Ethical Veganism, Animal Ethics, Moral Consistency

Öz Veganlık günümüzde yemek kültürü ve toplumsal hareketler açısından önemli bir yer tutmaya başlamıştır. Veganlık yalnızca bir beslenme biçimi değil ayrıca hayvansal hiçbir ürünün kullanılmaması etrafında şekillenen bir yaşam biçimidir. Veganlık, yemeğin anlamı, yemeğin toplumsal boyutu ve insan-doğa ilişkisi konusunda farklı bir bakış açısını yansıttığı için yemek sosyolojisi açısından zengin bir olgudur. Bunun yanında veganlık, kişilerin ve grupların aidiyetlerini şekillendiren bir kimlik unsuru olarak da sosyolojinin farklı alt disiplinlerinin ilgisini çekmektedir. Bu çalışma, veganlığın bir kimlik unsuru olarak şekillenmesi sürecini betimlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu betimleme çabası içerisinde, vegan olma kararının alınması ve vegan olmanın sürdürülmesi süreçlerinde kişilerin kurdukları anlatılara ve dikkat çektikleri unsurlara odaklanılmıştır. Ayrıca katılımcıların vegan olmayan diğer kişilerle kurdukları iletişim ve literatürde kimlik kurulumunda önemli olduğu belirtilen 'öteki' kurgusunun nasıl oluşturulduğu da çalışmanın dikkat çektiği unsurlar arasındadır. Saha araştırmasında elde edilen veriler, veganlığın tek ve homojen bir kimlik olmadığına, veganlığın farklı görünümlerinin ve kişiler için farklı tanımlarının olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Bu çeşitliliğe rağmen, vegan olma kararının alınmasında ve veganlık pratiklerinde birkaç ana hat üzerinden benzerliklerin yakalanabildiği görülmüştür. Abstract Veganism has an important place in today's food culture and it is important in terms of a social movement. Veganism is not only a form of nutrition but also a way of life that is shaped around avoiding animal products. Veganism is a phenomenon elaborated by the field of sociology of food as it reflects a perspective about the meaning of food, the social dimension of the dish and the relationship between humanity and nature. Veganism attracts the attention of different sub-disciplines of sociology as an element of identity shaping the belonging of individuals and groups.

Vegan Bir Dünya, yazarın Veganköy adını verdiği, bütün yaşam şartlarının veganlık üzerine örüldüğü bir köyün hayali ile başlıyor. Burası sempatik ve yaşanılası bir köy olması yanı sıra sizleri içerisine çekecek birçok pratik çözüm barındırıyor. Yazarımızın tüm dünyanın Veganköy’ü anlamaya ve onu mümkün kılmaya olan inancı kesintisiz bir hevesle doruğa tırmanıyor.

Tabii ki her yolculuk gibi, Veganköy’e yapılacak yolculuğun da birbirinden farklı rotaları var. Peki en kolayı, en sürdürülebilir olanı hangisi? Bu soru, kitabın merkezine oturtuluyor, tartışma çemberi genişletildikçe esasında veganlıkla ilgili bütün karmaşık problemler masaya yatırılıyor ve bir bir düğümleri çözülüyor.

Tobias Leenaert masa başında teorik tartışmalar üretmiyor. Sokakta yaşananları yine sokakta çözecek anahtarları gösteriyor. Kendi yaşamından taşıdığı çelişkileri saklamaya gerek görmeden yüzleşiyor ve her seferinde okurunu da yanına alarak Veganköy’e doğru bir adım atmaya özendiriyor.

Hiç şüphe yok ki Türkçede ilk defa yayınlanan Vegan Bir Dünya, pek çok tartışma açacak ya da pek çok tartışmaya yepyeni boyutlar kazandıracak.

“Vegan Bir Dünya, dünyayı hayvanlar için daha iyi bir yer hâline getirmek için sağladığı katkıyı en üst seviyeye çıkarmak isteyen herkesin mutlaka okuması gereken bir kitap. Tobias Leenaert, açık argümanlar sunmak ve etkili bir vegan savunucusu olmak için pratik ipuçları vermek adına vegan savunucusu olarak kendi engin deneyimlerini ve kapsamlı araştırmaları bir araya getiriyor. Bu kitabı hararetle tavsiye ediyorum!”

Prof. Dr. Melanie Joy, Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows’un yazarı; Center for Effective Vegan Advocacy’nin ortak kurucusu ve yöneticisi

My introduction to the anthology "Among Animals: The Lives of Animals and Humans in Contemporary Short Fiction."

Stories that affirm the indelible bond among humans and animals
The relationships among human and non-human animals go back to the beginning of time—and the ways in which these relationships have evolved (and sometimes not) is the inspiration for this collection of contemporary short fiction, penned by writers from across the globe.

This diverse collection of stories explores the ways in which we live among—and often in conflict with—our non-human counterparts. These stories feature animals from the familiar (dogs and cats) to the exotic (elands and emus), and in these stories animals are both the rescuers and the rescued. Within these pages are glimpses of the world through the eyes of a zookeeper, a shelter worker, a penguin researcher, and a neighborhood stray, among many others—all highlighting the ways in which animals and humans understand and challenge one another.

Among Animals is a dynamic collection of stories from the world’s most gifted contemporary authors—those who pay close attention to the creatures with whom we share our planet, and who inspire us to pay closer attention as well.

When consumers choose to abstain from purchasing meat, they face some uncertainty about whether their decisions will have an impact on the number of animals raised and killed. Consequentialists have argued that this uncertainty should not dissuade consumers from a vegetarian diet because the "expected" impact, or average impact, will be predictable. Recently, however, critics have argued that the expected marginal impact of a consumer change is likely to be much smaller or more radically unpredictable than previously thought. This objection to the consequentialist case for vegetarianism is known as the "causal inefficacy" (or "causal impotence") objection. In this paper, we argue that the inefficacy objection fails. First, we summarize the contours of the objection and the standard "expected impact" response to it. Second, we examine and rebut two contemporary attempts (by Mark Budolfson and Ted Warfield) to defeat the expected impact reply through alleged demonstrations of the inefficacy of abstaining from meat consumption. Third, we argue that there are good reasons to believe that single individual consumers-not just consumers in aggregate-really do make a positive difference when they choose to abstain from meat consumption. Our case rests on three economic observations: (i) animal producers operate in a highly competitive environment, (ii) complex supply chains efficiently communicate some information about product demand, and (iii) consumers of plant-based meat alternatives have positive consumption spillover effects on other consumers.

Many people enjoy eating meat but few enjoy harming or killing other sentient creatures. These inconsistent beliefs create a "meat paradox", people simultaneously dislike hurting animals and like eating meat. One solution to this conflict is to stop eating meat. Another solution is to fail to recognize that animals are killed to produce meat. (Loughnan, Haslam e Bastian, 2010)
Most people loves animals and love eating meat. (Loughnan, Haslam, Bastian e Radke, 2011).
Loughnan, Haslam, Bastian e altri, in quattro articoli scritti tra il 2009 e il 2012, descrivono il meat paradox, come il fatto che la maggior parte della gente, pur disapprovando la sofferenza e la violenza sugli animali e investendo molto denaro e attenzione nelle loro cure, pur definendosi quindi amanti degli animali, continuano tuttavia a mangiarli. Connesso a questa considerazione è anche il problema di come sia possibile amare certi animali e mangiarne altri. Questa tensione, cioè l'amore per gli animali e il fatto di mangiarli, è l'essenza del meat paradox (Loughnan, Bratanova e Puvia, 2012): infatti oggi uccidiamo sempre più animali per mangiarli e nel contempo aumentano, dicono gli autori, le nostre cure per l'animale. Gli autori (Loughnan, Haslam e Bastian, 2010), riprendendo le teorie di Leon Festinger (1957), riconoscono nel meat paradox un caso specifico di dissonanza cognitiva: come ricordano Harmon-Jones e Mills (1999), la dissonanza cognitiva nasce quando una persona fa o pensa qualcosa che si op-pone o è totalmente contraria alle sue più profonde convinzioni e attitudini: pratica e convinzione entrano in conflitto creando uno stato emozionale spiacevole, che l'individuo deve e ha tutto l'inte-resse a risolvere. Gray e Wegner (2007) sottolineano la gravità di questo stato d'ambivalenza emotiva e psicologica tanto da riconoscerne una certa priorità d'interesse per la futura ricerca psicologica. Anche Paul Rozin, nel 2007, dirà "meat should be of special, because it is a quintessential exemple of the interesting and important state of ambivalence". Per risolvere la dissonanza cognitiva, dice Festinger, bisogna rimuovere i fattori e gli elementi contrastanti e questo può essere fatto in diverse maniere (...)

