**2. Methodology**

The community of vegans constitutes a multitude of bodies whose diversity and mobility make it difficult to locate their contours and borders. Veganism is a conglomerate of worlds, with different economic, social, and territorial contexts. To approach it, I carried out a three-year multi-situated ethnography of the community of vegans who live in the metropolitan area of Puebla, including the analysis of their social networks. I selected the Facebook group "Vegans and Vegetarians of Puebla," a virtual community representative of local veganism where most of its members live in the cities of Puebla, Cholula, and Atlixco. The case of Puebla is relevant for the following reasons: (1) it is an average city in Mexico that, not being the capital of the country, serves to exemplify the case of many other Latin American cities with similar situations. (2) Rapid urban and economic development has led Puebla to become an aspiring global city. (3) The rich cultural life of Puebla has favored the proliferation of groups with global tendencies with different philosophies and projects like the vegan movement.

I conceive the corpus of study based on a rhizomatic model or multiple networks, inspired by Deleuze and Guattari. The center or starting point is the multisituated critical ethnography of the Facebook group to follow from there its ramifications that arise both virtually (online) and face-to-face (offline). Research has been structured and reoriented by the various paths that the movement undertakes, recording its evolution and manifestations, the spaces it appropriates, the practices it inaugurates, and the connections it establishes. My ethnography pursues a logic of encounters and affects which become evident in "critical events," like fairs or *tianguis* days in which the vegans congregate, as well as their interactions on the Internet.

**100**

**Chapter**

**Abstract**

**1. Introduction**

*Victor Fonseca López*

Revolutionary Veganism

doxically enough, constitute a truly revolutionary quality.

**Keywords:** veganism, posthegemony, critical ethnography, Puebla

This dissertation analyzes the development of the vegan movement in Puebla and its potential to trigger political and social changes in the context of contemporary neoliberal capitalism. Through critic ethnography research, the study puts into question the emergence of a so-called Vegan Revolution examining the formation of a globalized social movement and community networks with specific habits and values, the different perceptions about veganism, and affective bodily interactions among its members. From dialog with posthegemony theory (Beasley-Murray), it propels the notion of a bio- and micropolitical transformation (Deleuze and Guattari) instead of a more traditional revolution concept to account the processes in which a multitude of bodies—beyond diverse ideologies—meet, share, and affect each other in daily life, which shapes alternative models of society and forms of community to the cultural and political programs of neoliberalism, which, para-

Coinciding with the arrival of the twenty-first century, the entry of veganism into cultural mainstream has been announced—mainly on the Internet—with a "Revolution" label. For some critics, veganism tries to settle some debts regarding the exploitation of animals that remained pending in the agenda of the countercultural movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Just as the *hippies* and the *beatniks* rose against the Vietnam War and social inequalities, modern *hipsters* and vegans demand for a change denouncing ecological deterioration and mistreatment of animals. Headlines such as "The 'boom' of veganism and vegetarian diet reveal the new ecological awareness of the world" associate vegan practices with a transformation of consciousness that is expressed more in a lifestyle than with traditional revolutionary actions. Even so, the "revolution" tag remains (it is sticky). Social and political revolution traditionally refers to the exertion of violence which aims to overthrow—or at least radically change—a certain order or system of oppression. Historically, since the eighteenth century, the term has been linked to nationalist processes, where peoples or nations rise up in arms to defeat a government whose dictatorship or tyranny is necessary to dismiss. In his Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that the class struggle "each time ended either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes" [1]. But in the twenty-first century, political and social conditions have reduced the ideological conflict to its minimum expression. However, the decay of ideology does not mean that it has completely disappeared, nor does the restlessness or longing for revolution. Instead, a shift is taking place from ideological discourse to pulsing affects which posthegemony theory tries to acknowledge.

## **3. Results**

I propose that vegan activists are fed by a belief system that embraces the ideals of the revolution, but this revolution is simply the counterpart of the modern project of civilization. For this reason, from a posthegemonic perspective, it cannot be conceived as an authentic revolution: it does not break with the same social and epistemic categories of modernity. On the other side, merchants, who are not interested in a traditional, leftist revolution, are those who, through their habits and affections, carry out more effective or "revolutionary" transformation processes.

To qualify as a revolution in the traditional Marxist sense, the vegan movement would have to have a greater hierarchical organization (with leaders and militants), a more formal and constant type of membership, a political agenda with defined goals, and a more complex communication system. But perhaps most importantly, it would require objectives and actions aimed at mobilizing a social uprising—ready to assume the use of violence—against an imperial or state regime. The relatively small number of members of the vegan movement, their nonviolent strategies, and their nongovernmental political positioning distance them from the singularities of the revolution. The anti-speciesism vegan movements want a radical change mainly in ethical and consumer habits, and they do not seek to overthrow an economic or political system.

