Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though… and there are plenty of other minority movements that were defined by that same kind of binary language (most of them are not remembered fondly.)
I guess the point I am trying to make is, if your hypothesis is true, that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles. If you write a paragraph at someone and they would have to look up a half dozen words to even understand your point, they are much more likely to dismiss you as some kind of radical and/or loon rather than spend the time. It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
They walk away thinking a vegan said some stupid shit to them, the vegan walks away thinking some stupid shit was said to them, and the interaction is a failure for all parties.
Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
No; “veganism” is the ideology, and a “vegan” is someone who practices it. Having “vegan” and “veganist” solves nothing and would be vastly more confusing. The Vegan Society correctly appends the “dietary” part as an afterthought.
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though…
Not the point I was making. The point is that giving it a name (“carnism”) positions it as an ideology (which it is) instead of just some inherently baseline, default position.
It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
If you want to compare it to politics, this is something akin to how an anarcho-communist would use the term e.g. “liberal” instead of “non-communist”. Plenty of people in the US, for example, will confuse “liberal” with “hippie-dippie progressive”, but that doesn’t stop anarchists from using the term descriptively (and sometimes as an insult).
that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles
The “vegan” versus “plant-based” thing is an original sin; it came from the original Vegan Society definition that was pretty quickly amended long before veganism had mainstream relevance. But vegans aren’t going to completely shed a collective label they’ve used for decades; they’ll continue to push for an understanding of veganism as an ethical stance, which I think they’ve been doing a fine job of. It’s not going to cause enough problems to totally change brand, because inside vegan circles everyone knows, and outside of them, the vast majority of interactions are going to be regarding food. Any amount that “plant-based = vegan” dilutes the brand is going to be much less harmful than “let’s jump ship to another brand (even one that’s near-identical enough to be more confusing)”.
As for “carnism”, okay? That’s just something you can look up; there’s a Wikipedia article breaking it down in as much depth as one wants. If someone leaves an interaction with an ancom thinking that they got called a bleeding-heart progressive for supporting capitalism, okay. I’ll go over to the ancom community and tell them to stop using “liberal” because some people are confused.
But realistically, I don’t think Kolanaki was confused; I think they were just salty that their support for animal agriculture was positioned as an ideology at all rather than inherently normal like society otherwise constantly reinforces for them.
Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though… and there are plenty of other minority movements that were defined by that same kind of binary language (most of them are not remembered fondly.)
I guess the point I am trying to make is, if your hypothesis is true, that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles. If you write a paragraph at someone and they would have to look up a half dozen words to even understand your point, they are much more likely to dismiss you as some kind of radical and/or loon rather than spend the time. It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
They walk away thinking a vegan said some stupid shit to them, the vegan walks away thinking some stupid shit was said to them, and the interaction is a failure for all parties.
No; “veganism” is the ideology, and a “vegan” is someone who practices it. Having “vegan” and “veganist” solves nothing and would be vastly more confusing. The Vegan Society correctly appends the “dietary” part as an afterthought.
Not the point I was making. The point is that giving it a name (“carnism”) positions it as an ideology (which it is) instead of just some inherently baseline, default position.
If you want to compare it to politics, this is something akin to how an anarcho-communist would use the term e.g. “liberal” instead of “non-communist”. Plenty of people in the US, for example, will confuse “liberal” with “hippie-dippie progressive”, but that doesn’t stop anarchists from using the term descriptively (and sometimes as an insult).
The “vegan” versus “plant-based” thing is an original sin; it came from the original Vegan Society definition that was pretty quickly amended long before veganism had mainstream relevance. But vegans aren’t going to completely shed a collective label they’ve used for decades; they’ll continue to push for an understanding of veganism as an ethical stance, which I think they’ve been doing a fine job of. It’s not going to cause enough problems to totally change brand, because inside vegan circles everyone knows, and outside of them, the vast majority of interactions are going to be regarding food. Any amount that “plant-based = vegan” dilutes the brand is going to be much less harmful than “let’s jump ship to another brand (even one that’s near-identical enough to be more confusing)”.
As for “carnism”, okay? That’s just something you can look up; there’s a Wikipedia article breaking it down in as much depth as one wants. If someone leaves an interaction with an ancom thinking that they got called a bleeding-heart progressive for supporting capitalism, okay. I’ll go over to the ancom community and tell them to stop using “liberal” because some people are confused.
But realistically, I don’t think Kolanaki was confused; I think they were just salty that their support for animal agriculture was positioned as an ideology at all rather than inherently normal like society otherwise constantly reinforces for them.