To V or Not to V: What activates people to embrace or reject veganism?
Although prospective vegans might identify as 'animal people', their mobilization becomes more likely when they are prompted by a mechanism, such as a network, to recognize congruence between identifying as 'animal people' and identifying as vegan. However, this congruence does not automatically result in mobilization. Some people do not go vegan not because they dismissed arguments for veganism, but because they doubted their capacity to do so. Thus, empowering people to go vegan is as crucial as convincing them of the merits of veganism.
COREY WATERS: The potential of an individual to participate in a particular movement increases if identifications of that individual are recognized as congruent with the collective identifications of that movement. For example, it has been shown through interviews with vegans that there is congruence with those who had identified as “animal people,” meaning advocates for nonhuman animals, prior to becoming vegan. Because these people wanted to be authentic “animal people,” and because they recognized being vegan as congruent with being authentic “animal people,” they became vegan…
This study examines mobilization processes with a particular focus on how people come to contemplate and embrace or reject veganism. Engaging the narratives of 33 interview participants who interacted with vegan advocacy networks in Greater Philadelphia, the study accounts for how prospective vegans negotiate forces, such as social networks and ties, that activate or hinder their mobilization; and for how they prioritize veganism among other priorities. Among other manners, participants came to contemplate the prospect of becoming vegan upon recognizing veganism as congruent with their other priorities…
How does an identification such as vegan –– and a priority such as veganism –– become salient? To answer this question, I prompted participants to engage in narrative selectivity, an exercise through which they explained the processes through which veganism emerged as a salient priority; and an exercise through which they ranked and prioritized what was important to them. Their narratives revealed how a series of mechanisms such as social networks and ties vaulted the salience of veganism and activated their contemplation by prompting hem to recognize veganism as congruent with their other priorities, by activating feelings conducive to mobilization, and by enhancing their capacity to go vegan…
I also asked, How do people negotiate mobilizing forces and manage salience? While participants were prompted to recognize veganism as congruent with their other priorities, they asserted these other priorities, thereby setting the stage for congruence. They acted with particular incentives in this pro-cess. The vegans were more likely than the non-vegans to prioritize altruism as they contemplated veganism, with nonhuman animals being primary beneficiaries of this altruism. Participants also acted with a particular mindset. The vegans were more likely to seek information that motivated and empowered them to go vegan, and more likely to deploy strategies to attenuate priorities that contended with their veganism for salience. In contrast, the non-vegans expressed more passivity as they narrated their contemplation of veganism.
Mobilization is a capability as well as a choice. Participants’ capacity to go vegan, a capacity that is difficult to comparatively measure, likely varied. While this capacity was a predictor of whether they went vegan, their narratives suggest that it was not necessarily a static predictor. The extent to which these prospective vegans exercised agency, however limited, influenced their capacity to go vegan and whether they went vegan. Many of the vegans became more capable through acts of agency. For many participants, veganism rose in salience as mechanisms such as social ties and food empowered them, but the vegans were more likely to facilitate this rising salience, thereby empowering their vegan selves. While prospective participants exercise agency, they do so only in relation to forces to which they are subjected.
Most people who participate in food movements do not create these movements. Thus, in contemplating participation, they are subjected to the motives and frames of the movement they might join. Such motives and frames are a force with which a prospective participant’s priorities are assessed for congruence. This congruence does not automatically result in mobilization. Prospective vegans might identify as “animal people”. However, their mobilization becomes more likely when they are prompted by a mechanism, such as a network, to recognize congruence between identifying as “animal people” and identifying as vegan.
To maximize the potential of such congruence, vegan advocates could foster some form of narrative selectivity among recruitment targets. Advocates might not have the resources to conduct and analyze 33 one- to three-hour interviews. However, they can still foster narrative selectivity by creating a venue where targets can express and prioritize their concerns and needs in the context of their consumption behaviors and their prospective veganism.
The identification of these narratively selected priorities could enhance the capacity of advocates to accommodate targets and to foster congruence between their prospective veganism and their other priorities. While accounting for and accommodating the priorities of recruitment targets can be beneficial, my findings suggest that to maximize the potential of sustained mobilization, vegan advocates should prioritize without ever trumping altruistic frames for veganism. While my findings are not generalizable to all prospective vegans, my participants’ narratives illuminate a pattern in how prospective vegans might manage the salience of their priorities.
Among participants who prioritized altruism, with nonhuman animals being primary beneficiaries of this altruism, most maintained their veganism; and among participants who did not prioritize altruism, or whose altruism was trumped by another priority, most were not vegan at the time of their interview. My findings do not suggest that advocates should restrict their advocacy to altruism. They could also, for example, frame veganism as healthful, a discourse that mobilized many participants. However, my findings suggest that a sustained vegan identification is less likely when altruism is trumped by a more salient priority.
My findings also suggest that vegan advocates should address the how as well as the why; that is, they should communicate how to go vegan and remain vegan along with their argument for why people should go vegan. For many participants, veganism rose in salience as they recognized their capacity to go vegan, a capacity they commonly recognized through relationships with vegans who oriented and supported them with food and advice. Some did not go vegan not because they dismissed arguments for veganism, but because they doubted their capacity to do so.Thus, empowering recruitment targets to go vegan is as crucial as convincing them of the merits of veganism. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: