The Second Cold War: Veganism at the Frontlines of Identity Politics

When the age old discussion of veganism was brought up in a class discussion the other day, I rolled my eyes. As a long time vegetarian, I’ve often been bombarded with accusations of shame, or pushing my beliefs. It felt as though my lack of meat eating aligned me with every vegetarian before me, and all the implied values of a plant-based diet. While I often shrug aside the comments, the consistency and familiarity in narratives of the discussion sparked some further contemplation.

At a more critical look, each side of the argument seems somewhat orchestrated; something truly not that deep that’s built up such strong opposing sides. While there’s the obvious environmental pros of a sustainably sourced diet, the personal choice as to what you eat doesn't seem to merit the breath of its discourse. 

In our discussion, however, the opposing sides seemed to be pretty clearly backed by a political party. The vegans; concerned for the future, aware of their obligation to help the environment, and financially able to take action on their word. Generally, they’re conscious, elitist, and antagonized. 

Meat eaters, however, follow the traditional American values. They’re unapologetic, authentic, and free from a voice over their shoulder restricting their choice. Because of this, maybe their personal health or environmental impact isn’t as ideal, but that doesn't matter, as they’re more focused on the individual. 

Not only do the specific sides follow the Democratic-Republican outline, but their narratives, persuasions, and rhetoric follow as well. Recognizing how politically infused the conversation surrounding this seemingly minute issue has given a powerful lens to view many prominent arguments through. 

This notion has steered my thoughts into the direction of viewing identity politics as a battle ground. In the cold war between Republicans and Democrats, identity politics such as veganism is used as a proxy war to carry out the battle, serving a greater purpose than what meets the eye or is told to the audience. A medium to fight with extremely politically charged backings on each side, this underlying concept exists in many discourse communities.

With this in mind, it’s important to realize how the polarization of politics has not only pushed both sides to the most extreme sides of the spectrum, but also pushed both sides into each crevice and aspects of our lives and identities. Looking at issues through a critical political lens, smaller arguments and rhetorical spaces beg the question: are there any topics left that aren’t pushing an agenda?