**4. Conclusions**

*Technology, Science and Culture - A Global Vision*

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,

**3. Results**

**102**

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 serious social transformation, always in process.
