Cherry (2015) described that her participants engaged in a learning process, by reading literature on veganism and animal rights, and by purchasing vegan cookbooks. Sneijder and te Molder (2009) also show how, for

(15)

instance, vegetarians that are considering becoming vegan use internet forums to ask questions about their transition process.

As McDonald’s research mainly discusses one reason to become vegan, namely animal cruelty, more research has been conducted on the motivations of individuals to become vegan (Janssen, Busch, Rödiger & Hamm, 2016). These motivations can be connected to Margaret Archer’s idea of ultimate concerns (Archer & Tritter, 2000, p. 54). Archer argues that individuals are not mainly driven by self-interest, but that they are essentially caring. ‘We are who we are because of what we care about: in delineating our ultimate concerns and accommodating our subordinate ones, we also define ourselves’ (Archer & Tritter, 2000, p. 10). Thus, individuals constitute themselves by delineating what they care about. In the internal conversations, then, the individual is concerned with the delineation of the ultimate concern. Moreover, in this conversation the individual determines in which actions or behaviour he or she engages to address these concerns.

If we would follow Archer in arguing that human beings are essentially caring and that they act upon their ultimate concerns, we could discern several concerns that motivate vegans to become vegan. Research has found that vegans can generally be distinguished into three categories: (1) ethical vegans, (2) environmental vegans, and (3) health vegans (Greenebaum, 2012). The first category, ethical vegans, is most prevalent in research that has been conducted (Janssen, Busch, Rödiger & Hamm, 2016). These are the vegans that are concerned about the well-being of animals and object the bio-industry. They believe that it is morally wrong to consume animals and animal products. Environmental vegans chose to follow a vegan lifestyle because they are concerned about the impact of the animal industry on the environment. Climate change and environmental damages can be understood as consequences of this industry. The third category, health vegans, is concerned with their personal health and believes that eating plant-based products is the best way to stay in a healthy physical condition. It must be pointed out that these categories are not exclusive. Vegans can be categorized into more than one of the categories and can be concerned about, for example, both animal well-being and climate change (Janssen, Busch, Rödiger & Hamm, 2016).

2.4 Vegan lifestyle

Even though veganism might be referred to as a diet, by not eating any products derived from animals, one could also argue that veganism can be understood as a lifestyle. For example,

(16)

Pierre Bourdieu (1984) maintains that differences in cultural taste and consumption can be connected to one’s lifestyle, which can be understood as ‘a unitary set of distinctive preferences which express the same expressive intention in the specific logic of each of the symbolic sub-spaces, furniture, clothing, language of body hexis’ (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 172). This would thus mean that veganism cannot be understood simply as a diet, i.e. only eating plant-based products, but that it also should be connected to other forms of consumption, such as clothing, or more broadly in embracing a worldview that corresponds to the ideals of following a vegan diet.

This is also something that has been found within the research on veganism. For example, McDonald (2000) described that the worldview of her respondents, in the last phase of the process of becoming vegan, developed into one which not only embraced not hurting animals, but also a more general principle of being harmless to the earth and its inhabitants. Moreover, some of Hirschler’s (2011) respondents referred to veganism as being a form of religion or spirituality, which would help them to make ethical decisions in life. Cherry (2015) reported that her respondents constructed their identity around moral and ethical ideals.

McDonald (2000) and Hirschler (2011) did not refer to the general consumption pattern of their respondents, but this consumption pattern is something Greenebaum (2012) did examine. Her vegan respondents reported not only excluding meat and dairy products from the food that they purchased, but also not purchasing and wearing wool or leather, and attempting to avoid cosmetic products that have been tested on animals. Greenebaum observed that these lifestyle vegans judged other vegans who followed a vegan, or plant-based, diet by calling them selfish because, according to the lifestyle vegans, they are only driven by personal motivations, such as health. The life-style vegans, on the other hand, aim to make the world better, and are compassionate with the earth and animals.

