Strategy vs. Principle: Has the Vegan Society changed the principle of ‘veganism’?
Academic and cultural commentators have long noted that as movements enter the mainstream, their expression often shifts from abstract principle toward clearer articulation of associated practices, even where the underlying ethical foundation remains unchanged. The modern definition of ‘veganism’ reflects this common pattern: principled positions articulated alongside their practical and societal consequences. We can be flexible in how we each communicate it — but never in what ‘veganism’ is at core. The principle endures, expressed through evolving strategies in a changing world.
HELEN LOYD: The terms ‘veganism’ and ‘vegan’ are often discussed today more in reference to the downstream impacts on dietary, health, or sustainability factors. But has the ethical core of veganism changed? Consider this document prepared for The Vegan Society’s 70th anniversary in 2014: “The current vision of the Society is a world in which humans do not exploit other animals.” — 70 Years of The Vegan Society: Ripened by Human Determination (2014)
In recent years, The Vegan Society — like many organisations — may have more visibly emphasised associated impacts that wider audiences readily engage with: health, diet, sustainability, and human consequences. That reflects outreach strategy, not a change in ethical foundation.
• The principle: non-negotiable. Veganism is, at core, the rejection of the idea that non-human animals exist ‘for us(e)’ — for food, clothing, labour, experimentation, transportation, entertainment, or any other way. That ethical boundary has not changed.
• Strategy: variable pathways to the same destination. Strategy concerns how that principle is communicated, and which entry points are most likely to disrupt entrenched behaviour and belief systems. Different approaches may resonate with different people at different stages.
Some strategies focus explicitly on mindset and moral reasoning. Others prioritise withdrawing participation from perhaps the most widely ‘normalised’ form of exploitation — the human-constructed food system — as a way to accelerate material change. Reducing demand undermines the economic foundations of exploitative industries and brings society closer to a tipping point where exploitation is no longer socially or economically viable — a consequence of rejecting that form of exploitation, not a substitute for the core principle.
That need not be read as abandoning the principle. For many people, ethical clarity follows behavioural change, not the other way around. Once animals are no longer being used for food, it can become easier for people to recognise the underlying injustice across all forms of exploitation. The destination remains the same. What differs is the route by which individuals arrive there…
Academic and cultural commentators have long noted that as movements enter the mainstream, their expression often shifts from abstract principle toward clearer articulation of associated practices, even where the underlying ethical foundation remains unchanged. The modern definition reflects this common pattern: principled positions articulated alongside their practical and societal consequences, while broader cultural adoption occurs in parallel and gives rise to varied — often imprecise — uses of the term “vegan” by different audiences.
Where activists focus on areas of animal use with the greatest scale or numerical impact — such as exploitation for food — this may reflect a strategic decision about where intervention is most effective. Strategy concerns how we move toward abolition; it does not redefine the ethical aim itself… We can be flexible in how we each communicate — but never in what veganism is at core. The principle endures, expressed through evolving strategies in a changing world. SOURCE
RELATED VIDEOS: