I keep thinking about what kind of identity would be useful for building a powerful animal advocacy movement. Here are 3 features of veganism that I often think about which make me doubt its usefulness.
Too maximalist
The official definition of veganism by the inventors of the term is the following:
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose”
This basically amounts to "avoid doing bad things as far as possible." The threshold sits right below what is impossible. I think that is way too ambitious. Doing your best to avoid harm at every circumstance shouldn’t be the criterion for inclusion to a social movement. We don't expect human rights activists to avoid all forms of exploitation and cruelty as far as possible to qualify as human rights activists.
Some activists respond "No, veganism is the bare minimum. The 'as far as possible and practicable' part means it's not about being perfect.". But when I ask for examples of gratuitously harmful actions that veganism doesn't forbid, at most I hear about instances of accidental uses of animal products without knowing. What these activists mean by “bare minimum” is that veganism doesn’t require you to become an activist and actively help animals. But in the end they think veganism covers everything harmful to animals.
Compare this with identities like "strictly plant-based," "conscientious objector," or "environmentalist." None make such strong claims about acting rightly at every instance.
Here are a few concrete problems I see happening related to this:
- Debates over whether celebrity vegans are really vegan because of horse-riding, botox, or animal products in their clothing. In those debates, the exclusionary activists are correct that these acts are not vegan and therefore these celebrities are not vegan. But I don’t want to give up on the visibility and credibility these celebrities provide. So I’m not happy about excommunicating them.
- When plant-based protein companies test new ingredients on animals for regulatory approval, prominent infighting erupts about whether their products are still vegan. The exclusionary side is technically correct, but fighting against these products seems morally wrong.
- Generally, there is way too much infighting about which actions are really vegan. Because the definition is too maximalist, there is no easy way to shut these debates off.
People in animal advocacy circles fear being too permissive and condoning harm to animals. But being too prohibitive is also a danger to a movement's political goals. Successful social movements recognise that. Sometimes I hear religious scholars saying things like “Smoking is a terrible thing to do and I strongly advise you against it but I will never ever claim that smoking is haram”. They are vigilant against declaring things haram without sufficient grounding.
When you are too prohibitive and especially vaguely prohibitive, your people constantly bicker about what’s halal and haram. Organised religion solved this problem by having official authorities on what’s permitted. Vegetarianism was also pretty clear about what’s forbidden and what’s not. Veganism is both too vague and too maximalist.
No space for sinners
In Sunni Islam, these two statements can both be true:
• It's forbidden to drink alcohol
• Some Muslims drink alcohol
But try this with veganism:
• It's forbidden to eat eggs
• Some vegans eat eggs
It doesn't work. People will object to the second statement.
I find it regrettable that veganism expects perfect compliance. We need space for people to say: "Yes, this is wrongful behavior, but I am a human being with moral failings, and in this case I acted against my values"—without being immediately excommunicated. Islam did succeed in reducing alcohol consumption to the lowest levels in the world without having to excommunicate all alcohol-drinking members.
Too behaviour-focused
Veganism as an identity combines behavior and belief: you should avoid certain actions because of certain beliefs about animal ethics. But in practice, the behavioral part overshadows the belief part.
Other political identities like feminist, socialist, environmentalist focus more on political goals. Of course certain actions would disqualify someone from being a feminist, but when you hear someone is a feminist, your first thought isn't about whether they meet a behavioral standard. You perceive them by how they view the world and their political goals.
This creates concrete problems:
1. We're missing many ideologically aligned people who don't satisfy the behavioral standard.
2. Our debates shift toward feasibility of behavioral standards instead of focusing on whether we genuinely care about animals, feel sorry about their suffering, and want a better world for them.
When pushed, I say I am "approximately vegan" or "mostly vegan," which is just typically "vegan" for short -- and most people won't push. If a vegan gives me a hard time about the particulars, which essentially never happens, I stop talking to them 😃
IMHO we would benefit from a clear label for folks who aren't quite vegan but who only seek out high-welfare animal products; I think pasturism/pasturist is a possible candidate.
