"Tis the season to be vegan": Discursive identity formations and the discursive construction of veganism in the communication event #veganuary ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
“Tis the season to be vegan”: Discursive identity formations and the discursive construction of veganism in the communication event #veganuary Author: Saralie Sernhede Advisor: Tindra Thor School of Arts & Communication K3 Malmö University Spring 2021
Abstract Offering contemporary insights into movement activities, this study explores the discursive identity formations and discursive constructions of veganism in the communication event #veganuary on Twitter. In a tentative attempt to understand #veganuary as a site of discursive and socio-cultural change, this study seeks to answer the research questions: (1) “What discursive identity formations take part in the semantic battle for the meaning of veganism in the communication event #veganuary on Twitter?”, (2) “How is veganism discursively constructed in the communication event #veganuary on Twitter?”, and (3) “How can we understand #veganuary on Twitter as a site of discursive and socio-cultural change?”. Relying on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) both as a theoretical and methodological framework, this study places itself in the field of media and communication studies in the intersection between studies on discourse, veganism, Twitter usage, and the everyday activism of Lifestyle Movements (LMs). Four main identity formations were identified and analyzed in the communication event, discursively constructing very different definitions and implications of veganism – as a diet, a challenge, a lifestyle, an identity, activism, a market opportunity, and a brand mission. Ultimately, #veganuary on Twitter can be understood as a site for discursive and socio-cultural change as a hemeratopian everyday alternative space, in which new interdiscursive mixes and discursive practices are interlaced in creative ways, inviting and involving new voices to the communication, imagination, and development of alternative ways of living. Keywords Social media, veganism, Twitter, hashtag activism, CDA, lifestyle movements
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 CONSUMER POLITICS & EVERYDAY SPACES OF ACTIVISM IN LMS .............................................. 2
2.2. VEGANISM & VEGANUARY ......................................................................................................... 4
2.3. “PROSUMPTION” CONDITIONS ON TWITTER & THE “DIGITAL FOODSCAPE” ............................. 9
3. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................ 13
3.2. STUDIES ON TWITTER & EVERYDAY ACTIVISM ......................................................................... 13
3.3. CDA IN MEDIA STUDIES ............................................................................................................ 15
3.4. STUDIES ON ACTIVISM DISCOURSES IN LMS ............................................................................. 18
4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 20
4.1. CDA & THE SOCIAL WORLD ...................................................................................................... 21
4.2. KEY CONCEPTS .......................................................................................................................... 22
4.3. SUBCULTURAL IDENTITY THEORY ............................................................................................. 23
5. RESEARCH PROBLEM & FORMULATION OF RQS ............................................................................. 24
6. METHOD .......................................................................................................................................... 25
6.1. RESEARCH PARADIGM: CDA AS A HERMENEUTIC PROCESS ...................................................... 25
6.2. CHOICE OF MATERIAL ............................................................................................................... 26
6.3. FAIRCLOUGH’S THREE-DIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................... 27
6.3.1. Text-level analysis ............................................................................................................. 29
6.3.2. Discursive practice-level analysis ...................................................................................... 34
6.3.3. Social practice-level analysis ............................................................................................. 36
6.4. LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 37
6.5. ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................ 38
7. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 39
7.1. DISCURSIVE IDENTITY FORMATIONS ................................................................................................... 40
7.1.1. Individuals “trying vegan” vs. “being vegan” ................................................................... 46
7.1.2. Marketing vegan products during Veganuary vs. Marketing a vegan mission ................ 49
7.2. THE DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF VEGANISM ................................................................................... 51
8. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 55
9. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 57
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 59
FIGURE REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 67
APPENDIX 1: ORIGINAL WORD FREQUENCY QUERY ............................................................................ 68
APPENDIX 2: DISCOURSES CODEBOOK................................................................................................. 73
APPENDIX 3: TWITTER LOCATIONS ...................................................................................................... 76
List of Figures Figure 1: The Vegetarian Spectrum (Christopher, et. al., 2018. P. 3) Figure 2: Diagram of Veganism as a Second-Order Subculture (Christopher, et. al., 2018. P. 5). Figure 3: Number of unique tweeters per week (Saralie, 2021) Figure 4: Fairclough’s three-dimensional model for CDA (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002. P. 61) Figure 5: Text level analysis workflow map (Saralie, 2021) Figure 6: Keyword list (Saralie, 2021) Figure 7: Circular process of coding (DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall & McCulloch, 2011. P. 139) Figure 8: Discursive relations of #veganuary (See Codebook in Appendix 3) Figure 9: Example Tweets of micro-blogging, discursive acknowledgement of imagined communities, and reliance on network of both lifestyle vegans and episodic vegans (Saralie, 2021) Figure 10: Example Tweets with discourse of “fulltime vegan” identity (Saralie, 2021) Figure 11: Example Tweets with discourse of “episodic vegan” identity (Saralie, 2021) Figure 12: Example marketing Tweets (Saralie, 2021)
1. INTRODUCTION
Veganism is a contemporary lifestyle movement (LM) promoting a “philosophy and way of
living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation
of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose” (The Vegan Society,
2021). A few years ago, The Economist named 2019 “the Year of the Vegan,” prompting that
veganism will become a “mainstream” phenomenon in 2019 (Parker, 2018, para. 1). Indeed,
mainstream media reports suggest that cutting down on animal products is a trend on the rise,
resulting in increased attention to selective meat-eating in other domains, such as commercial
production and advertising of alternatives to animal products (Duckett et. al., 2020) and in
academic journals (Derbyshire, 2017).
This study focuses on one such trend: Veganuary. Started by the non-profit Lifestyle
Movement Organization (LMO) named Veganuary, Veganuary is a yearly campaign
promoting and educating on veganism by challenging organizations and individuals alike to
go vegan for the month of January. In 2021, Veganuary saw a record number of sign-ups for
the challenge worldwide, with 580 000 individuals pledging to stay vegan for a month in 209
countries and regions (Veganuary, 2021). As the vegan movement expands, there is internal
debate on what direction the movement should be going and what means should be used to
get there (Frost, 2016; MacInnis & Hodson, 2017; Leenaert, 2017; Christopher, et. al., 2018),
raising questions about what the vegan identity should entail and who can be considered part
of the vegan lifestyle movement at large.
As an exploration of discursive identity formations of a LM seeking to stop the exploitation
of animals, this thesis relies on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) both as a theoretical and
methodological framework - placing itself in the field of media studies in the intersection
between studies on discourse, veganism, Twitter usage, and the everyday politics of LMs.
Offering contemporary insights into movement activities, this study seeks to explore the
discursive identity formations and discursive constructions of veganism in the online space.
In a tentative attempt to understand #veganuary as a site of discursive and socio-cultural
change, this study seeks to answer the research questions:
RQ1: What discursive identity formations take part in the semantic battle for the meaning of
veganism in the communication event #veganuary?
1
RQ2: How is veganism discursively constructed in the communication event #veganuary on
Twitter?
RQ3: How can we understand #veganuary on Twitter as a site of discursive and sociocultural
change?
2. CONTEXT
In the following section, the research problem will be contextualized in relation to historical
processes of social movements and consumer politics, public debates on veganism and
Veganuary, and contemporary social as well as technical conditions of the media landscape.
2.1 CONSUMER POLITICS & EVERYDAY SPACES OF ACTIVISM IN LMS
Since the 1960s, scholars have placed increasing focus on what they call “alternative
movements”, “expressive movements”, and “new social movements (Aberle, 1966; Blumer,
1969; Buechler 1995). Attention has been increasingly given to “less law-breaking and more
norm-breaking” (Katzenstein, 1998. P. 8) social movements, with the suggestion that
everyday resistance performed by individuals can form collective action.
Contemporary studies on consumer culture demonstrate that agendas for social change are
embedded in the everyday consumption choices of individuals (Dobernig & Stagl, 2015),
highlighting the messy boundaries between collective and individual action in the pursuit of
social change (Fernandes-Jesus, Lima & Sabucedo, 2018). Shifts in western society have
given way for what scholars have come to conceptualize as lifestyle politics (PortwoodStacer,
2013) - the politics of self-actualization prompting the question of how to live a moral life
(Giddens 1991), increasingly leading people to make lifestyle and consumer choices based on
criteria for ethics, fairness, and justice (Stolle, Hooghe, & Micheletti, 2005) as means for
political expression (Portwood-Stacer, 2013).
Proposing the concept of Lifestyle Movements (LMs), Haenfler, Johnson, and Jones (2012)
suggest that “the conceptual wall between lifestyles and social movements has created a
theoretical blind spot at the intersection of private action and movement participation,
personal and social change, and personal and collective identity” (p. 1).
2
Occupying a space in which new social movements, lifestyle trends, subcultures, and political
consumerism overlap, LMs can be defined as “loosely bound collectivities in which
participants advocate lifestyle change as a primary means to social change, politicizing daily
life while pursuing morally coherent ‘authentic’ identities” (Haenfler, Johnson, & Jones,
2012. p. 14). Ultimately, whereas new social movements seek to “change the world”, LMs
seek to “be the change” (Büchs, et. al., 2015). The term LM has since its emergence been
useful in research on movements concerning veganism, vegetarianism, and animal rights, as
well as the straight edge movement, voluntary simplicity movement, and feminist movements
(Haenfler, Johnson, and Jones, 2012; Büchs, et. al., 2015; Chatterton & Pickerill, 2010; Fuist,
Mogford, & Das, 2018; Véron Ophélie, 2016).
In contrast to traditional social movements, which tend to engage in organized, episodic, and
collective action, LMs are oriented around everyday, ongoing, and individual action, adopting
a more holistic approach to activism by encouraging the integration of movement values with
participant lifestyle (Haenfler, Johnson, & Jones, 2012).
Véron’s (2019) article “(Extra)ordinary activism: veganism and the shaping of
hemeratopias” advances the argument that seemingly banal practices are central to strategies
for social change, by suggesting that everyday life is essential in producing activist spaces.
Véron (2019) proposes that these spaces where everyday activism of LMs takes place can be
conceptualized as “hemeratopias”. The more frequently acknowledged and studied spaces of
activism, Véron (2019) argues, are “heterotopias” – from the Ancient Greek, heteros, “other”
and topos, “space” (Foucault, 1971). These “spaces of otherness”, such as autonomous
community spaces or public mobilizations, consist of activists and outgroups with the
function of challenging dominant powers or values. In contrast, hemeratopias are “everyday
alternative spaces” where activism can be integrated into our daily lives. These can be offline
spaces - our homes, cafes, or neighborhoods – as well as online spaces - such as Twitter or
Facebook. When activists work to create hemeratopian spaces “they transcend the limits of
their individual, local actions, engender wider processes of change in the present and
construct alternative social relations that are implementable by others in other localities”
(Véron, 2019. p. 769). These shared everyday spaces invite and involve new voices to the
communication, imagination, and development of new ways of living – both challenging and
escaping dominant powers and values.
3The promotion of lifestyle changes as a means for social change has met critique (Véron,
2019), arguing that changing oneself does not directly mean that one is succeeding in
changing the world. An example related to this study, animal rights activists do not see
adopting a vegan lifestyle as enough to meet the goals of the movement as this may
overshadow political demands and weaken the more radical incentives of vegan politics
(Véron, 2019). However, while LMs have distinct features, it should be understood that these
do not operate in isolation. Structures of LMs may form through informal social networks,
cultural entrepreneurs, and via connections to more formal organizations, including
nonprofits, Lifestyle Movement Organizations (LMOs) (such as Veganuary), and social
movement organizations (such as traditional animal rights or environmental organizations)
(Cherry, 2006). In other words, the divide between a participant of a LM and an activist
engaged in more traditional forms of activism is not absolute. On the contrary, LM
participants may occasionally or temporarily partake in more traditional forms of activism
and vice versa. Similarly, LMs may serve as a place of rest from activism in times of
unfavorable political opportunity (Haenfler, Johnson, & Jones, 2012).
In the following section, veganism and Veganuary will be presented as these relate to both
LMs and as part in a second-order sub-culture.
2.2. VEGANISM & VEGANUARY
Coined by Donald Watson, one of the founders of The Vegan Society, veganism first
emerged in 1944. Since then, the vegan movement has grown exponentially both in terms of
awareness and size (The Vegan Society, 2021), particularly in recent years (Veganuary,
2021). Veganism is a typical example of a LM, that primarily focuses on daily practices and
lifestyle.
4Drawing on subcultural identity theory, which examines how subcultures employ techniques
to distinguish themselves through the establishment of boundaries, veganism can additionally
be understood as a second-order subculture of vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is an alternative
lifestyle that challenges the status quo and mainstream assumptions about food, morality, and
health (Christopher, et. al., 2018). Consequently, vegan identity creation revolves not only
around distinguishing itself from the mainstream culture but further defines itself in relation
to vegetarianism (Christopher, et. al., 2018).
Research on adoption, maintenance, and practices of the vegan identity shows that veganism
is more than a consumption choice to not eat animal products (Véron, 2016; Christopher, et.
al., 2018). Everyday practices of veganism can include promoting veganism through apparel
with vegan messaging (Véron, 2016), visiting vegan restaurants and stores (Fuist, Mogford,
& Das, 2018), and actively meeting with like-minded individuals to discuss vegan-related
topics. Furthermore, a major element of the vegan identity is the process of attempting to
convert others to the lifestyle (Christopher, et. al., 2018), often in everyday conversations
(Véron, 2016).
As a LM, the vegan movement is structured around a diffuse network (Haenfler, Johnson, and
Jones, 2012), implying that there are most likely a lot more participants in the vegan
movement than percentages of affiliated participants suggest (Cherry, 2006). While LMs are
more loosely defined and might not have collectively distinct adversaries and goals, recent
research has been dedicated to understanding why individuals chose to adopt a vegan lifestyle
(Cherry, 2006). Apart from religious beliefs, three of the most cited reasons for excluding
animal products from one’s diet are personal health, animal welfare, and environmental
sustainability - both within the vegan identity at large and in the Veganuary campaign
(Duckett et. al., 2020; Veganuary, 2021; Christopher, et. al., 2018). In other words, a broader
understanding of why individuals chose a vegan or vegetarian diet revolves around two
central themes: health and ethics (Christopher, et. al., 2018). Additionally, the choice to
adopting a vegan identity is influenced by a variety of external factors, such as one’s social
network (Cherry, 2006), gender and political standing (Beardsworth & Bryman, 1999; Ruby,
2012), and other cultural factors (Potts & Perry, 2010).
While The Vegan Society claims that “there are many ways to be vegan”, they also state that
what all vegans have in common is a plant-based diet avoiding all animal foods (The Vegan
5Society, 2021). Challenging these strict boundaries, recent studies of mainstream media have
shown that there is a rise in coverage on “flexitarianism” and “reducetarianism” (Duckett et.
al., 2020). These practices of selective meat-eating (Fischler 2015) range from choosing a
meat-free day of the week (e. g. Meatfree Mondays) or trying veganism for a month (e.g.
Veganuary), to a more general pattern of occasional meat-eating (Duckett et. al., 2020).
Mainstream media reports suggest that these behaviors are on the rise, resulting in increased
attention to selective meat-eating in other domains, such as commercial production and
advertising of alternatives to animal products (Duckett et. al., 2020) and in academic journals
(Derbyshire, 2017).
In contrast to these tentative approaches to adopting a vegan lifestyle, abrupt adoption of
vegetarianism or veganism tends to happen to individuals who convert to the lifestyle at an
early age or has a “catalytic” experience such as reading about or viewing media on animal
cruelty (Christopher, et. al., 2018). Others enter into the vegetarian scope for health reasons.
Throughout a vegetarian career, however, one’s reasons for pursuing the lifestyle might
change. Vegetarians might travel along what Christopher et. al. (2018) have named “The
Vegetarian Spectrum” (see below).
Just as the adoption of a vegan identity is subject to an array of factors, so is the choice to
maintain a lifestyle anywhere along the vegetarian spectrum. Increasing “flexitarianism” may
partially be credited to the rise of Web 2.0. While the information on veganism in 1944 was
limited to a printed “Vegan News” newsletter in 1944 (The Vegan Society, 2021), today we
have a wealth of information available to us online. It is more common than ever that
individuals turn to the web for information about eating habits and is increasingly common
that individuals search for information on veganism in relation to health (El Jassar, 2019).