This article seeks to elevate contemporary Jain voices calling for the adoption of a vegan lifestyle as a sign of solidarity with the transnational vegan movement and its animal rights, environmental protection, and health aspirations. Just as important, however, this article also seeks to
present some of the unique features of contemporary Jain veganism, including, most specifically, Jain veganism as an ascetic practice aimed at the embodiment of non-violence (ahiṃsā), the eradication
(nirjarā) of karma, and the liberation (mokṣa) of the Self (jı̄va). These are distinctive features of Jain veganism often overlooked and yet worthy of our attention. We begin the article with a brief discussion of transnational veganism and Jain veganism’s place within this global movement. This is followed by an overview of Jain karma theory as it appears in the Tattvārtha Sūtra, an authoritative diasporic Jain text. Next, we present two case studies of contemporary Jain expressions of veganism: (1) The
UK-based organization known as “Jain Vegans” and (2) The US-based organization known as “Vegan Jains”. Both organizations have found new opportunities in transnational veganism to practice and embody the virtue of ahiṃsā as well as Jain karma theory. As we will show, though both organizations share the animal, human, and environmental protection aspirations found in transnational veganism, Jain Vegans and Vegan Jains simultaneously promote ahiṃsā to varying degrees in service of the Jain
path to liberation. We conclude the article with a brief reconsideration of Marcus Banks’s diasporic “three tendencies” model to demonstrate how contemporary manifestations of Jain veganism compel us to revisit our understanding of diasporic expressions of Jain religious belief and praxis.

Mémoire de recherche qui explore les liens entre spécisme et sexisme, care et animalisme. Etude de la construction de la subjectivité masculine hégémonique par l'exploitation, l'assujettissement et la consommation des corps femmes, femelles, et racialisés. Perspectives de résistances contemporaines avec la revalorisation d'une contre-histoire végane féministe.

We are all opposed—at least ostensibly—to mindless animal cruelty. Almost no one defended Michael Vick and his cohorts when they tortured and killed dogs for their dog fighting ring. Imagine Michael Vick had been selling a product—say dog-skin handbags from the “losing” dogs—that financially supported and enabled the continued torture of more dogs. We would not only not buy these dog-skin handbags, we would boycott the handbags and urge others not to buy them as well. This essay argues that we are a lot more like Michael Vick than we care to imagine. No, we’re not highly paid football players and we won’t go to jail or go bankrupt for our participation in animal cruelty. But like Michael Vick, we participate in animal cruelty, and we are similarly raised in a way that we do not see its wrongfulness. How do we participate in animal cruelty? By spending billions of dollars each year financially supporting an incredibly common and pervasive form of animal cruelty: factory farming, which involves raising pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, and other animals in deplorable conditions. And, like Michael Vick, we financially support it in part because we have an addiction. More specifically, we are addicted to the taste of low-cost industrial meat. As a result, we refuse to see our financial support of large scale cruelty to animals.

This essay will analyse the extent to which veganism can be classified as a ‘religion’ through the lens of Ninian Smart and Carl Jung. This essay will argue that when examined through Smart’s multi-dimensional model of religion, veganism can conditionally be considered as a religion; it will then be argued that, when a Jungian lens is applied to veganism, it can be seen as a form of religious expression. However, there are some problematic aspects with both lens which hinder a definite conclusion as to whether veganism could be a religion.

Ann Wigmore (1909 – 1994) was a Lithuanian–American "holistic health" practitioner, nutritionist, whole foods advocate, author, and doctor of Divinity. Wigmore wrote several books on her theories and lectured widely to promote her practices.
On February 16, 1994, Wigmore died of smoke inhalation from a fire that destroyed the Boston site of the original Hippocrates Health Institute.[citation needed]
Today, her methods are still being promoted in Aguada, Puerto Rico at the Ann Wigmore Natural Health Institute, in Florida at the Hippocrates Health Institute under the leadership of Dr. Brian Clement, and in various other "alternative medicine" resorts.

In 1968, Ann Wigmore co-founded the Hippocrates Health Institute,  a health resort in the United States, with Viktoras Kulvinskas.  Known by some in that movement as "the mother of living foods", she was an early pioneer in the use of wheatgrass juice and living foods for detoxifying and healing the body, mind, and spirit.

In her autobiography, Why suffer?: How I overcame illness & pain naturally, Wigmore recounts observing her grandmother using herbs and natural remedies as a child in Lithuania.