Another part or expression of the vegan lifestyle can be the participation in vegan movements. Elizabeth Cherry (2015) interviewed vegans that were active within social movements, often connected to the punk subculture. Most vegans reported gaining support from these movements to maintain this lifestyle. Moreover, being part of this subculture also encouraged the vegans to attend activities, such as potlucks in which vegans share vegan meals, or political gatherings in which they were able to share their political ideals. Sneijder and te Molder (2009) furthermore found the internet as a place of identity construction for vegans. They observed that vegans participate in an online forum on which they share

(17)

information and ask questions, and analyzed the discourse vegans used to constitute their identity, which mainly revolves around describing how easy and ordinary it is to be vegan, to contradict the societal misconceptions about the effort it takes to be vegan.

2.5 Veganism in the social sphere

Veganism and vegans themselves are not always perceived as favourable in the contemporary society. For example, research has observed that there exists stigma towards vegans (Bresnahan, Zhuang & Zhu, 2015; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017). Stigma can be defined as ‘the perception and enactment of bias toward others because they possess some trait, condition or status seen as undesirable or threatening’ (Bresnahan et al., 2015, p. 4). In this sense, veganism can be understood as a lifestyle that non-vegans perceive as unfavourable. MacInnis & Hodson (2017) examined bias towards vegetarians and vegans using survey data that they collected in the United States. They found that their respondents evaluated vegetarians and vegans more negative that other stigmatized groups, such as black people. Furthermore, their survey, conducted among vegetarians and vegans, showed that this group experienced negative reactions because of their lifestyle. Both of these results were found to be more negative among vegans than vegetarians. Greenebaum (2012) also reported that vegans and vegetarians felt victimized by stereotypes and that they sometimes found themselves in conflict with non-vegans. Hirschler (2011) found that the vegans he interviewed felt that they had to defend their choice to become vegan and that they considered this to be ‘unfair that they were put in a situation to defend their diet when the average omnivore is not expected to’ (Hirschler, 2011, p. 162). Moreover, Cherry’s respondents experienced difficulties when eating with non-vegans, misunderstanding from non-vegans and being teased about their lifestyle (Cherry, 2015).

Sara Ahmed’s (2010) theory about the killjoy is a useful illustration of these conflicts between vegans and non-vegans. Whereas Ahmed’s theory is initially about the feminist being the killjoy, this idea has been translated by Richard Twine (2014) into the vegan killjoy. Ahmed positions the feminist killjoy around the dinner table with family: a practice in which their exist a shared sense of happiness, characterized by eating and sharing food together, which is understood as an important social activity (Sobal & Nelson, 2003). This shared sense of happiness is characterized by a dominant social order, in the case of the feminist killjoy, as Ahmed (2010) depicts, around patriarchal and heteronormative norms, in the case of

(18)

veganism around the consumption of meat, fish or dairy products. If the killjoy then decides to speak out against the social norms that constitute the happiness, he or she creates a social disruption. The shared happiness is contested. In the case of the feminist killjoy, the killjoy must wilfully choose to discuss this topic. In the case of the vegan, however, it might be more explicitly clear that he or she is deviant, because he or she is not consuming any animal products. Questions might arise from other family members, which then leads to the topic of veganism. Ahmed (2010) differentiates several consequences of this social disruption. It might induce feelings of discomfort and unease and it creates an awkward atmosphere. It might alienate the killjoy from the social norms surrounding the dinner table. Moreover, Ahmed describes that the killjoy is usually the victim who is blamed to be the difficult one and the one who creates all the fuss.

The experiment that Bresnahan and colleagues (2015) conducted illustrates this theory properly. They explained vegan stigma partly by pointing out that veganism makes it harder to share food with each other, which Sobal and Nelson (2003) showed is an important factor in the social activity of dining. Moreover, Bresnahan, Zhuang and Zhu (2015) found that feelings of anger and discomfort played a role in this stigmatization. Participants in Greenebaum’s (2013) study explained these feelings by arguing that non-vegans are, deep down, aware of the fact that the meat and dairy they eat are the result of animal exploitation. When vegans point this out, feelings of guilt arise that might frustrate or offend the non-vegan because it makes them feel as if they are a bad person.

