Vegan and Culture: A Clash or Possible Unison?
My first time having to thoroughly explain what veganism is was when I was in Jordan. I was volunteering at a paramedic society and my collogues wanted to order food. Since I was new, they thought it would be nice to ask me to pick the delivery of the day. I was a bit flustered since I knew that I am going to cause a disappointment very quickly. I told my colleagues that I am vegan. Silence washed over the room. What is a vegan? one of them asked, a bit confused. I thought to myself, “oh well, here we go again”. After explaining to my colleagues what veganism is, they all looked at me as if I was mad. No meat? No chicken? So you’re a vegetarian? Oh why don’t you drink milk, it’s good for you! Wait, you said you don’t eat chicken, right? At that point, not only did the murmuring of animal products cause more hunger, a sense of awkwardness lingered in the back of everyone’s mind. I had to explain veganism to my colleagues who probably have never met a vegetarian before; I had epitomized everything they thought of as foreign.
I remember having to explain to my Jordanian grandparents that I am vegan, that was equally fun. Having to explain my beliefs to a society that views eating meat as a normal thing is very difficult. It is especially difficult to explain it to people who live off meat and milk as their primary sources of nutrition. In their eyes, having to eat meat is cultural, societal and is just a normal and significant part of their lives. To abstain completely from such products is a farfetched reality.
I must admit that it is impossible to explain veganism to everyone and it is as difficult to convert everyone to veganism. The saying “If I can do it so can you” faulters massively when it comes to veganism. The reason being is that eating animals has been a part of human culture for eons. Humans are the only species that domesticate animals for their leisure. Whether it is to keep us warm, to feed us or just to protect us from predators, humans formed a bond with animals to extend our specie’s survival.
There are a few reasons why some people will not convert to veganism even with the exorbitant amount of evidence to suggest that a vegan lifestyle is beneficial all around. They are; taste, culture and accessibility.
I will discuss taste and accessibility first. However, the notion of culture is the peculiar one out of the three. It is sort of immovable, and only an alteration of the certain culture can lead towards a positive behavior towards animals.
Taste:
The argument for taste is one that undermines the life of an animal for one’s sensory pleasure. The idea that a momentous gratification that is induced by consuming the flesh of another animal holds more value than the animal’s life is interesting. Culinary techniques have been perfected over the years to provide the tastiest of meals, and that has transformed the animal itself into a meal made to be consumed. A chicken wing is seen as a normal thing, and is even advertised, yet in reality it is a bird’s organ. People that consume animal products are not blind to the fact that they are eating another animal, but many of them are not made aware of the process that produces the end product. A chicken wing did not just appear on its own, and the taste associated with it hides the reality of the process. The focal point should be to understand that a life had to be taken away. Chicken can usually live for many years, yet in an industrialized environment, their life can range upwards of a few weeks. No being should have its life robbed from it because of taste, because if it is acceptable to eat certain animals, then anything could be eaten. If one derives a sensory pleasure (taste) from an animal’s death, then they also derive a pleasure from having the animal murdered as well. Because in reality, if the animal did not die, then the sensory pleasure would not be derived in the first place.
This dilemma upholds the same concept of buying animal products and directly causing their death. Paying for meat means that you have paid for the animal to be killed. Even though you did not commit the act itself, you have directly supported it through money and thus have caused it to happen. If people decided to stop buying meat, the supply will drop tremendously.
However, it is interesting to note that in some way, taste is also cultural. Western cultures assume that certain animals are meant to be eaten, yet Eastern or Southern cultures might view other animals as appropriate foods. The appearance of a certain food item, say chicken nuggets, can be a trigger for an individual to associate chicken nugget with a certain taste and experience. However, if one were to be presented with a chicken nugget that was made out of a dog, then the sensory pleasure or association would cease to exist. The reality of the chicken nugget has changed in which the animal associated with the food is no longer the same animal. This example is more apparent when people seem to reject eating cow liver because it reminds them of their own organs — their own fragility and morality. Many more examples could be given about the human-animal association, but that would take many pages to write about. Taste holds a dilemma that is manifested within a certain culture. Although taste is highly subjective, the notion of community plays a massive role in molding one’s taste preferences.
We do not have to eat animals out of survival, and to place taste above an animal’s life is a transgression on its will to life. With the launch of many vegan alternatives in recent years, these products have mimicked the taste and feel of their counter-products without causing any harm or suffering. Choosing vegan alternatives can allow a person to cut down on their animal consumption and unnecessary suffering.
Accessibility:
Having a vegan lifestyle extends beyond food and pleasure. Leather, fur and animal tested products are included as well. There are many countries in the world in which animal products are highly sought after, and where having cruelty free alternatives is not commonly found or is not part of the norm. In developing countries for instance, where veganism is most likely not prominent, alternatives are only but a few. Countries that do not produce crops are also at a disadvantage, because fruits and vegetables would cost the consumer more due to import taxes or other fees.
The access to vegan and cruelty free options at a reasonable price can be a driver of change, otherwise people will be more inclined to save their money rather than the animals. Accessibility does not just involve products, but also awareness. Awareness includes vegan communities, marches, farmers markets, street signs and advertisements and any form of spreading the vegan message.