Social networking sites offer great opportunities for individuals to connect with like-minded
6others outside of their offline social network (Schneider & Carpenter, 2018), increasing the
chance that they maintain a particular way of living (Cherry, 2006). Furthermore, commercial
as well as non-profit advertising on social media has proved to impact public opinion as these
organization messages tend to “act as sources of normative influence for consumers and may
play important roles in shaping consumer attitudes toward various health and social issues”
(Phua, Jin, & Kim. P. 701).
Arguably, it is easier than ever to go vegan (The Vegan Society, 2020; Petter, 2018; PETA,
2020). In 2019 The Vegan Society registered 14,262 products with The Vegan Trademark, a
49% increase from 2018 (The Vegan Society, 2021). The marketing of these emerging vegan
products takes part in what Fuentes and Fuentes (2017) recognize as the construction of a
mass market for vegan substitutes, in which marketers both ”alternativise” and
”convenienise” in the discursive construction of these vegan products. According to recent
marketing research, marketers across the food industry are increasingly using online spaces to
cultivate more holistic lifestyle branding (Goodman & Jaworksa, 2020) by engaging with
progressive causes such as health and sustainability (Silchenko & Askegaard, 2020; Hansen
& Machin, 2008; Linder, 2008). As a “healthy, free-from diet” (Goodman & Jaworksa,
2020), veganism is arguably in a rapid process of marketization.
A non-profit committed to providing online support and education to those interested in
veganism is Veganuary - a non-profit Lifestyle Movement Organization (LMO) based in the
UK. Since their launch in 2014, Veganuary have been educating on and promoting a vegan
lifestyle. The annual Veganuary challenge has grown into a global event that encourages both
individuals and organizations to go vegan during January each year (Veganuary, 2021). In
2021, Veganuary saw a record number of sign-ups for the challenge worldwide, with 580 000
individuals pledging to stay vegan for a month in 209 countries and regions (Veganuary,
2021). With veganism considered the fastest-growing contemporary LM and Veganuary
being the largest vegan movement globally (Veganuary, 2021), the yearly challenge has
received much attention both across social media and in traditional mass media.
Veganuary’s vision is a vegan world, free from animal farms and slaughterhouses, where
food production is a sustainable process. The Veganuary mission is to “support people to try
vegan, drive corporate change, and create a global mass movement championing
7compassionate food choice to end animal farming, protect the planet, and improving human
health” (Veganuary, 2021. P. 3).
To realize their vision and put their mission into practice, Veganuary deploys a variety of
strategies. Their website provides visitors with a wealth of information on veganism, offering
individuals a free 31-day meal plan, a supportive online community of campaign participants,
and ideas on other ways in which participants can contribute to the movement (Veganuary,
2021). Furthermore, they offer organizations options for how these can partake in the
campaign as well, to drive corporate change. Cherry (2006) states that “without implying a
falsely facile process, social movement organizations provide a structure within which
networks and culture interact to create empowering forces such as collective identities” (p.
168). Veganuary can indeed be recognized as one such organization.
A few years ago, The Economist named 2019 “the Year of the Vegan,” prompting that
veganism will become a “mainstream” phenomenon in 2019 (Parker, 2018, para. 1). As with
any phenomena that rise into mainstream public debate, not everyone stands behind the
concept of veganism (Véron Ophélie, 2016; Sneider & Molder, 2009; West, 2019; Hills,
2019; Simmons, 2019). Indeed, segments of the general public still seem to consider vegans
marginal members of society at best and dangerous extremists at worst (Véron, 2016).
From a nutritional perspective, veganism has traditionally often been evaluated as an
unhealthy lifestyle (Sneider & Molder, 2009), and there are still those concerned that the
promotion of a vegan lifestyle is nothing more than nutritional misinformation and
detrimental to public health (West, 2019). Similarly, veganism has been accused of delaying
recovery from and even promoting eating disorders and unhealthy relationships to food in
general (Hills, 2019; Simmons, 2019).
Veganuary in particular has received criticism from the non-vegan community. This criticism
is based on the narrative that those participating in Veganuary are self-righteous activists
promoting a potentially harmful way of living that is driven by misinformation (West, 2019).
This criticism coincides with the general fault given to actors within the vegan network at
large, building on discourse that frames vegans as wrongfully believing themselves to be
morally superior beings (West, 2019). Additionally, Veganuary has been accused of
contributing to the health and fitness frenzy that many individuals feel at the start of each
8year when many are already on a mission to radically change their waistlines (Simmons,
2019).
There is also ongoing debate within the vegan community. While Veganuary has had great
success per their mission to “support people to try vegan” and “drive corporate change”, this
notion of bridging gaps between people has been a source for criticism coming from more
radical vegan activists over the past couple of years. These “abolitionist” and activist vegans
disagree with Veganuary’s intentions and strategies for achieving their goals, claiming that a
polarizing discourse should be deployed to represent what the vegan movement stands for
(Leenaert, 2017; Frost, 2016). Additionally, Veganuary have been accused of
overemphasizing health as a reason for people to go vegan, failing to draw the line between
what should be socially accepted in the vegan culture and what shouldn’t, as well as lacking
interest in promoting long-term veganism through more intense education on animal rights
(MacInnis & Hodson, 2017; Leenaert, 2017).
This debate on the strictness and motivation of veganism is reflected in the vegan movement
at large. Ethics-motivated vegans have been found to feel that attributing one’s vegetarianism
to animal welfare issues disregards their contribution to the suffering of animals in the
production of animal products such as egg and dairy (Christopher, et. al., 2018). Similarly,
ethics-motivated vegans have been found to drive discourse that distances this purpose for
veganism from health-driven veganism, as this is seen as self-interested and lacks altruism
(Christopher, et. al., 2018).