Abstract Many moral philosophers have criticized intensive animal farming
because it can be harmful to the environment, it causes pain and misery to a large
number of animals, and furthermore eating meat and animal-based products can be
unhealthful. The issue of industrially farmed animals has become one of the most
pressing ethical questions of our time. On the one hand, utilitarians have argued that
we should become vegetarians or vegans because the practices of raising animals for
food are immoral since they minimize the overall happiness. Deontologists, on the
other hand, have argued that the practices of raising animals for food are immoral
because animals have certain rights and we have duties toward them. Some virtue
ethicists remain unconvinced of deontic and consequentialist arguments against the
exploitation of animals and suggest that a virtue-based approach is better equipped
to show what is immoral about raising and using animals for food, and what is
virtuous about ethical veganism.

Despite Peppa Pig being a billion-pound character favourite of children
across the globe, many of those same children regularly consume pig
products. Using cognitive dissonance as a starting point, this photo essay
aims to investigate how the “meat paradox” (Loughnan et al., 2010) may be
applied at an intra-species level to this phenomenon: The Peppa Pig Paradox.
It may be that animals in the Peppa series are simply anthropomorphised
versions of ourselves (Mills, 2017); that the anthropocentric human-isanimal metaphors we employ maintain negative views of all things porcine
(Goatly, 2006); or that the socialisation process and norm maintenance
necessitate dissociative language (Plous, 1993) about other animals to
maintain a boundary across which we dare not tread. As the 21st century
develops and veganism increases in popularity, perhaps connections will
become more explicit as plant-based food becomes more readily available.
Increased associations might create a shift in consciousness away from
strategic ignorance (Onwezen & van der Weele, 2016) to a more conscious,
species-inclusive society, where Peppa Pig fans will shun the very notion of
consuming pig flesh and demand the same of others.

Статья посвящена двум взаимосвязанным исследовательским направлениям-эколитература и Human-Animal Studies. Эколитература, как жанр литературного произведения, а также как метод исследования художественных произведений, включает в себя большое количество различных терминов и понятий. Однако терминологическая база этого направления до сих пор до конца не разработана учеными. В статье рассматриваются часто встречающиеся термины, связанные с эколитературой, а также возможные варианты их классификации. Особое внимание уделяется новой классификации эколитературных жанров, составленной на основе первичных значений выделенных при работе терминов. Помимо эколитературы, статья посвящена новейшему исследовательскому направлению в области культуры, литературы и других дисциплин-Human-Animal Studies, которое занимается изучением взаимоотношений человека и животных. Животные, как неотъемлемая часть окружающей человека природы, являются незаменимым элементом в большинстве литературных произведений, посвящённых вопросам природы, экологии и окружающей среды. Более того, животные являются частью человеческой культуры, что делает исследование их репрезентации в литературе не менее важным вопросом. Эколитература и Human-Animal Studies тесно связаны друг с другом. В статье рассматривается это направление и его методы не только в контексте эколитературы, но и в качестве самостоятельного исследовательского направления.

Do animals have right to live and not made to suffer? Should people stop eating animal meat? Should laws be enacted to protect animal rights? This essay suggests the following two theses. 1) Animal rights arguments are not logically conclusive, 2) Someone may develop reasons in the future, but for now, there is no morally compelling reason to stop eating animal meat.

Published in Philosophy Pathways – Issue 204 – 16th September 2016

An argument for the immorality of eating meat and other animal products is advanced. Unlike other arguments for ethical veganism, the present argument is not predicated on the wrongness of speciesism, nor does it depend on your believing that all animals are equal or that all animals have rights, nor is it predicated on some contentious ethical theory that you likely reject. Rather, it is predicated on your beliefs. The argument shows that even those of you who value humans over nonhumans are committed to the immorality of eating meat, given your other beliefs.

Veganism and Reducetarianism

This paper attempts to show several aspects of relations between veganism and reducetarianism. It analyses current definitions of both practices with particular emphasis on the evolution of a definition of reducetarianism – from the practice of a reduction of meat’s consumption to the practice of a reduction of consumption of animal products in general. Then, on a basis of reducetarian’s publications, the depiction of vegans and veganism is analyzed. The article ends with a presentation of arguments for maintaining a two-element classification of dietary practices with regard to animal products: reducetarianism (a reduction of animal products without an intention of their exclusion) and veganism (a reduction with an intention of such an exclusion).

Keywords: social movements, reducetarianism, the ethics of human-animal relations

Rad se bavi uticajem eksploatacije životinja na pojavu gladi u svetu i narušavanje životne  sredine. Industrijski  pristupi  proizvodnji životinjskih  proizvoda  već dug  niz  godina prevazilaze uslove "prirodnosti" korišćenja životinja u neophodne svrhe, što za posledicu ima rastući procenat izumrlih vrsta, nefertilnost useva, unutrašnje migracije - potpuno napuštanje sela i naseljavanje  gradova,  ali i razvoj korporacijske trgovine  na račun smanjenja mikro proizvodnje  što  neretko  vodi dužničkom  ropstvu. Sve navedene  posledice  industrijske eksploatacije životinja predstavljaju direktan i indirektan uzrok rastućeg broja gladnih u svetu, ne  samo  pojedinaca  već čitavih  zajednica.  Cilj  rada  je  da  prikaže  posledice masovne eksploatacije prirodnih resursa i ukaže na održivije sisteme proizvodnje hrane.

I believe Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe shows how oppressive practices are deep-rooted in the mind of the individual. Reading this novel shows how Crusoe’s morals are misaligned. In Robinson Crusoe, oppression emerges from what I define as moral ambiguity. Moral ambiguity develops when social conditioning blocks the moral compass: Situations that depend on exploitation and abuse appear normal or justifiable. He is uninformed and unaware of his moral injustices. He does not question himself. Defoe’s readers can learn from Crusoe’s poor choices and build on the altruistic traits that he lacks.

For the voiceless.

The ethical food movement signals a significant transformation of cultural consciousness in its recognition of the intimate politics of what we eat and what kind of socio-political systems we sustain. The recent resurgence of economic localization exemplifies a grass roots attempt to undermine the hegemony of transnational corporations and build ecologically and economically sustainable communities. Social justice plays a key role in the guiding philosophies of these movements, and yet, while many ecocritical discourses examine the uncomfortable relationship of anthropocentricism and sustainability, some contemporary texts of the ethical food movement evidence a reluctant embrace of omnivorous eating, while simultaneously
indicating a gendered, if ironic, machismo at odds with the principles of ethical eating. An analysis of the rhetoric of three popular nonfiction books that construct a similar narrative of the story of meat—Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Susan Bourette’s Meat, a Love Story, and Scott Gold’s The Shameless Carnivore—reveals an attempt by these authors to naturalize what is essentially an economic and lifestyle activity. Working within a vegetarian ecofeminist framework, though recognizing that multiple compelling philosophical positions exist for considering the ethics of meat eating, this paper intends to argue, not that “ethical” and “omnivorous” are contradictory terms, but rather that a moral ambivalence prevails in these texts despite these authors’ claims to the contrary. In elucidating these authors’ reactions to their own
participation in “the omnivore’s dilemma” this paper pinpoints those areas where a resistance to a deeper examination of human-nonhuman relations is in operation.

The present Master’s dissertation offers a bibliographic review of two of the most relevant contemporary theoretical positions on anthropocentrism and animal studies. It lays out an analysis of the criticism of anthropocentrism by two representative philosophers of the field: Óscar Horta, who approaches the subject from the perspective of analytic philosophy, and Leonardo Caffo, who studies it from the point of view of continental philosophy. The comparative study of their theories is followed by the proposal for a combined analytic-continental strategy intended to enable a new way of thinking the rejection of anthropocentrism and the criticism of theories that justify and perpetuate the discrimination and exploitation of non-human animals.

The act of animal killing affects the human psyche in manners that are culturally contingent. Throughout history, societal attitudes towards the taking of animal lives have mostly been based on deference and/or dominion. Postdomestic societies have evolved in fundamentally different ways. Meat production is abundant yet concealed, animals are categorized and stereotyped, and slaughter has become a highly disquieting activity. Increased awareness of postdomestic meat production systems raises a moral polemic and provokes disgust in some consumer segments. Overall, a heterogeneous set of solutions has emerged to deal with the societal upset and cognitive dissonance caused by animal slaughter. This includes the so-called carnism approach, a rise in animal welfare programs, a market demand for reassuring narratives (“story meat”), a rehabilitation of the metier of farmers and butchers, crowd butchering, neo-ritualism and home slaughter, the biotechnological exploration of “cultured meat” and “pain-free meat”, entomophagy, “meatless meat”, and the increasing proliferation of vegan and vegetarian lifestyles.

~This paper is a chapter in the book 'Animals in Human Society: Amazing Creatures who Share our Planet' edited by Daniel Moorehead~

- - -

Within ‘animal ethics’, and indeed with most debates concerning nonhumans, speciesism is often cited as the prejudice which most human-people (often unknowingly) hold and which ultimately lies as the underlying justification for (i) all of the arguments in support of factory farming, experimentation, hunting, and so on, and (ii) the lesser status and consideration that is given to nonhuman animals in ethical, political, legal, and social deliberations.
Despite this, scholars have increasingly argued that ‘human chauvinism’, not speciesism in general, is a more accurate description of this prejudice, as speciesism can apply to any arbitrary species-preference whereas human chauvinism applies specifically to arbitrary preferences in favour of humans. Whichever term one uses, the aim of identifying whether a position rests solely on speciesism or human chauvinism is to see whether the argument put forward has a justifiable basis or is founded merely on a prejudice. The intention of this is usually an aim to demonstrate that the underlying problem that gives rise to the issues in ‘animal ethics’ is speciesism or human chauvinism, and thus that it is either of these that we must understand and eradicate before approaching the issues.
In this paper I argue that while this attempt to resolve the issues has generally been a correct philosophical strategy, and largely convincing, it is anthropocentrism that is not only a greater problem for nonhuman animals but that is also the ultimate cause of most of the issues arising in ‘animal ethics’.
I begin by considering what anthropocentrism is and how it is distinct from, yet related to, speciesism and human chauvinism. I argue that anthropocentrism is similar to androcentrism, in that it can include a chauvinism but can also involve unintentional world-views and systems of belief that goes beyond this. These additional elements, I argue, bias investigation and any positions put forward in the debates, while also creating new – and often unnoticed – difficulties for nonhumans. I explain why anthropocentrism as thus-defined is problematic for nonhuman animals, emphasizing the additional ways in which anthropocentrism raises difficulties for them, before explaining how anthropocentrism is related to (and likely causes) most of the issues relating to nonhumans; such as questions relating to culture, afterlife, property, intervention, hunting, entertainment, experimentation, consumption, activism, and so on.
I finally point out how anthropocentrism is even involved within ‘animal ethics’, including those positions that reject speciesism and human chauvinism, and thus conclude that even while attempting to aid nonhumans these positions do not, and perhaps cannot, do as much as they could due to their implicit anthropocentrism. I then attempt to show how this situation may be resolved by recognizing, and removing (or at least limiting) as much anthropocentrism as possible when approaching the issues. I argue that this can be achieved by (truly) considering humans just as another animal that is no more special than any other, and attempting to consider all nonhuman points of view as of equal relevance in any issue. This, I claim, would have a profound effect not only for nonhumans and for the proposed resolutions made for each issue, but also for ‘animal ethics’, and more importantly for humanity and human society at large.

Humans are naturally vegetarian and we ignore, at our peril, our vegetarian primate ancestry. We live in a time where consumers are constantly bombarded with dietary advice on how to improve their health and avoid chronic diseases and cancer. Some of this advice is measured and evidence-based, but much is ill-conceived and sensational, often promoting the latest trendy diet, leaving the poor consumer bemused and confused about what to eat to stay healthy. Diet interventions have suggested an association between plant-based diets and improvements in psychological well-being, quality of life and glycated haemoglobin control in populations with diabetes. A plant based diet is a diet consisting mostly or entirely of foods derived from plants, including vegetables, grains, nuts, seeds, legumes and fruits, with few or no animal products. A healthy plant-based meal should consist of proper proportions of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, healthy protein and healthy oils. The aim of this paper is to find out and analyze the present and future trends upcoming as well as prevailing in the market. The data has been collected using a structured questionnaire through convenience sampling method. The data collected has been analysed using IBM Statistics SPSS version 25.0 and graphs have been made using MS-Excel 2010. The study has suggested that Veganism is the upcoming trend in the market and has potential to attract people towards it as after facing the heat of non-vegetarianism; people are returning back to the basics/roots.

This thesis addresses Punk, a youth subculture based on music, and analyzes its emergence and development in Portugal. Through previous international context, the paper aims to highlight, by analyzing the impact of Punk and its various substyles had in our country, that the dynamics of globalization, although predominantly economic and financial, are also of cultural and artistic.

The dissertation analyzes the main factors of this urban tribe and the contributions given by it to the Portuguese culture, ending with the case study of the earliest punk band
currently in activity, Mata-Ratos.

O veganismo é um tema novo e crescente na comunidade acadêmica e sua introdução na Psicologia de forma geral é ainda discreta. Neste trabalho o tema é articulado à conceitos da Psicologia Junguiana e também aborda questões corporais dos humanos e não-humanos. O trabalho consiste em explorar os conceitos de Símbolo, Arquétipo e dos estágios de desenvolvimento da consciência segundo a Psicologia Simbólica Junguiana aos conceitos de outras disciplinas pertinentes como a Filosofia, Neurociências e Direito. Neste trabalho são introduzidos os conceitos de Especismo, Esquizofrenia Moral e Senciência.

Excerpt: Chapter 1. 

The Vegan Studies Project
Food, Animals, and Gender in the Age of Terror
Laura Wright
Foreword by Carol J. Adams

The foundational text for the nascent field of vegan studies

Reviews

“Combining personal narratives and gender studies with ecofeminism and pop culture, The Vegan Studies Project offers a brilliant analysis of the impact of vegans and veganism on America’s cultural landscape. Laura Wright’s argument for a new field of vegan studies rings true, and this book will be the foundational text.”
—Hal Herzog, author of Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s So Hard to Think Straight about Animals
“Studies like Wright’s—more than anything else—show how the vegan and vegetarian label and identity are a millstone and a barrier that hinders wider society’s willingness to engage seriously with the rights and wrongs of producing, killing, and eating so many animals. If our strategy is to lessen the harm wreaked on the animals with which humans share this planet, perhaps the strongest lesson we can draw from this work is to step aside from the vegan and vegetarian identity.”
—Tristram Stuart, author of The Bloodless Revolution: A Cultural History of Vegetarianism from 1600 to Modern Times


Description

This inescapably controversial study envisions, defines, and theorizes an area that Laura Wright calls vegan studies. We have an abundance of texts on vegans and veganism including works of advocacy, literary and popular fiction, film and television, and cookbooks, yet until now, there has been no study that examines the social and cultural discourses shaping our perceptions of veganism as an identity category and social practice.

Ranging widely across contemporary American society and culture, Wright unpacks the loaded category of vegan identity. She examines the mainstream discourse surrounding and connecting animal rights to (or omitting animal rights from) veganism. Her specific focus is on the construction and depiction of the vegan body—both male and female—as a contested site manifest in contemporary works of literature, popular cultural representations, advertising, and new media. At the same time, Wright looks at critical animal studies, human-animal studies, posthumanism, and ecofeminism as theoretical frameworks that inform vegan studies (even as they differ from it).

The vegan body, says Wright, threatens the status quo in terms of what we eat, wear, and purchase—and also in how vegans choose not to participate in many aspects of the mechanisms undergirding mainstream culture. These threats are acutely felt in light of post-9/11 anxieties over American strength and virility. A discourse has emerged that seeks, among other things, to bully veganism out of existence as it is poised to alter the dominant cultural mindset or, conversely, to constitute the vegan body as an idealized paragon of health, beauty, and strength. What better serves veganism is exemplified by Wright’s study: openness, debate, inquiry, and analysis.

The present article is devoted to two interrelated research areas-ecoliterature and Human-Animal Studies. The author focuses on terminological problems, terminological uncertainty, and instability. On the basis of the established primary meanings of the considered terms, a new classification of genres of ecoliterature is proposed by the Author, it systematizes such concepts as ecological literature, environmental literature, and nature writing, and others. Particular attention is paid to the Human-Animal Studies-the latest research direction in the field of culture, literature, and other humanities-that is examining the relationship between humans and animals. As animals are an integral part of the nature surrounding human beings, they are an indispensable element in most of the literary works devoted to the issues of nature, ecology and the environment. Animals are a part of human culture and accordingly the representation of them in the literature is of no less importance. The article reveals both the close methodological relationship and the scientific specifics of ecoliterature and Human-Animal Studies.

Devletin en çok tepki gösterdiğimiz politika yapma biçimlerinden biri de, yasalarıyla bedenimize müdahalede bulunması olsa gerek. Kürtaja kısıtlamalar getirerek doğurup doğurmayacağımıza karışması, “en az üç çocuk” gibi yönlendirmelerle yatak odamıza kadar girmesi, alkol ve sigara düzenlemeleriyle sağlığımızı ve damak zevkimizi disipline sokmaya çalışması, kitapları ve internet sitelerini yasaklayarak zihnimizi terbiye etmeye teşebbüs etmesi, ötenaziyi yasaklayıp intiharı psikolojik tedaviye muhtaç bir hastalık gibi göstererek dilediğimiz zaman ölmemize izin vermemesi fakat askerliği zorunlu kılarak dilediği zaman ölmemizi buyurması ve bunun gibi birçok müdahale, hayatlarımızı kafeslerde geçirdiğimizin açık bir beyanı, hatta ilanı gibi tınlıyor. Düzenlenen eylemlerde “Benim bedenim benim kararım!”, “Devlet elini bedenimden çek!” yazılı dövizlerle, seçim sandıklarında, sosyal medyada, yayınlarımızda, yazılarımızda bu ilanı tartışıyor, eleştiriyoruz. Peki kendi yaşam biçimimiz de başkalarını kafeslere mahkûm ediyor olabilir mi? Bu mahkûmiyetlerdeki rolümüz acaba kendi kafeslerimizi de sağlamlaştırıyor mu?

Il Terzo Millennio ha visto avanzare uno scontro culturale e filosofico di cui però ancora poco si occupa la filosofia, così come poco se ne occupa la teologia: quello tra antropocentrismo e antispecismo. Un'antinomia costituita da aspetti molteplici, da quello etico e bioetico a quello religioso, da quello morale a quello socioculturale, economico, ecologico. Una discussione che, pur non essendo allo stato attuale troppo rilevante nel dibattito filosofico, dovrebbe invece essere tenuta in maggiore considerazione per le tante ricadute che può avere.

Marti Kheel (August 25, 1948 – November 19, 2011) was a vegan ecofeminist activist scholar credited with founding Feminists for Animal Rights (FAR) in California in 1982. She authored several books in deep ecology and ecofeminism, including Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective, and several widely cited articles in college courses and related scholarship, such as "The Liberation of Nature: A Circular Affair", "From Heroic to Holistic Ethics: The Ecofeminist Challenge", and "From Healing Herbs to Deadly Drugs: Western Medicine's War Against the Natural World". She was a long-time vegan in diet, lifestyle, and philosophical commitments, working out her understanding of its implications in every area of our human relationships with nature and its constituents, and she found a wide audience for those deep reflections. Reportedly, she had pursued a raw vegan diet later in her life. Her pioneering scholarship in ecofeminist ethics is foundational for continuing work in these fields.

What is it like to rehabilitate sun bears in the rainforests of Malaysia? Why were sloth bears trained to dance? What does Chinese medicine have to do with black bears in North America?

Skilled grassroots activists, dedicated sanctuary attendants, determined scholars--those working to protect the world's eight bear species from Viet Nam to Vermont--come together in Bear Necessities to explore pressures that threaten the world's remaining bears, and to offer a tapestry of possibilities for protecting and preserving these endangered yet much-loved beings. This diverse collection of approachable, engaging essays is an important new addition to literature for those interested in learning more wilderness and wildlife around the world, especially bears.

La idea de que el ser humano es la única especie capaz de cooperar con Dios en el proceso de liberación y redención nos conduce, evidentemente, a una reflexión sobre la propia teología de la liberación. Ésta, como pretendo demostrarlo, no cumple su promesa en lo que concierne a la opresión de los animales. Los teólogos de la liberación no han podido liberar a la teología del antropocentrismo moral. Todo lo contrario. La limitación que encuentro en estos teólogos hunde sus raíces en una cristología deficiente. En este artículo me propongo demostrar, a través de cinco conexiones cristológicas fundamentales, cómo sería posible construir una teología de la liberación que permita hacer –e inspirar– justicia ante el sufrimiento de la creación no
humana.

Mon point de départ dans cdet article est constituépar les quatre affirmations-clefs de Laudato Si: l'amour créateur et san  défaut de Dieu est un don de celui-ci à toutes les créatures ; tous les animaux non-humains ont une bonté intrinsèque en tant que créatures de Dieu ; toute espèce animale est digne de considération pour elle-même ; et cet amour humain pour les animaux  qui ne le sont pas, doit refléter l'amour divin.  A la lumière de ces principes, cet arti­cle met l'accent sur la signification de l'amour humain pour des animaux non-humains.

The essay that follows combines several genres along an unconventional path. It departs from the psycho-semiotic analysis of a personal turning point: the author’s ‘conversion’ to veganism. After exposing the rationale for this change in semiotic terms, however, the essay extends its theorization to the social level, inquiring about the intersection between vegan conviction and commensality. In a world where different food ideologies co-occur, converge, conflict, and sometimes clash, what is the role of the law in establishing value priorities and strike a balance among different sociocultural and political trends? The essay concludes with a synthetic definition, in semiotic terms, of the perspective on food, meaning, and law promoted by the author: a vegan liberalism that is tolerant of food pluralism but simultaneously militates for the evolution of culture and society toward the accomplishment of a utopia, that of a world immune from the exploitation of animal suffering.