Not having these forms of access to veganism makes the actual idea foreign, and its perception could be murky and perplexed by misleading stereotypes. Notions such as a vegan diet does not provide adequate nutrients, or is very expensive, reserved for the elite and so forth, can be washed away by campaigning and advocacy. Writing blogs and vlogging daily experiences as a vegan can create a down-to-earth feeling that is more personal and real, rather than a glimpse of idealism. Entrepreneurial action and public policy that promote crop growth and farmers markets in lieu of animal industries, could help promote more cruelty-free products on store shelves, and can change the perception of dietary requirements tremendously.
Culture:
I believe that culture is changeable over time. Relative to what occurs within a certain culture, change can happen. Cultural norms are malleable because they are human constructs, they are not fundamentally based in our world. So what was acceptable in the past, might be rejected in the present. When people follow a certain culture, its validity is certified, and thus it is passed on as a norm. Hence, if a certain action seems to be appropriate, and is validated or decreed as part of a certain people’s way of life, then this culture assumes ultimate acceptance. The same way a culture can be created, it can be altered or removed completely as well. Slavery is one cultural norm that has been legally abolished across the whole world. Its implications were tremendous, removing any human rights for those that were its victims.
In today’s world, the strive for bettering human relations is vital for sustainable and progressive growth in the world. However, culture is human made, and is purposed for human leisure. Cultural norms also involve food. When food is involved, so is the exploitation and harm of animals that have no wish to die. The idea that food is a part of culture, gives killing animals a pass because it is “normal” within such a society. Many people that I spoke to would tell me that they could not give up eating meat because they could not partake in their culture as a result. And to be fair, in some cases, the argument for culture goes further than just eating food.
In Jordan, and across the Arab world, Islam is the dominant religion and its influence is cultural as well. Eid al-Adha is celebrated every year without a question, and the whole point of the holiday is to slaughter animals in order to donate the meat to the less fortunate. To bestow veganism upon a culture that promotes the murder of animals would be nonsensical. To alter the culture in such way that one feat is no longer permissible means that the faith, and the religion itself, is under question. In doing so, one creates a dissonance between what is deemed morally acceptable, and what has been decreed by a higher entity. I personally do not want to delve into the intricacies of religion and culture, but it is safe to say in some cases, veganism cannot be accepted as an answer.
However, cultures and traditions can be tackled from a different perspective. The whole point of incorporating food is to bring people closer, a sense of collectivity. The process of creating the food, to that of eating it, is a ceremony of long-lasting tradition and goodwill. So, can the food be altered yet able to maintain the cultural feel? The answer to this question can go either way. By altering food we can say that we are omitting non-vegan ingredients (which could be the whole dish) or replacing the ingredients with cruelty-free alternatives. The main issue facing alteration is that it can change the whole dish’s identity and its symbolism as a cultural entity is void. Replacing ingredients with alternatives could create a dissonance between what it means to have a piece of meat cooked in a certain way, or a mere replica that does not taste or resemble the appearance of the original dish. Either way, it is a tricky one. Of the top of my head, I think that dishes like lasagna, curry or sushi can easily be cruelty-free, however something like foie gras or mansaf cannot.
Luckily however, humans are innovative, and are constantly creating new things, and a part of these newfound ideas are cultural ones. Just because a certain part of a culture goes out of style, does not mean that it is an attack on the culture itself. Traditions are shaped by their context and having an awareness of cruelty and embracing animals as part of a societal whole, can lead people to create new cultures surrounding their beliefs. It is possible to have a culture that is entirely vegan. The African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem have created a culture of empathy and one that rejects cruelty towards other Earthlings. The people who follow the culture are just as proud of their heritage and traditions as others are. Their belief in a vegan lifestyle is a part of their identity, and I believe that empathy and veganism in general, transcend centric ideas based on race, gender, identity, or ethnicity. Empathy does not see color, and neither does it have a language. By embracing those who need our help the most, we can stop exploitation and its normalization. The guise of culture does not make it morally acceptable to inflict pain and suffering onto others, especially those whose rights are not considered. Like I have said before, culture is a human construct; it can be created, altered or removed however its followers choose to do so. Empathy, however, is universal.
Possible Unison:
Underlying the three main reasons for not adopting a vegan diet, we can view that they are based on, in some fundamental way, personal choices. In reality, we are not forced to eat meat in developed societies. As mentioned before, environmental circumstances and poverty will indeed lead peoples to consume animal products, but out of necessity. The developed world has no need to continue an action that has been proven detrimental to the environment, to the individual’s health and its apparent transgression over the will to life of the animals. Our own personal choices shape the social structure that we live in, and as individuals, we hold the power to change the collective norm. We can strive for a better future by reducing our monetary support towards animal businesses that are only seeking to create more profit. The fight for a brighter and empathetic future begins by removing misinformation that tells us that we need to eat only certain animals to be healthy, and cultural norms that hold no moral basis in determining our superiority as a species. We can achieve more peace and sustainability by defying the status quo that is driven by profit, in a world were money holds more value than the right to life.
Stay conscious, vigilant and empathetic.
