On Becoming Vegan.

Author: Roger Yates| August 2010.

An article by Barbara McDonald on becoming vegan, first published in the 1990s, has recently been featured in a recent reader. Although the piece is now a little dated (the original research being conducted in June 1996), and the sample of 12 vegans interviewed is very small, it seems to contain some points of interests.

McDonald is an expert on Jack Mezirow since her doctoral thesis was about his work. However, she is critical of Mezirow's "transformation theory", although ideas embedded within it seem relevant to a study of how people become to live as vegans, especially when elements of social power relations are added to the original formulation. Mezirow's perspective is certainly overly psychological and in need of sociological elements for balance and context. McDonald states that the transformation theory, "does not explain the process of learning to become vegan". However, some of her discussion in this paper seems to contradict that, at least to the extent to which McDonald claims the theory has no explanatory value. For example, in a 2000 book, Mezirow builds on 20 years of his theory and outlines the basic ideas about how people change in a 10-point process of "transformative learning":

1. Experience a disorienting dilemma,
2. Undergo self-examination,
3. Conduct a deep assessment of personal role assumptions and alienation created by new roles,
4. Share and analyze personal discontent and similar experiences with others,
5. Explore options for new ways of acting,
6. Build competence and self-confidence in new roles,
7. Plan a course of action,
8. Acquire knowledge and skills for action,
9. Try new roles and assess feedback,
10. Reintegrate into society with a new perspective.

One of the main thrusts in the theory, borrowing heavily from Habermas, is the power of rational discourse and a level of cognitive functioning which critics of Mezirow say most adults never fully achieve. For her part, McDonald focuses on the theory's need for individuals to be critically thoughtful about assumptions. She says her study of vegans failed to identify such critical reflection in their talk. However, again, other parts of her piece seem to contradict that claim.

However, let's stick with Mezirow a little longer, and via Nancy Franz's discussion of Stephan Brookfield's definition of "critical reflection theory", which seems to correct some of the shortcomings in Mezirow's approach. Critical reflection requires persons being self-aware, making sense of experiences, deconstructing and reconstructing meanings , critiquing premises and ideologies, and "principled thinking" all of which can be defined, according to Brookfield, as "reflecting on the assumptions underlying ours and other's ideas and actions, and contemplating alternative ways of thinking and living."

These ideas may be expressed in this way - by means of "phases":

• Trigger event,
• Appraisal of assumptions,
• Exploration of alternatives to current assumptions,
• Developing alternative perspectives,
• Integration of new perspectives into daily life.

At this point we have a basic understanding of some of the ideas that interest McDonald in her study of vegans. Can these 10 points and 5 phases inform an appreciation of the changes people go through when they become vegan?

McDonald works with a process which begins with the notion of "Who was I?" (meaning who was the person before learning about veganism and animal cruelty). This is followed by what some have called "a moral shock" but McDonald uses the term "catalytic experience" instead (meaning a person's learning of some aspect of cruelty). At this point, two things are likely to occur. The information about animal cruelty can be acted upon, and therefore the person "becomes oriented" towards learning more and maybe making a decision (for example, to stop eating other animal flesh), or there can be repression of the information (when people put what they know to the back of their minds [also see]). In the latter case, another catalytic experience or event may be required to, in some sense, re-engage a recall of the repressed knowledge of animal cruelty.

After this there is a process of learning about animal abuse and how to be a vegan (i.e., start reading labels on foodstuffs! [1]) A decision is made to live as a vegan (or a vegetarian). Finally, the person's general worldview has changed. With a new perspective she or he begins to face the world as a vegan. This process can take a long time: some of McDonald's interviewees took years to become vegan.

We can now follow some of the study's participants through some of these stages. The first thing that would register with animal advocates is the number of McDonald's respondents who acknowledged being in a state of what philosopher Gary Francione characterises as "moral schizophrenia". McDonald writes that the majority of those in the study had a prior love for nature and of pets. However, in line with Francione's ideas, they did not see the connection between their pets and "food animals". McDonald says that they had, "compartmentalised their compassion". Moreover, many of them, "expressed amazement that they had not seen the connection".

Many animal campaigners suggest that pet keeping is a desirable, necessary, or at least widespread means by which humans come to have some regard for nonhuman animals. Without their "prior love" for pets, they believe, many may never have seriously considered being an animal advocate. McDonald's findings seem to support this view, although not fully by any means. For example, not every respondent had a strong affection for nonhuman animals when young and, as one person in the study pointed out, most kids are dotty about their pets and, while most are upset when their own pets die, this does not necessarily prompt further or deeper thinking about their own or society's use of animals as a general matter. Most people, it seems to be true, can be quite comfortable in their schizophrenic state about animal ethics and no amount of pet owning seems to "cure" them.