Interaction strategies

As vegans experience stigmatization, or when they encounter situations in which they function as the killjoy, the question is how vegans cope in these situations. Research showed that vegans developed strategies which they use to negotiate in such situations with non-vegans, which can include family, friends or other actors (Greenebaum, 2013; Twine, 2014; Turner, 2017).

A useful theory that could be drawn upon here is Erving Goffman’s (1967) theory on face-work and impression management. Interested in how people interact with each other, Goffman proposed that during social encounters, which he calls a ‘line’, people are concerned with maintaining a ‘face’. This face constructs a positive image of the individual and it makes sure that individuals stay comfortable during the conversations. This way the individual can

(19)

counteract ‘events whose effective symbolic implications threaten face’ (Goffman, 2003, p. 8). These practices are referred to by Goffman as face-work, or face-saving practices. Individuals develop a repertoire of these practices on which they draw when they are in similar social situations. Goffman also holds that these repertoires could be linked to subcultures or societies, and that the members of these cultures or societies have knowledge about their cultural repertoires. In this process of face-saving, the individual is not only concerned with saving its own face: he or she is also concerned with saving the face of the other. This is because the individual wants to protect the other from feeling threatened or offended.

Applying this to the case of veganism, Jessica Greenebaum (2013) found that vegetarians and vegans engaged in several face-saving strategies. One of them was avoiding confrontation. Her respondents reported that they used to confront others with their beliefs and ideals about veganism. However, they found that this tactic was misplaced and ineffective. The non-vegans with whom they were talking became defensive and the conversation became meaningless. Therefore, they chose to avoid these confrontations at all. Another strategy her respondents used was waiting for others to approach them to ask questions about veganism. They explained that, this way, they get the opportunity to educate non-vegans and inform them about their lifestyle. Moreover, describing the positive consequences of veganism for one’s health is considered as a useful strategy, since health is a topic that anyone can relate to. Finally, the respondents found that showing non-vegans how healthy and happy they are and that they are successful in maintaining this lifestyle is the best way to illustrate veganism. It is leading by example that encourages non-vegans to think about veganism. This last strategy is also found by Richard Twine (2014), even in a more explicit demonstrating way in which vegans provided non-vegans with vegan food, and showed the possibilities of cooking without any animal products. The respondents found that the reactions on these types of food were positive and this way, as Twine put it, ‘the material agency of the food is, in a sense, allowed to do the talking’ (Twine, 2014, p. 637).

Ryan Turner (2017) approached the discussion between vegans and non-vegans about veganism from the perspective of individualism. He argued that, even though many vegans in his sample believed that veganism is a moral imperative, thus according to them every individual should follow a vegan lifestyle, they engaged in a reflexive process which Turner calls ‘strategic individualistic behaviour’. This means that vegans individualized their choice to be vegan by emphasizing that their choice to become vegan was a choice they made on

(20)

their own and by describing their own reasons for this choice. Moreover, to avoid conflict the vegans in Turner’s sample (1) attempted to avoid the word veganism, because they felt this word has negative connotations and is experienced as morally demanding, (2) emphasized that this diet was their own choice and elaborated on their personal experiences which have contributed to making this decision, and (3) provided information about veganism, which creates a comfortable conversation instead of a demanding one.

(21)

3. Methodology

In order to explore the possible answers to the research questions, a qualitative research has been conducted. 18 interviews have been conducted with people who identified themselves as vegan. This type of method has been chosen because interviews provide an in depth perspective on veganism. During an interview, respondents have the opportunity to provide open, illustrating answers, in which they can describe their personal perspective on the topic or their own experiences. This way, the researcher gets a better insight in the topic and mechanisms at stake. The following section will outline how the data is gathered, provides a descriptive overview of the respondents and considers the ethical issues related to this research.

3.1 Research population: criteria and recruitment

For the purpose of this research, interviews were conducted with vegans. Even though, as shown in the introduction of this research, the Vegan Society has provided a strict definition of veganism, in reality this definition differs per person: some vegans attach more value to eating plant-based and less value to clothing or cosmetics, whereas others avoid all products which might include animal exploitation, which could also include avoiding to go to the zoo. Therefore, the respondents in this research are persons that define themselves as vegan. During the interviews they were asked to explain what veganism means to them.

