In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

186 14 The Everyday Resistance of Vegetarianism Samantha Kwan and Louise Marie Roth Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are. Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin Are we really what we eat? What is the relationship between the things we consume and the politics we practice? For example, while vegetarianism may be connected to obvious ethical considerations such as animal cruelty, what is its relationship to seemingly unrelated systems of power such as gender conformity and consumerism? Addressing this question raises new ideas about how individuals embody ideologies and how the body can be a site of everyday resistance. Symbolic Boundaries, the Profane, and Embodied Protest In voluntarist market societies, individuals use symbolic boundaries to present themselves and judge the trustworthiness and character of others (Swidler 2001). Consumption , whether of food, music, or clothing, demarcates symbolic boundaries and consequently plays a central role in creating distinctions between groups (Bourdieu 1984; Bryson 1996; Griswold 2004; Lamont 1992; Lamont and Fournier 1992). For example, individuals use food consumption to draw moral and social boundaries, as observed in the rejection of eating as a sensual pleasure, the vilification of body fat as signifying a lack of control, and the exaltation of food denial as a virtue (Bordo 1993; Guthman 2003). Some identities, such as vegetarian, virgin, and atheist, are based on what a person does not do rather than what he or she does. These identities express a moral stance and embody a symbolic boundary by opposing a conventional practice. They are also unconventional identities, so that “not doing” certain socially significant actions can be used to create an unconventional self (Mullaney 2001). Because the consumption of meat is customary, except in relatively small spiritual communities, its rejection in favor of a vegetarian diet is socially significant (Beardsworth and Keil 1992). Secular vegetarians are usually “converts” from a previous meat-eating status, and so their vegetarian identity typically results from conscious reflection about and rejection of customary dietary habits (Beardsworth and Keil 1992). The Everyday Resistance of Vegetarianism 187 Because of the source of their vegetarian identity, vegetarians may reflect on and question what many individuals take for granted. Within this worldview, meat consumption may take on important symbolic meanings because, through a process of “incorporation,” food has both physiological and symbolic effects; that is, individuals absorb nutrients, vitamins, and minerals into their bloodstreams, but they also assimilate the food’s symbolic properties (Fischler 1988). Thus, a vegetarian lifestyle may be part of an ongoing protest against meat’s symbolic properties. In this way, it is a “negative cult” based on rites of abstinence (Durkheim [1912] 1995). Negative cults establish moral boundaries by defining certain acts as sacred or profane. Accordingly , ethical vegetarians often think that meat “contaminates” vegetarian food (Rozin, Markwith, and Stoess 1997). Here, meat represents the symbolically impure, dangerous , or profane (Douglas 1966; Durkheim [1912] 1995), the abuse of animals and the environment, and hierarchy in human civilizations (Eder 1996; Twigg 1983). Building on these theoretical insights, this chapter focuses on secular vegetarians. We argue that this population sets a symbolic cultural boundary that distinguishes them from mainstream society and, in doing so, embody a form of everyday resistance to mainstream Western cultural hegemony—the systemic power that is embedded in culture and institutions and is produced and reproduced in everyday interactions (Ewick and Silbey 2003; Foucault 1978; Gramsci 1971). Resistance to hegemony occurs when subordinated individuals make conscious efforts to challenge power relations that are taken as established facts. Relatively powerless individuals use everyday acts of resistance to protect their interests and identities within power structures that subordinate them (Ewick and Silbey 2003; Scott 1990). For example, counterhegemonic discourses or “hidden transcripts” are the language that oppressed people use behind the scenes to resist domination and to subvert the legitimacy of the status quo (Scott 1990). Similarly, protest groups use “repertoires of contention,” sets of tactics and strategies that they develop to produce strategic acts of resistance (Taylor and Van Dyke 2004; Tilly 1995). While scholars have analyzed small acts of resistance using language, narratives, “repertoires of contention,” or “counter-hegemonic discourse” (Ewick and Silbey 2003; Scott 1990; Tilly 1995), the ways that subordinated groups resist hegemony through bodily practices have yet to be fully explored. Resistance can be literally embodied through practices that establish symbolic boundaries between the bodies of those who hold social power and those who resist or negate it (Eder 1996). Food consumption can serve this exact purpose. We argue that...

Share