As part of the 31-day campaign in the first month of every year, Veganuary offers a variety of
spaces in which individuals and organizations alike can connect. One such space is Twitter,
where individuals can use the #veganuary in their posts to connect with the movement at
large. The following section will review the production and consumption conditions of
Twitter as a social platform where discourses of LMs and activism such as veganism
circulate. As a food-oriented lifestyle movement, the concept of the “digital foodscape” will
be introduced.
2.3. “PROSUMPTION” CONDITIONS ON TWITTER & THE “DIGITAL FOODSCAPE”
Twitter has grown to be one of the most popular social networking platforms, with 330
million active users worldwide in 2019 (Chong, 2019). The possibilities for broad content
9distribution accredited to Twitter are in part due to tools and features of the platform which
allow “tweeters” to modify, cluster, re-broadcast, and reply to ongoing conversations and
messages (Moscato,2016).
On Twitter, the sharing of content is done through “tweets” - a textual content type limited to
280 characters. Following the platform’s algorithm, a hashtag like #veganuary helps organize
and distribute feelings, information, and opinions about topics, news, or events (Chong,
2019). Represented by the # symbol, hashtags draw attention to the context in which a tweet
is posted, creating an intertextual chain of tweets that relate to one another. Adding hashtags
to a post is a community-driven practice driving folksonomy. An online community is created
where users can share emotions and grievances, share resources, discuss identity-related
issues, and create momentum for physical protests (Schneider & Carpenter, 2018).
The opportunity for users to learn about and use trending hashtags like #veganuary allows
them to join in the ongoing conversation and connect with others discussing similar topics. It
should also be noted that hashtagging is a marketing strategy, in which hashtags are
strategically used for marketing purposes, business audience growth, and commercial
campaigns. Due to the algorithms of Twitter, a tweet will most probably have greater reach if
trending hashtags are used strategically (Fisherman, 2020).
Social networking platforms such as Twitter have been credited with being a force for
democratizing communication (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011), freeing
self-representation communication from the grip of mass media filters (Uldum & Askanias,
2013), reducing skill-based as well as financial barriers in between individuals (Della Porta,
2013), and in doing so giving a great number of communicators the ability to streamline
messages through micro-blogging (Moscato, 2016).
More specifically, the technological developments of the past decade have led to a fading of
the production-consumption dichotomy, in which producers and consumers exist in distinct
and separated parts of the social process (Dusi, 2017). The rise of what scholars increasingly
define as the “prosumer” is understood as significant to how we understand topics such as
economics, politics, health, and identity (Dusi, 2017). Collaborative prosumption has the
potential to “disrupt institutions or prefigure desired society” (Chen, 2015, p. 452).
10Illustratively, and specifically relevant to this study, Cherry (2015) found that participants in
the vegan/punk subculture developed an authentic subcultural identity through cultural
prosumption. Consequentially, subcultural prosumption affected the way in which
participants embodied political practices in line with the goal of the LM at large.
However, a darker side to social media has been the focus of much research. The formation of
exclusive groups, the collapsing of several contexts and audiences into one, and undemocratic
features allowing for blocking comments and excluding users from threads through blocklists
challenge the democratic inclusiveness which social media platforms such as Twitter receive
praise for (Marwick & Boyd, 2012; Wheatley & Vatnoey, 2019). Social media, while often
studied and praised for its ability to connect people across physical boundaries, set activist
agendas, and raise awareness, have also been accused of having polarizing effects, spreading
misinformation, and being detrimental to the mental health of individuals (Greijdanus et. al.,
2020; Jamison-Powell et. al. 2012).
While it is understood that most individuals willingly “prosume” and most often feel good
about their engagement in prosumption (Rey, 2012; Ritzer, 2015), criticism against
prosumption trends is concerned with the power structures that facilitate social media
regulation and control (Chun, 2006), the commodification of data made available by
prosumers (Charitsis, 2016; Van Dyke, 2013), the commercial customer surveillance
(Lupton, 2015; Zwick, 2015), and, more generally, the alienation and exploitation of digital
prosumers and their free production labor (Comor, 2010). These are understandable criticism,
as social media platforms are driven by the need for profits and run according to a capitalistic
structure (Van Dijck, 2013). The algorithms of social platforms such as Twitter have shown
to continually compute who our networks include, what our interests are, and how to best
motivate us to continue using their platform in ways that benefit the platform itself (Van Dijk,
2013). While users are increasingly aware of the algorithmic way in which social platforms
collapse context and create filter bubbles, these features of social networking platforms
unquestionably play an active role in the formation of production and consumption conditions
on platforms like Twitter.
Additionally, while users may have an idea of who is reading their content, these indications
are most often imprecise (Marwick & Boyd, 2010). The framework of social networks on
Twitter is made up of follows and followers. In contrast to for instance Facebook, there is a
11distinct disconnect between the two. For instance, a user may have 100 000 followers, but
only follow 100 users or vice versa. While one can make one’s Twitter account private –
meaning its content can only be viewed by accepted followers – the majority of Twitter
accounts are public (Marwick & Boyd, 2010; Jamison-Powell et. al. 2012). If one’s account
is public and uses functions of distribution such as hashtagging, one’s audience may reach
outside of the network of followers one has. At the same time, not everyone who follows a
user sees all of their content.