This research aimed at the recruitment of vegans between the 20 and 35 years old. This age-category has been chosen, because respondents within this group are relatively young and are likely to have chosen to adopt a vegan lifestyle relatively recent. Therefore this age-category is more likely to have knowledge about how they made the decision to become vegan and to reflect upon this process. If the decision had been made to interview older vegans, there is a higher chance that the respondents have adopted the vegan lifestyle a longer time ago. They might be, then, more accustomed to their lifestyle and therefore less able to recall how they made the decision to become vegan. Moreover, this research aimed to recruit respondents who are living in cities in the Netherlands, in order to limit differences between rural and urban environments.

The respondents were recruited through snowball-sampling. This means that I asked around in my social environment whether my personal contacts knew any vegans. When they

(22)

did, I asked them if I could approach them, which I did by means of sending them a message in which I asked them if I could interview them for my master thesis about veganism. I approached 23 vegans, out of which 18 agreed to meet up for an interview. Out of those 23, two did not respond, two emphasized not being entirely vegan and one was lacking the time to meet up.

3.2 Data collection

The interviews were conducted in the months April and May in the year 2018. In total 18 interviews were conducted, lasting between the 34 minutes and 59 minutes, with an average of 48 minutes. The first two interviews were pilot-interviews in which the topic-list was tested and adjusted. These interviews provided me with useful information and are therefore included in the data. Most of the interviews took place in a café during daytime, or, in a few cases, at the house of the respondent.

The interviews were semi-structured by nature, which means that I had prepared a topic-list which would guide me through the interview. It was not necessarily the case that the topics were addressed in the order in which the topic list was constructed. The topic list, in that sense, provided me a guide of topics that should be discussed. This also meant that when the respondent gave an interesting answer, there was space to explore these answers. The topics can be mainly divided into four sections, which will be described shortly:

1. Introduction: the interviews started with a short conversation to get to know the respondent better. I asked about the social and educational background of the participants and his or her interests and hobbies. Moreover, the participant is asked to explain how they would define veganism in their case.

2. Decision process: The participant was asked about the decision process when he or she became a vegan. They were asked when they decided to become vegan and what their motives were in this decision process. Moreover, they were asked about the influences of the social environment, such as their family, but also their friends.

3. Personal experience of being vegan: Participants were asked about the difficulties they experienced when becoming vegan. How did they cope in the transition period, does veganism requires more creativity or does it cost more money? Also, they were asked

(23)

whether veganism can be understood as a part of their identity and whether it can also be connected to their general ideals and lifestyle.

4. Social experience of being vegan: This topic was twofold: firstly questions were asked about the public understanding of veganism, the position of veganism in the Dutch society, but also the opinion of the respondent about people that do consume dairy and meat products. Secondly, questions were asked about social situations and the reactions vegans encountered when they had to tell people that they are vegan and the tactics that they use to discuss veganism.

3.3 Description of the research population

The research population included 18 participants: ten of them were female and eight male. The age of the participants ranged from 20 to 33, with an average of 25,6 years. Nine of the participants were enrolled in a time bachelor or master program, six were working full-time, two were in a gap year and planning to study next semester and one was part-time enrolled in a master program and part-time working. The duration of the participants being vegan ranged from two months to five years. Their definition of being vegan differed from not eating meat, fish and dairy products, to abstaining from any product which contains animal products or has contributed to animal exploitation, in the case of food, but also clothes and cosmetics. Eleven respondents defined veganism as not using animal products in food, clothing and cosmetics, five reported not eating any animal products, one reported not eating meat, fish and dairy products but eating eggs, and one respondent reported avoiding food products that contain any animal substances as much as possible, but eating a sandwich of cheese a day. An overview of the respondents is presented in table 1, on the next page.

(24)

3.4 Ethical considerations

When the participants were recruited, they were asked to participate in an interview about veganism. They were told that they would be part of a research on veganism and were asked to share their personal experience of becoming and being vegan. Before the interview started they were informed that the interview would be anonymous and that the data of the interview are only used for this research. In order to maintain the participant’s privacy pseudonyms are used in this research. Moreover, the participants were asked whether the interview could be recorded, something which they all agreed on.

