On “Vegetarian” and “Vegan,” OED-Style
Just when you thought I was going to stop talking about vegetarianism and veganism . . .
You might want to sit down for this one.
Vegetarian, the noun.
1. a. One who lives wholly or principally upon vegetable foods; a person who on principle abstains from any form of animal food, or at least such as is obtained by the direct destruction of life.
1839 F. A. KEMBLE Jrnl. Residence on Georgian Plantation (1863) 251 If I had had to be my own cook, I should inevitably become a vegetarian. 1842 Healthian Apr. 34 To tell a healthy vegetarian that his diet is very uncongenial with the wants of his nature. 1854 H. MILLER Sch. & Schm. (1858) 332 A man can scarce become a vegetarian even without also becoming in some measure intolerant of the still large..class that eat beef with their greens, and herrings with their potatoes. 1885 SALMON Introd. N.T. xi. 241 Even those who used animal food themselves came to think of the vegetarian as one who lived a higher life.
Let's go back to that definition. I don't think of veganism as a form of vegetarianism, but apparently that's because I'm not thinking about it properly. According to the definition, there are vegetarians, and they live principally upon vegetables and abstain from animal food obtained by the direct destruction of life, and there are strict vegetarians, who live wholly upon vegetable foods and abstain from any form of animal food. And what does that have to do with veganism?
Vegan 1. A person who on principle abstains from all food of animal origin; a strict vegetarian.
A vegan's a strict vegetarian? Yes, but I thought there was more to it than that. Perhaps the examples will help:
1944 D. WATSON in Vegan News Nov. 2 ‘Vegetarian’ and ‘Fruitarian’ are already associated with societies that allow the ‘fruits’ of cows and fowls, therefore..we must make a new and appropriate word… I have used the title ‘The Vegan News’. Should we adopt this, our diet will soon become known as the vegan diet, and we should aspire to the rank of vegans. 1945 Ibid. Feb. 3 Two members have asked how ‘Vegan’ is pronounced. Veegan, not Veejan. 1955 Irish Press 29 Nov. 618 A true-blue Vegan, I'm assured,..will even exclude from his or her diet, milk and..honey. 1965 New Scientist 20 May 526/3 Vitamin B12.. is found almost exclusively in animal foods, so that strict vegetarians (like vegans) may go short unless they take special precautions to ensure a supply. 1977 J. F. FIXX Compl. Bk. Running xiv. 170 There are..three kinds of vegetarians: the 100 percent vegetarian, sometimes called a vegan; the lacto-vegetarian..; and the lacto-ovo-vegetarian. 1979 J. I. M. STEWART Our England 177 Robin had discovered the duty of being a vegetarian. Indeed, he had become a vegan, and that seemed to mean that he could eat virtually nothing at all. 1985 Times 1 Feb. 12/2 ‘Beanmilk: milk that's never even seen a cow’ is to vegans, who deplore exploitation of animals and eat nothing derived from them, a highly desirable commodity.
That's a lot of talk about food, and not enough (any) talk of the distinction between strict vegetarianism and veganism.
In a way, it's not surprising that the OED would botch up the meanings of these words and their distinctions since, if I'm not mistaken, it is the role of dictionaries to provide common usage, not necessarily accurate meaning, and therefore, one would expect to see a blend of the general public's misunderstanding and prejudice included in the 'definitions'.
The OED is wrong about veganism. But, in large part, so is the modern "movement".
I repeat: "ALL forms of EXPLOITATION of, and cruelty to, animals for food, CLOTHING OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE".
http://www.vegansociety.com/images/ArticlesofAssociation.pdf
That Donald Watson (person who coined 'vegan') quote is from the first issue of "The Vegan News".
http://www.ukveggie.com/vegan_news/
At that time, 1944, the first vegans were still breaking away (literally and conceptually) from the Vegetarian Society and moving from their "non-dairy vegetarianism" (eggs were scarce at that time) to veganism. Given this context, it make sense that food is Watson's focus. The full evolution of his thoughts and efforts, leading to the Vegan Society and it's rejection of exploiting nonhuman animals for "food, clothing, or any other purpose", had not yet transpired. The vegetarian agenda, as confused as it was, did contain a small nugget of ethical substance that could be logically expanded into a coherent position on human/nonhuman relations. That's what the early vegans did. It's tremendously regrettable that vegetarianism managed to outlive the 20th century.
To me, this topic is of nearly unparalleled importance. My interest is in setting the tone for a serious justice movement philosophically oriented toward recognizing and discharging our deontological duties (by according all sentient being basic rights). I don't think vegetarianism, or any other nonvegan position, should even be "on the table" (so to speak) for onlookers to consider. It's not clear to me why the utilitarian segment of "the movement", that which is oriented toward "less harm", would even promote genuine veganism. Then again, they rarely do. Almost any move along their harm spectrum (like not eating flesh one day a week) is acceptable to promote and celebrate. The group Vegan Outreach thinks we can make up for our less-than-vegan ways by handing out literature because they calculate a net reduction of harm. Peter Singer, philosophical muse for the utilitarians, is not a vegan and has characterized uncompromising vegan education as "fanatical".
In short, because it is forced to validate a vast range of nonvegan positions (as long as they are better than what an individual previously did), the utilitarian "less harm" approach never gets around to culturing respect for nonhuman personhood (and if they follow Singer's lead, almost no nonhumans actually are persons).
Regarding Nathan's comment: EXACTLY!
I am a a fairly new kid on the block(well,this block anyway)and intend to post a comment in due course(when I find the proverbial min!)but for now I would just like to say that Dan & Nathan make a lot of sense in most of their comments! Of course I may be biased bec. I think along similar lines but it's refreshing to read intelligent,well constructed arguments & deliberations. Incidentally, don't think I have seen any feedback on Steve Best's art. "Pacifism or animals-which do you love more?It's a critique of Lee Hall, G.Francione,etc. Can I throw the gauntlet?
Thanks Hella. You can throw the gauntlet (Mary's just fine with productive discussion), but I'm not sure I'll be saying much about Steve Best's writing. To the militants, I say, do what you think is best, but don't ask aboveground pacifists for justification or permission – they probably won't tell you what you want to hear.