The difficulty of identifying one’s specific audience on social media calls for an
understanding of “imagined audiences” (Marwick & Boyd, 2010) when studying social
media usage. The idea of imagined audiences stems from the various ways in which Twitter
is used: as a news source, public diary, broadcast medium, marketing channel, etc. (Marwick
& Boyd, 2010). Social media collapse diverse social context into one, but in an interactive
space where prosumers both produce and consume content, thereby partaking in the
production of meaning in potentially collapsed online spaces. While social media platforms
like Twitter are often viewed as a social space facilitating increased democratization and
autonomous communication (Castells, 2015), it also facilitates context collapse which creates
new social processes by which its users act (Marwick & Boyd, 2010).
All of these features making up the opportunities and limitations of social platforms such as
Twitter have assisted in the digitalization of various aspects of our everyday lives.
Specifically relevant to this study, the digitization of our culinary lives has transformed food
into something that can be posted, liked, retweeted, shared, and “snapped”, along with
(sometimes) appearing on our plates for eating. Scholars are today acknowledging that this
evolving placement of food in cyberspace has considerable implications for how we view
food and what “good food” means ( Lewis, 2020; Schneider et al., 2018).
Drawing on current debates around food and digital media, Goodman and Jaworska (2020)
introduced and developed the concepts of the “digital foodscape” and “good” food grammars
in their article “Mapping digital foodscapes: Digital food influencers and the grammars of
good food”. In their article, they explore the meaning of “good food” through quantitative
and qualitative analysis of discourses and personas on digital platforms.
One of Goodman and Jaworska’s (2020) key findings is that social media platforms such as
Twitter provide a space for a diversity of “good food”, in which digital food influencers take
on non-food themes such as raising awareness, self-empowerment, inspiration, and charity
campaigning (Goodman & Jaworska, 2020). Furthermore, they found that ideas of “clean
12eating” and “healthy free-from” diets such as veganism are used by relevant digital food
influencers as a means to cultivate a more holistic lifestyle brand, showing that food is very
connected to lifestyle. They found that digital food influencers part-take in the blurring
between food and other lifestyles by focusing on “charities, progressive causes and
campaigning through tweets, hashtags, retweeted endorsements” (p. 192), showing concern
for living the “right” type of life and giving them a more holistic lifestyle brand.
Ultimately, it is this digital foodscape that makes up the context in which #veganuary on
Twitter plays out as part of the vegan LM.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
This study places itself in the field of media and communication studies in the intersection
between studies on discourse, veganism, Twitter usage, and the everyday activism of LMs. In
the following sections, an overview of prior research significant to the study at hand will be
presented in an attempt to situate the thesis within this literature and provide an original
intellectual position for its findings.
3.2. STUDIES ON TWITTER & EVERYDAY ACTIVISM
From studies on hashtag activism such as the #metoo movement (Mendes, Ringrose, &
Keller, 2018; Clark, 2016), to online petition signing (Greijdanus et. al., 2020), to “Twitter
storms” (LeFebvre & Armstrong, 2018), social media as these relate to LMs and activism
have been explored rigorously since the emergence of Web 2.0. In the following sections,
recent findings on the intersection between social media and everyday activism as these relate
to the study at hand will be presented.
Firstly, studies have found that alternative media outlets such as Facebook pages, YouTube
channels, and Twitter feeds, as well as websites and blogs, provide a virtual space for the
facilitation of the diffuse, informal structure of LMs (Haenfler, Johnson, and Jones, 2012). In
her work on veganism as a cultural movement, Cherry (2006) demonstrates the importance of
social networks to LMs, in particular examining how these impact unaffiliated and
unorganized participants. Focusing on support, discourse, and network embeddedness, she
argues that “maintaining participation in the vegan movement depends more upon having
supportive social networks than having willpower, motivation, or a collective vegan identity”
(p. 155). Social media helps meet the need of participants to engage with others around their
13issue of choice. For instance, vegans eat at vegan restaurants, shop at vegan-friendly stores,
and chat with other vegans online – thereby demonstrating the centrality of networks in LMs
(Fuist, Mogford, & Das, 2018).
Secondly, social media networks help participants in LMs shift between different “modes of
cooperation” (Fuist, Mogford, & Das, 2018), as online networks and virtual spaces may offer
fertile ground for political action and virtual mobilization (Haenfler, Johnson, and Jones,
2012). In their study on the everyday collective action of the Indian feminist movement,
Fuist, Mogford, and Das (2018), found that “as members of a community identify targets or
respond to threats, they call on their associational ties to allocate resources in active ways,
shifting their mode of coordination to more ‘social movement’ style action” (p. 906).
Thirdly, social media offers a space in which participants of LMs can individually and
collectively perform identity work with an online “imagined audience” (Haenfler, Johnson, &
Jones, 2012) or “imagined community” (Marwick & Boyd, 2010) in mind. Identity can be
seen as a dynamic, holistic, complex, and multi-faceted phenomenon (Breakwell, 1986; 2011;
2014) that can be actively changed, constructed, and politicized through the process of
identity work (Fernandes-Jesus, Lima & Sabucedo, 2018). Central to both LMs (Haenfler,
Johnson, & Jones, 2012) and social media usage (Livingstone, 2008), the action of
performing one’s identity through self-representation involves carefully monitor one’s
selfpresentation depending on the context and audience (Goffman, 1959).