As a researcher, one can influence the answers the participants might give. I was aware of the fact that my personal stance towards veganism might influence the interview and might affect the answers the respondents would give. Most participants were curious whether

Table 1. Overview of Respondents

Pseudonym Sex Age Time vegan

Nicole Female 23 8 months

Joanne Female 27 3 years

Amber Female 22 6 months

Andrew Male 26 2,5 years

Sophie Female 23 1 year

Lillian Female 25 9 months

Alwin Male 26 9 months

Victor Male 25 4,5 years

Angela Female 20 2 months

Rudolf Male 30 1 year

Hailey Female 24 5 years

Levi Male 27 2 years

Ingrid Female 33 3 years

Ernst Male 24 2,5 years

Martijn Male 29 4 years

Eveline Female 23 2 years

Paula Female 20 2 years

(25)

I myself was a vegan, but they all agreed to discuss my position on veganism after the interview.

3.5 Data analysis

After the interviews were conducted, they were transcribed, analyzed and coded. As analysis strategy, the abductive method was used. Abductive analysis means that the researcher uses existing theory to get familiar with the topic that is studied (Timmermans and Tavory, 2012). This theory can be used while analyzing the data, since it makes the researcher sensitive for themes that emerge within the data, but it will also enable the researcher to find surprising results in the data. By moving back and forth between theory and the data, I got a proper insight in to the gathered data. This abductive approach is especially useful since it combines aspects of both grounded theory and extended case method.

The analysis started with an open coding process in which the transcriptions were read for the first time and parts of the transcriptions were coded that corresponded with the research questions. Codes included, for example, ‘decision process’, ‘vegan lifestyle’ and ‘social situations’. It must be noted that during this first coding process, interesting findings or sentences were also coded, as for example codes arose such as ‘vegan environment’, ‘normalization of meat consumption’ or ‘reflexivity into routine’. This way, the analysis was not only focused on answering the research questions, but also open to surprises in the data.

In the second round of coding, the quotes that were connected to the codes were divided into more specific codes. For example, in the case of decision process the codes were: ‘habitus+’, ‘habitus-‘, ‘reflexivity’ and ‘friends/environment’. In the case of vegan lifestyle and the differentiation between (face-saving) strategies, a third coding round was conducted in which overlapping codes and recurring themes were labelled. During these coding processes, memos were written which functioned as the basis for the result section. This result-section will be presented next and will provide an analysis of the outcomes of the interviews.

(26)

4. Becoming vegan

Analysis of the interview data revealed that there are different mechanisms underlying the decision to become vegan. In the following, the influences of habitus, reflexivity, but also peer group will be discussed. Moreover, it will be shown that these mechanisms not necessarily exclude each other: they also interact.

4.1 The vegan habitus

With respect to the decision process, several vegans in this sample had the dispositions to become vegan. Their habitus has been formed into one valuing ideals associated with veganism. As there are different aspects shaping their habitus, this research found that one factor influencing this process is the upbringing by their parents. For example, when asked about the possible influences of their family or parents on their decision to become vegan, several respondents discussed the treatment and appropriation of the food they consumed during their upbringing. They explained that they were taught where their food came from and to treat their food sustainably. Lillian (25) illustrated: ‘I think my parents love good food. They like to cook, so there originates my love for cooking and interest in good products. And that’s where it starts, I guess. Knowing what you eat.’ Not only did the respondents learn to appropriate the products they consumed, but also the type of food they ate. For instance, several respondents reported that their parents bought organic food. Sophie (23) connected this consumption and appropriation of organic food to the importance of separating waste: ‘My mom is super clean on separating waste and... yeah... when the green waste wasn’t collected anymore in Amsterdam, we made our own compost pile. For the environment. And also... organic food and that kind of stuff.’ Later in the interview she told me that her parents valued ethics, and stimulated her to think critically about her environment. Valuing good products can be associated with the taste of the higher classes Bourdieu (1984) distinguishes in Distinction. He observed that lower classes exhibit a taste for nutritious and cheap products, whereas the taste of higher classes is characterized by refinement and delicateness (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 185). Furthermore, the appreciation of organic food corresponds with the results of the research of Atkinson and Deeming (2015), as they found that this taste is one of the higher classes.

