interesting. followed a link from the lovely Nicole to read an article "Why veganism isn't enough", which essentially emphasises the point that using veganism as a force for change in the world uses the currency of consumerism to effect change, and that this in of itself is not as effective as a more diversified approach to education and promotion of veganism/awareness of the abuse of animals in various industries.

in some ways it irritated me as i've thought of veganism (when taken as a political decision/statement/action) as a very pure form of activism, not just living with ethics, but the idea of actually literally being constituted of the belief, reconciling Cartesian duality if you want to get fancy. this consistency within the self determines a particular relationship or set of relationships with the outside world.

a more diverse activism changes the balance in my eyes. the concept, the idea of veganism takes precedence over the action. the action becomes a promotional tool for the idea/ology. perhaps i've had too many pamphlets shoved at me or heard too many folk songs, but it's here that my fight or flight scepticism kicks in on the whole thing. but i'm not a vegan so how people conduct their veganism is a billion percent none of my business (oh, unless it involves shoving me or saying rude things about David Attenborough or something, then we'll talk).

but what really interested me and made me think "oh, i should write that down before i forget" is how people identify themselves and what they eat or don't eat.

i haven't known millions of vegans, but i think on the whole they have declared themselves as vegan. by this i mean that a statement along the lines of "i'm (a) vegan" has been made during our acquaintance (not that it is the first thing they introduce themselves with). there is a sense of identity that exists beyond simple choices in the kitchen. what this identity constitutes is not for me to say, but there may be general shared political and ethical frameworks as well as shared eye-rolling over stereotyping.

i've known people who didn't eat animals or animal products, but didn't identify as vegan. i remember a hasty consultation in a friend's kitchen as she tried to work out what her in-laws could eat, rolling off a list of "don'ts" (thoughtfully provided by some beardy bloke in India since proved a fraud). their food identity also extended beyond the simple choices they made, but it wore a different hat.

i've known people who would never say they're vegetarians, even though they don't eat meat. i've known people who say they're vegetarians even though they aren't (yes, it's still meat, even though it's on a pizza). i know a few people who are "social vegetarians" (in the particular cases i'm thinking of, they have a history of dating vegetarians and relapse into omnivorism when single, or adopt vegetarianism to gain moral high ground).

i also wonder about people with sensitivities, eg "i'm allergic to peanuts" vs "i'm anaphylactic". but i guess that would be a different sphere as this is less a matter of choice (much as i love my gluten and lactose intolerant friend who refuses to give up cheesecake).

i've been trying not to use the word performative, but think i might have to. as well as being a social activity, eating is performative. it is a very literal relationship between the self and the outside world. the conscious effort to determine the character of this relationship is significant to both social and personal identity.

and i've forgotten the coherent point that i was supposed to be making. bugger. maybe i should eat more almonds.