When it comes to the catalytic experiences, one respondent seems to have had a Paul and Linda McCartney moment. The McCartney's are said to have awoken to a somewhat shocking reality looking out of their Scottish farmyard window at gambolling lambs when in the process of cooking "lamb". Similarly, this respondent looked up and "exchanged a long and pensive gaze with a buck standing on the hill above" and, at that moment, decided to not eat meat ever again.

Others in the study went vegan after watching videos. At this point, McDonald discusses the issues of emotions and cognition. She reports that her respondents' catalytic experience was often but not necessarily fully emotional. Often, it seems, a blend of emotion and rational thought goes into the process by which people turn to a vegan lifestyle. If anything, there is a hint that going vegetarian is an emotional reaction while the decision to go vegan is based on a cognitive interpretation of learning. Often the one followed the other.

Thus, while people spoke of videos "breaking their hearts", and their reaction being, "I just didn't realise what things went on", McDonald says that, "Emotions seem to have been one of the major defining characteristics of the more memorable catalytic experiences. The decision to become vegan following a period of vegetarianism was more often rational".

McDonald says it was typical that the decision to live as a vegan followed a period of learning, particular about the contradictory issue of, "being in favour of animal rights but continuing to eat animal products". Here, as it were, the logical inconsistencies of vegetarianism often finally sunk in. By thinking, talking, reading and becoming active, people realised their actions may not be matching their beliefs. McDonald cites one respondent who admits that he had drawn the line in the wrong place by being a vegetarian. Through thought and reflection he realised that "using [cow's] milk and putting [dairy] cheese in stuff" wasn't good enough.

Following catalytic experiences, respondents were "becoming oriented" to learning and then they learned about animal abuse. They learned about cruelty and how to be vegetarian or vegan. McDonald says that, at this stage, people are "guided by an ethical praxis of compassion". They learned by thinking, talking, becoming involved in activities and by reading, which was "the primary way of learning for every participant". All of a sudden, they were trying to learn, teach and cope - but often their families proved to be a major problem. Many respondents reported that family members argued with them, or trivialised their beliefs, and some even rejected them.[2] Understandably, they found these experiences hurtful, and one member of the study said she had lost a friend of 20 years standing by deciding to be a vegan.

Although McDonald talks of new "transformed worldviews", it is not always entirely vegan, and it certainly is not all about animal rights. Therefore, even at the end of this process, vegetarianism and animal welfarism are mentioned, along with health issues. While there is talk of recognising the "moral rightness of veganism", there is also talk of social interaction, and of "experiencing the world as a vegetarian and vegan". McDonald states that a central part of the new worldview is a generalised agreement that "animals were no longer viewed as food".

What seems to be reflected in McDonald's work is the apparently widely-held view that veganism can be difficult and we should expect a period of vegetarianism beforehand, despite the fact that vegetarianism may not be the best pre-vegan position to hold, at least not if lessening animal suffering is the primary aim. However, this may explain the convention in much animal advocacy literature of using the terms "vegetarian" and "vegan" interchangeably as though, ethically, they mean the same thing: this is sometimes expressed by the confusing linguistic construction of "veg*n."

In Victoria Moran's book, Compassion the Ultimate Ethic: An Exploration of Veganism, the author notes that some people turned vegan overnight, but most were vegetarian for a year or two first (1997: 53). This, then, appears to be the expected pattern: it seems to "makes sense" that people will drop "one thing at a time." Moran cites philosopher Peter Singer's book on consequentialist ethics, Animal Liberation, in which the author is concerned about the firm grip cultural speciesism has on the social imagination. Singer writes, "In our present speciesist world, it is not easy to keep so strictly to what is morally right". Perhaps, he thinks, since people have difficulty just giving up meat, the thought of eschewing cow's milk and dairy cheese as well may ultimately prevent them doing anything at all. This perspective was fairly reasonable when it was originally written in the early to mid 1970s. While Peter Singer's personal view on this issue remains largely the same in the 21st century, it is now far easier to live as a vegan with access to a large variety of vegan goods. It is likely these days that less and less people feel the need, or can justify, very long periods of vegetarianism before turning vegan. The internet is a valuable resource for those who aspire to veganism, especially for those who live in rural Ireland, although a little extra planning may be involved for day-to-day essentials when living outside of urban areas.

Since veganism is continuous direct action for nonhuman animals, and since ethical veganism is a vital part of respecting nonhuman animals, and is the morally right thing to do, Vegan Ireland is dedicated to providing the information needed to make living as a vegan in Ireland as easy as possible.

[1] Joking apart, this was another interesting aspect of the research. Via both Mezirow and Habermas, McDonald looks at communicative and instrumental learning in vegans. The former "has to do with ideas, such as the idea of instrumentalised animal cruelty, animal rights, and veganism", while the latter "concerns the skills needed to live a vegan lifestyle, such as how to cook, order food in restaurants, and read ingredient labels".

[2] There seems to be some evidence that family members may prove to be the hardest people for a vegan advocate to talk to about their new or on-going ethical decision.

More information.