Moreover, the restrictiveness, or ‘self-imposed austerity’ as Bourdieu called it, that characterizes the bourgeoisie in Bourdieu’s research (1984, p. 176) also emerges in the

(27)

current sample. For instance, several respondents reported being raised with the idea that meat is not essential within a meal. Andrew (26) said that it was not uncommon within his family to eat meals without meat. Moreover, describing her parents as the ‘unusual ones’, doing different things than the ‘standard’, such as not getting married, not having a driver’s license and a car, Nicole (27) explained that she was raised as a ‘flexitarian. One half of the week we always ate vegetarian and the other half of the week meat.’ The way Andrew and Nicole described this limited meat consumption can be connected to higher class taste: it implies that their family had the freedom to make the decision to purchase meat or not. This way their taste can be considered as the ‘taste of freedom’, opposed to the ‘taste of necessity’ of the working classes, who are, because of their amount of capital, forced to buy products that fit their budget and are not able to purchase meat or fish (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 177).

Others described characteristics of taste that, following Bourdieu, can be connected to higher class taste (1984, p.190). They said that, when they grew up, they always ate healthy, with a sweet or snack once in a while. Eveline (23) described it as, ‘a house-garden-and-kitchen diet’: a Dutch proverb for an ordinary diet. She continued: ‘I’m just raised healthy. Fruit, vegetables, but also candy and cookies and crisps and chocolate and… Just like every ordinary household in the Netherlands. (…) Just healthy dinner, vegetables, and fruit and potatoes and meat.’ Later on in the interview she described that being in control is something that characterizes her family. This description of her families taste revolves around the notions of health and restrictiveness. She described this taste as the taste of the ordinary Dutch household, but if we would understand it through Bourdieu’s perspective, this ‘ordinary diet’ can be considered as the diet of the higher class, characterized by healthy eating, without abundance and being in control over what you eat (1984, p. 196). These notions of restrictiveness are not only confined to food taste, but also to other forms of taste. For example, as noted above, Nicole’s parents deliberately chose to not get a driver’s license and a car. Moreover, when asked whether conscious consumption is something he learned from his parents, Ernst (24) replied learning to be conscious in the sense that their taste was not characterized by abundance or that he ‘didn’t get any scooters or cars for [his] birthday or something.’

Another factor shaping the respondents’ habitus is their education. In the current sample all the respondents, but one, are higher educated. Moreover, some of them are also enrolled in a study relevant to veganism, such as animal care, environment and resource

(28)

management, philosophy and applied ethics. This influence of education is illustrated by Angela:

‘Especially Anthropology. (…) You learn to look with respect to other systems. You know that your economic system is not the only one. (…) Anthropology made me think about: what is something we don’t see, but is there. We now know where products are from. It’s crazy, because someone else [has made it]. (…) And that’s what Anthropology taught me.’ (Angela, 20)

Coming from a family that stimulates debate and is concerned with issues such as water shortage, Angela learned to be critical about societal structures, as the treatment of the earth, but also its inhabitants. Being enrolled in university and following courses in Anthropology reinforced this.

It must be noted that not all of the interviewees possessed the habitus described above. For example, Amber (22) described her family as right-wing and undemocratic and Ingrid (33) and Martijn (29) said they were raised in a meat-consuming environment with nobody being critical about the industry. However, both Ingrid’s and Martijn’s parents are East-European and this difference in culture might explain the difference in habitusl. Moreover, having a lower education and originating from a ‘right-wing, undemocratic’ family, Amber might also have a different habitus than the other respondents.

Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that higher education does not necessarily equal awareness about consumption, ethics or environmental damage. This is especially the case with Ingrid:

‘I’ve done a minor, cognitive sciences (…) and we were told that animals can’t actually feel pain. Yes they can feel, but they can’t suffer. And then it’s not wrong. Because they don’t realize that they can’t feel pain. You know, I’m really pro-science and I took that for granted from those old professors, because that matched my worldview. So yeah, that was always my defense, like: oh science says they don’t suffer.’ (Ingrid)

Hence, as not all respondents possess the habitus which could have put them in the predisposed position to become vegan, there must be something else underlying this decision. Therefore, it is useful to examine what role reflexivity plays in this process.

(29)

4.2 Reflexivity

Most respondents referred to their decision to become vegan as a conscious decision. It is therefore useful to look at the reflexive processes they engaged in, to see whether Margaret Archer’s (2000; 2003) understanding of reflexivity plays a role in the case of veganism. As Archer contends that individuals engage in an internal conversation before they act, there are instances in which the vegans in the current study described this internal conversation they engaged in:

‘A while ago I got into the spiritual world, five years ago or something. I was kind of looking for myself, because I’ve got a history of depressions and stuff, and I wanted to look for what I found important in life. What makes me happy and stuff. And then I actually ended up with thinking like... if there exists a god, then that’s the earth. Because the earth is that what we all originate from, you know, so then it makes sense to treat that with a little bit of respect.’ (Joanne, 27)

‘Around your 16th you’re going to think about: what kind of person do I want to be? Yeah... That’s where it started. Yes.’ (Angela)

‘At a certain moment I asked myself the question: how can I live a good life? Be a good person, live a good life, make ethical decisions. And then at a certain moment I started thinking about... where does meat actually come from? And, uh, that animals were killed for that.’ (Hailey, 24)

These quotes are descriptions of the internal conversation Joanne, Angela and Hailey engaged in, in which they were contemplating what kind of person they want to be. Questions as ‘how can I live a good life’ and ‘what is important to me’ demands a reflexive consideration of their priorities and, in turn, what kind of actions they must pursue to live a better life. In order to treat the world with respect, Joanne found the exclusion of animal products from her lifestyle a good way to act and a respectful way to treat the earth.

Others described being in a situation that stimulated them to engage in such an internal conversation. These situations are a ‘catalytic experience’ (McDonald, 2000) in which the vegans became aware of their ultimate concerns. For example, Amber described going to a slaughter-house with her school where she saw how they treat animals, which made her rethink her conception of the food-industry. Ingrid recounted having a cat for a few weeks, observing the cat and realizing that the cat, and animals in general, share many similarities

(30)

with human beings. She asked herself the question: ‘Why don’t I grant this freedom and love to the other animals that I now only see on my plate?’ Moreover, several interviewees describe watching documentaries or speeches about the animal industry and its environmental effects as the moment they realized that these are their ultimate concerns.

These internal conversations were then followed by an orientation process, as McDonald (2000) also describes, in which the vegans actively searched for information about veganism. They watched documentaries, such as Cowspiracy, What the Health and Knives over Forks, they searched for information on the internet, looked at vegan associations, or read books about veganism, which then resulted in the decision to become vegan. As Sidney (32) recalled: ‘eventually it were those documentaries that sort of… Cowspiracy and that sort of documentaries that gave the last boost to becoming entirely vegan.’

Interestingly, not all respondents engaged in a reflexive process prior to making the decision to become vegan. Sophie, Andrew and Victor (25) explained being influenced by their social environment when they made the decision, but then wanting to have their own reasons and motivations for their vegan lifestyle. They engaged in an orientation process after they decided to become vegan to find information about veganism and to justify their decision. Andrew, for example, illustrated how his girlfriend encouraged him to become vegetarian:

‘I got into a relationship with someone who was vegetarian (…) and she was like: I’d like it when you don’t eat meat as well. (…) And then I was like: why am I doing it? I mean, I never really found meat very interesting. (…) So it was very easy to say: well then I don’t eat meat. But I thought: I do want to have a reason for it. When you say you don’t eat meat, people always look at you: O why not? (…) And then I started searching on the internet, watching movies...’ (Andrew)

This example shows that engaging in reflexive processes does not necessarily has to happen prior to the decision making, but can also happen after the decision has already been made. Hence, instead of a reflexive process that motivates actions, this reflexive process functions as a justification of the action. This is in line with the argument of social theorists, as Stephen Vaisey (2009), who claim that justification of the act comes after the act itself.