As participants of LMs engage in identity work directed at crafting authenticity and personal
integrity (Grigsby, 2004) personal identity in itself becomes a site for social change
(Haenfler, Johnson, & Jones, 2012). Studies have found that the more one engages in actions
that reflect these values, the more one constructs the experience of living a morally coherent
life (Haenfler, Johnson, & Jones, 2012). The process of systematically aligning one’s daily
actions with one’s values involves what Giddens (1984) calls “discursive consciousness”, in
which actors increase their consciousness and intentionality of how they live their everyday
life. In other words, LM participation may become an avenue for constructing a desirable self
(Teske, 1997).
Additional to the suggestion that participation in LMs requires and is a means for identity
performance, Livingstone (2008) suggests that online content creation and networking have
14become increasingly central tools for managing one’s identity, lifestyle, and social relations.
More specifically, in their study on ICT artifacts and veganism, Lawo et. al., (2020)
“uncovered common patterns of self-reflection, learning, and enculturation together with the
adoption of new goods and infrastructures and how this transformation is accompanied by
ICT” (p. 18), shedding light upon how ICT artifacts (such as user-generated content) and
consumer practices (such as veganism) co-evolve as the former offers new tools and spaces
for constructing identities, building cultures, and sharing resources within networks.
Adding another layer of meaning to the notion of identity work in LMs and somewhat
contradicting the notion that LMs revolve around solely individual identity work, Maurer
(2002) found that vegetarians, for instance, often understand that their individual actions are
part of the larger collective results. Studies have found that social media can offer an
understanding of these “imagined communities”, as individuals can connect with others who
share their values. Micro-blogging about everyday lifestyle activism on Twitter, for instance,
can connect each individual, seemingly banal action to something greater than oneself
(Polletta & Jasper, 2001).
With the production of content and networking online being an integral tool for managing
one’s lifestyle, identity, and social relations (Livingstone, 2008), on the one hand, and
lifestyle politics being an avenue for constructing a desirable self (Teske, 1997), on the other
hand, this study offers a deeper understanding the discursive role of platforms like Twitter in
fostering the networks and identities central to LMs in general and veganism in particular.
3.3. CDA IN MEDIA STUDIES
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) of Twitter data has in recent years been the focus of studies
on a variety of topics, such as health campaigns (Gonsalves, McGannon, & Pegoraro, 2019),
experienced mental health issues (Dyson & Gorvin (2017), the mobilization of alternative
movements (McGlashan, 2019), feminist hashtag campaigns on Twitter (Prendergast &
Quinn, 2020), and more.
The ease with which researchers can access data for analysis and the embedded power
relations that structure the media landscape has made media studies fertile ground for critical
discourse analysis (O’Keeffe, 2006). Traditionally, media discourse has referred to spoken or
written interactions taking place through a broadcast platform, in which the discourse is
15aimed at a non-present reader, viewer, or listener. However, traditional notions of media
discourse started seeing resistance by the early 2000s, as the introduction of web 2.0 came to
drastically disrupt the production and consumption of media discourse (O’Keeffe, 2006).
Introducing the idea of “media practice”, Couldry (2012) assists in understanding how media
is incorporated into our everyday lives in socially learned and seemingly unremarkable ways.
Today we “search”, “share”, “like”, and “comment” on the “latest updates” in online
“communities” (Couldry, 2012). Given the assumption that CDA focuses on the relationship
between concepts, language, and social practices (Fairclough, 2000), the shift in “media
practices” in everyday life has massive consequences for how society is organized and how
institutions are built (Kress, 2010).
In her article “What is a discourse approach to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social
media: connecting with other academic fields?”, Gwen Bouvier (2015) looks to a wide
variety of studies to better understand new dimensions and focuses of modern media studies.
She shows why discourse studies must engage with empirical work and theories on social
media across academic fields, addressing how “language, identity, cross-cultural social
relations and power play out in the rapidly evolving landscape of social media” (p. 149).
As should be expected, recent CDA of media studies has given much attention to the
changing role of identity performance as it shifts to online spaces. Some scholars have
highlighted the role anonymity plays in the issue of social media users’ ability to bridge the
gap between an “actual self” and an “ideal self” in online spaces (Ellison et al. 2006).
Contradicting this, others argue that the construction of one’s online “hoped-for-possible
self” is very much part of one’s overall identity (Zhao et al., 2008) and is therefore very
relevant to the study of self-representation in multi-cultural discourse studies of media. Page
(2012) even illustrates Twitter as a “linguistic marketplace”, where users partake in a process
of self-branding. Bouvier (2015) states that “from the point of view of critical discourse
analysts, such identity construction and self-presentation are important not only in themselves
but rather as these serve to position people against others, as part of processes of evaluation
and legitimization of wider kinds of identities and social processes” (p. 157). In this study,
this point of view is relied upon in the identification and analysis of the discursive identity
formations of the communication event #veganuary on Twitter.
16Murthy (2012), drawing on scholars such as Bourdieu (1984) and Goffman (1981), found that
self-representation - of an “ideal” or “actual” self – is centered around the everyday banal
Tweets on topics such as what users had for breakfast. Dean (2010) doubles this, stating that
blogging is often stripped to its most banal and repetitive, including everyday commentaries
of what people are doing and feeling at any given moment. Dean (2010) argues that, for
discourse analysts, it is in fact within these everyday banal accounts that wider social
relations can be understood (Bourdieu, 1984).
Another important trend in the CDA in media studies is recognition of the role of globalized
networks in multicultural discourses (Bouvier, 2015). Blommaert (2010) found in his study
that globalization may not lead to a “global village”, but rather to a complex web of various
parts, interconnected to different degrees and in different, evolving ways. By looking at social
media to understand the various parts in the web or network of communication, we can
explore how linguistic features and modes of communication play a part in the way ideas,
values, and identities are shared (or not shared), and in turn how these engage in the wider
issue of power (Blommaert, 2010).