In this way, the vegan revolution may not qualify as a revolution for two main reasons: (1) the changes it intends to establish are situated in the same linear historicism. Vegan ideology considers the movement to be an engine of progress in a linear vision of history. For some activists, the "Vegan revolution" makes sense as a project of evolution and civilization that follows the colonialist logic. For others, it is the continuation of the utopian struggle of the 1960s counterculture that still believes in the overthrow of capitalism. But the shift to a vegan diet does not alter the economic system, only exchanges one element of the equation for another, leaving the capitalist mode of production untouched, and (2) they do not abandon the paradigm of modernity. Following Deleuze, "modern societies have replaced inoperative codes by a univocal overcodification, and lost territorialities by a specific territorialization" [4]. Hence, the implantation of veganism resorts to overcoding and segmentation by means of binary separation (vegans-non-vegans). The binary conflict is part of the modern paradigm, in which one party tries to defeat the other, in order to impose itself on the top of civilization. Since its inception, veganism has placed its participants in a tension with its otherness. For instance, pro-animal organizations act by defining binary subjectivities, "we" and "they," or "defenders," those who support charity and protection of animal rights, and "enemies," supermarket chains and distributors of meat products and its final consumers, carnivores themselves.

In its posthegemonic version, veganism calls into question the universal, anthropocentric humanism, rational capacity, the Truth, the History or other great narratives. It does not believe in pre-constituted objects or subjects, pre-existing unitary actors or final purposes, only "contingent foundations." There is no certainty of being. Instead of thinking rationally, in binary form (opposites "nature-culture"), it becomes "relational," looking for connections. In fact, posthegemonic veganism is not interested in the concept of revolution (unless it functions as a commercial slogan). The multitude of vegans does not have a defined project of society. For the multitude, a revolution would be understood as alternating flows that combine to form currents of invention. The actual transformation carried out by affective and habitual means is not called revolution. Revolution implies an ideological tradition, while veganism does not fit in the parameters of the communism or other theoretical constructions. It is not a class struggle, and it is the biopolitical change of the multitude toward other ways of seeing the world, an altermodernity. This approach consists not in attacking the ruling powers but in reshaping production,

**103**

*Revolutionary Veganism*

kinds of animal species.

**4. Conclusions**

**Author details**

Victor Fonseca López

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83691*

distribution, and consumption processes. Ethnographic results show that vegan groups do not have a center, and they work globally, having subsidiaries or counterparts in several cities of the world—small cells that replicate global patterns with local tonalities. It is not about changing cities but networks of bodies. Veganism as immaterial work can only be conducted in common, inventing new independent networks of cooperation. That said, it is preferable to refer to veganism not as a revolution (in any case biopolitic), but as a movement toward political emancipation through collective action. It is an abolitionist, liberation movement, but what sets veganism apart is that what is at stake is life itself not only human life, but of all

The vegan collective has woven its own networks, both virtual (mainly on Facebook) and face-to-face. It is these networks that give strength and sustain the economy of veganism: its ability to appropriate spaces, its mobility and flexibility to spread, and its parameters of inclusion and exclusion, making vegan groups appear within the cartography of biopower. When Puebla vegan sellers and distributors organize *tianguis* and fairs, they are demarcating their own topologies, moving throughout territories of the city and appropriating spaces to interact affectively. The bodies attracted to vegan events revolve around environments that arouse emotions that originate resonances of different intensities. The combination of these elements produces a pattern or assembly. The broader and more solid the networks of this assembly are, the more will increase the share of power and social influence of the vegan collective. And so, the "Vegan Revolution," an ideological burden—a discursive strategy that refers to an unattainable utopia—would give way to a seri-

provided the original work is properly cited.

San Andrés Cholula, Puebla, Mexico

\*Address all correspondence to: fonsvic@yahoo.com

ous social transformation, always in process.

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

School of Arts and Humanities, Universidad de las Américas Puebla,

### *Revolutionary Veganism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83691*

distribution, and consumption processes. Ethnographic results show that vegan groups do not have a center, and they work globally, having subsidiaries or counterparts in several cities of the world—small cells that replicate global patterns with local tonalities. It is not about changing cities but networks of bodies. Veganism as immaterial work can only be conducted in common, inventing new independent networks of cooperation. That said, it is preferable to refer to veganism not as a revolution (in any case biopolitic), but as a movement toward political emancipation through collective action. It is an abolitionist, liberation movement, but what sets veganism apart is that what is at stake is life itself not only human life, but of all kinds of animal species.