As this example of Andrew illustrates, it was his girlfriend that encouraged him to eat less meat. This was also the case with Victor, whose girlfriend asked him whether he would

(31)

be interested to see why she had become a vegetarian. Moreover, several of Sophie’s friends were vegetarian or vegan, which made her decide to become vegan as well. It is therefore useful to consider the influences of peers in this decision process.

4.3 Peer group influences

In several cases, an important factor in the decision process was the friends and the social environment of the vegan. For example, half of the vegans interviewed reported becoming vegan together with their partner, as Sidney: ‘my girlfriend and I said like: let’s do the VeganChallenge. (…) If she wouldn’t have done that I would have struggled more. Then it would be different I think (…) It has made things easier, practically.’ In the case of Sidney, making the decision together made it easier to adhere to such a lifestyle. Also, Ingrid became vegan together with her girlfriend, and now, as she is vegan for three years, she would not like to be with someone who is not vegan: ‘I can’t imagine how it is to be [in a relationship with someone who eats animals]. I would refuse it.’ Victor and Andrew, as described above, both explained that their partner asked them to consider to eat less meat or to become vegetarian.

Others described leaving their parental home and coming into contact with vegetarians and vegans. This change of social environment made the vegans aware of the existence of veganism and the ideals it is connected with. As Levi said:

‘I think I often didn’t even think about it. Until I went to college, I think, at the University of Amsterdam, Philosophy. When I moved to Amsterdam and got into contact with other people. Because before that [the consumption of animal products] was actually not an issue.’ (Levi, 27)

Levi told me that when he grew up there was not much societal awareness about meat consumption and he ate meat, just as he ate potatoes, without thinking about it. He explained this lack of societal awareness by referring to the fact that he grew up on the country side in the 1990’s, a time in which there was not much attention for vegetarianism and veganism. It was when he moved to Amsterdam and got into contact with other people that he got familiar with veganism and the ideals that connect with this lifestyle.

Not only did the social environment inspire some of the respondents to become vegan, it also made the decision easier to become vegan. Amber explained:

(32)

‘When I became vegetarian, I didn’t know a lot of people who were vegetarian, and I must say that that was harder. But vegan... my boyfriend is vegan for four years already, so that makes it a lot easier. (…) That makes it, I think, easier for me. Because he has provided me with a lot of information and what you can and cannot eat and how you should eat. And also a lot of friends have helped me.’ (Amber)

Originating from a social environment in which veganism was something completely unfamiliar, her current social environment provided Amber with information about veganism which made it easier for her to decide to become vegan.

4.4 Reinterpreting vegan reflexivity

The analysis has shown that both habitus, reflexivity and peer group play a role in the decision to become vegan. When analyzing differences in the presence of habitus or reflexivity in this process, respondents who did not have such a habitus as Ingrid, Martijn, Joanne, Hailey and Amber, did engage in reflexive processes. However, these reflexive processes were not limited to those who did not have such a habitus, as respondents that did learn to value good food and had the taste of the higher classes, engaged in reflexive processes too. Therefore, it must be noted that these mechanisms do not necessarily exclude each other: there also exist interplay between habitus and reflexivity. Paul Sweetman proposed the term ‘habitual reflexivity’, to refer too ‘a capacity for – and predispositions towards – reflexive engagement [that] is characteristic of certain forms of contemporary habitus’ (2003, p. 537). Thus, Sweetman argues that the habitus can be shaped into one embodying a ‘reflexive orientation towards the contemporary environment’ (p. 543). This has been confirmed in the current research. For instance, as Angela described coming from a family that always stimulated debate, it made her able to remain critical about societal structures. This way, her parents formed her habitus in one that values being critical and reflexive. Moreover, Sophie described that her study also stimulated reflexivity: ‘it was during the study Philosophy that I thought like: what kind of reasons can you… or what kind of grounds can you have for veganism?’ Hence, her education encouraged her to think about reasons one can have to adhere to a vegan lifestyle and motivated her to be reflexive.

Veganism : from restrictive, healthy taste to 'being a good person' : a sociological analysis of veganism from the perspective of distinction, with adaptations from reflexive theory