However, Bouvier (2015) argues that the spread of ideas, values, and identities across social
media are not equally sourced and distributed. An essential force in this global network, or
web of parts, is driven by the forces of global consumer capitalism. Social media offers a
multitude of resources to explore the trends which Featherstone (2001) recognized as the
global spread of ideas, identities, and values through “western” or even “capitalist”
distribution of media content. Looking at how various cultures pick emerging ideas,
identities, and values up and negotiate these has implications for understanding the
multicultural network of discourse today available to discourse researchers in general, and
critical discourse analysts in particular (Bouvier, 2015). Arguably, the impact of social media
on societal worldviews, values, and concepts, is dominated by neoliberalism in which
concerns and fears are “liked” and “shared” through the social media platforms that are
embedded in the lives of the individuals (Correa et al. 2010).
Relevant to this study, in particular, are the online-offline links which CDA scholars have
explored (Bouvier, 2015), acknowledging that a simple and clear distinction between offline
and online discursive practices of individuals is not enough to understand communication
processes therein (Ellison et al. 2011). Thurlow et. al. (2004) proposes that the task of
separating (or perhaps integrating) online and offline discursive practices depends on an
17understanding of how social media are embedded in our everyday lives, and in turn how our
lives are embedded in social media.
As proposed by Dean (2010) this study looks at the everyday and banal accounts of
#veganuary, with the hope of uncovering wider social relations that can be understood therein
(Bourdieu, 1984). This study focuses on. This study offers insights into the connections
between social media, identity construction, the maintenance of social relationships, and
engagement with more socially relevant matters – themes central to CDA in media studies
(Bouvier, 2015).
3.4. STUDIES ON ACTIVISM DISCOURSES IN LMs
In discourse studies, LM’s can be understood as more than “carriers of extant, preconfigured
ideas and beliefs” (Snow, 2007: 384). The framing of activism is generated by actual or
imagined interactions between activists, movement participants, antagonists, etc. (Büchs, et.
al., 2015), giving activism discourse a central role in the constitution of social movements. In
the following section, studies on activism discourse as these relate to LMs in general and the
studied topic of veganism, in particular, will be presented.
An article majorly relevant to the study at hand is “I'm not an activist, though I've done a lot
of it’: Doing Activism, Being Activist and the ‘Perfect Standard’ in a Contemporary
Movement” by Chris Bobel (2007). Bobel (2007) found that the discourse used by
participants in his study of the feminist movement created a separation between the
unreachable “perfect standard” of “being activism” and the lesser “everyday acts of defiance”
(Baumgardner & Richards, 2000. P. 283) related to “doing activism”. Bobel’s (2007) main
findings shed light upon the gap between doing activism and discursively identifying as an
activist, questioning the assumption that identity alignments are essential to movement
participation and calling for a more complicated understanding of identity in analyzing
contemporary social movements.
Activism discourse is not only influenced by individual accounts. LMOs and non-profits have
also been recognized as part of the promotion and inspiration of new ideas for daily action
which filter into LM and activism discourse (Haenfler, Johnson, & Jones, 2012).
Related to the divide between “doing activism” and “being activist” is the topic of how
LMOs deploy different discourses and framing strategies in the recruitment of these different
18identities. This distinction is made by Büchs et. al. (2015), in their article “Identifying and
explaining framing strategies of low carbon lifestyle movement organisations”. In particular,
Büchs et. al. (2015) find that low carbon lifestyle movement organizations (LCLMOs) are in
a constant battle of finding the balance between two discourses. On the one hand, LCLMOs
are “reaching in” to their existing communities who might already align with their values and
therefore appreciate a more “transformational” tone in their discourse. On the other hand,
they are “reaching out” beyond typical audiences by avoiding a “pushy” or “preachy” tone
which might indicate a more judgmental stance. While these two approaches are not mutually
exclusive, they are discursively separated within the overall activism discourse.
Along with these more general studies on activism discourse, animal rights discourse has a
more direct connection to the study at hand. Towards the end of the twentieth century, social
theory saw what Fairclough (1992. P. 2) describes as a “linguistic turn”, in which language
acquired a more central role in how we understand social phenomena. Specifically, language
came under scrutiny as it relates to power relations and inequalities (van Dijk, 1997).
However, not until recently and with rare exception has the role of discourse in human
domination of other species been explored (Stibbe, 2012).
One reason that animals tend to be excluded from the study of discourse and power relations
is that they cannot use language to resist how they have been constructed through language
(Stibbe, 2012). Passed on by the neo-Marxist roots of CDA, the main focus of the theory is
hegemony, where oppression of individuals or groups is put into place ideologically instead
of coercively (Fairclough, 1992).
In a case study, Arran Stibbe (2012) deploys CDA in an investigation of the connection
between language, power, and the oppression of animals by studying a corpus of articles
produced by various actors within the animal farming industry. Stibbe (2012) finds that the
notion of ideological oppression and manufactured consent does not apply directly to the
oppression of animals. Animals are rather coercively oppressed by a small number of people
and organizations involved with farming and animal use. Animals do not consent to their
treatment on an ideological basis, yet they cannot be empowered to resist the discourses that
oppress them (Stibbe, 2012).
This said, “the coercive power used to oppress animals depends on the consent of the
majority of the human population, who explicitly or implicitly agree to the way animals are
treated every time they buy animal products” (Stibbe, 2012. p. 20). As the vegetarian and
19You can also read