One could argue that from an effectivity viewpoint (helping as many animals as possible), veganism is not behavior-focused enough. Within (strict) veganism, it is better to never eat any meat and dairy and do nothing else than to sometimes eat dairy and donate $10.000 to effective AW charities. In this case, it is better to shift behavior, but veganism is too belief-focused.
I also wonder whether this discussion distracts from what is really important. Most vegans I know in real life (including myself) are somewhere between 95% and 99.5% vegan, and do not push each other to increase that percentage further, since there are more impactful things to focus on. In other words: there are circles in which veganism is already loosely defined. I don't know how common this is though.
I agree. Maybe we can just say that veganism focuses on the wrong behavior? In addition to donating, I think voting can be more important than your individual diet. Many animal advocacy or rights organizations seem to recognize this, and refer to animal advocates or animal rights advocates to be more inclusive. They certainly do this for events where they seek to attract a lot of people, like animal rights marches. But for sure, veganism continues to be emphasized too much.
I also agree that the definition given in the post doesn't reflect popular usage, which is probably something like:
This doesn't seem particularly maximizing. The first part reflects the moral commitment, and yes it's possible to be perfectionist about it, but it's not fundamentally. The second part demands evidence of that moral commitment, and it's also far from maximizing, since not consuming animal products is very achievable for most people. So, as long as this definition is interpreted in a reasonable way, it doesn't seem particularly maximalist.
I think it’s important to differentiate between perfection as a requirement and perfection as a North Star.
As North Star it simply is a direction of travel. Every ethical system, from Islam to secular humanism, has an awareness that there is an ideal we may never fully embody, but still orient toward. The point is not “being perfect” but continually aligning, step by step, as a verb, not a noun. This makes it not exclusionary but clarifying, and gives dignity to everyone. In religion, mysticism, spirituality it’s all about the continued cleaning of your heart and being, you never just “are clean”. That’s the same here.
Where I agree with you is on accessibility. If the goal is to include more people then the invitation should not be “become 100% vegan immediately,” but more to join a path of intentional reduction, with a clear ethical horizon where we all commit to continually aligning - there are ofc better ways of communicating this. This framing avoids both false equivalence (“all reductions are the same”) and purity culture. In a practical sense, you do need to use “vegan” in a clearly defined way to be able to order food or get what you need. For movement building, more spaciousness could help but could clash with egos and functionality.
I feel like Clearer guidance, fewer purity tests, and more strategic compassion could really strengthen animal advocacy instead of fracturing it.
As a utilitarian, my first impulse is to suggest the term "animal welfarism," since it focuses on what I actually care about, namely well-being.
This term maximizes the scope of what one cares about to include both wild animal suffering and factory farming. It also allows for a diversity of actions such as changing one's diet, engaging in political action, or donating money as @Erwin Rossen mentions.
I would also guess that people who identify as animal welfarists are less likely to have the all-or-nothing attitude that it seems like some vegans have.
Among people who call themselves vegans who I've met irl, about a third were actually some form of reducetarian already. One ate dairy and eggs that had some form of ethical certification, one ate fish (I believe only certain wild-caught species) and honey, and another was a strict vegan for a while (I think?) but then shifted to identifying as plant-based and eating chicken. Some of them were more vegan for health reasons than for animal welfare reasons, and for some I know health concerns were why they weren't strictly vegan. So I think that this is more a debate for highly online/enfranchised vegans, while a lot of people have already gone ahead and adopted looser standards for veganism.
Interesting to here you say that, as most vegans I know in-person indeed do their best to adhere to a plant-based diet 100% of the time. Those that don't will call themselves "mostly vegan" and still eat vegan 95%+ of the time.
Not here to claim you are not telling the truth, but rather to add a different set of anecdata to the conversation.
Yeah I forgot to mention that this seems heavily split by where I knew the people from, your anecdata seem true among younger/more educated people I know.