This work is the copyright of Richard Twine. For up to date citation information and the final version

of this paper please go to the journal web-site: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/soc

Materially Constituting a Sustainable Food Transition: The Case of Vegan

Eating Practice

Abstract

Informed by several intellectual turns and sub-areas of sociology this article explores veganism as a

practice and argues that its nascent social normalisation can be partly explained by specific modes of

material work with food performed by vegan practitioners. Based primarily on interview data with

UK based vegans the research identifies four modes of material constitution - material substitution,

new food exploration, food creativity and taste transition - which are of particular importance in

strengthening links between the elements of the practice. The article argues that these are

significant for offering an explanation for the recent growth of vegan practitioners in UK society and

that they are also of value to the broader endeavour of understanding sustainable food transitions

and intervening for more sustainable food policies.

Keywords

Food, materiality, practice, sustainable transition, veganism

Richard Twine

Edge Hill University, UK

Richard Twine, Department of Social Sciences, Creative Edge Building, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk,

L39 4QP, UK. Email: richard.twine@edgehill.ac.uk

Introduction

1

This article emerges from three intellectual turns (practice, material and animal) to explore veganism

as a practice, and to argue that its increasing social visibility and acceptability can be partly explained

by specific modes of material work performed by vegan practitioners. Within the context of the

Sociology of Climate Change, theories of social practice afford novel framings and suggestions for

intervention in the challenging task of mitigating and changing high carbon practices. They have

enhanced both the sociological role and the importance of interdisciplinarity in the attempt to

render research relevant to the question of radical greenhouse gas mitigation. Recent theories of

social practice that specifically orient themselves to the concerns of environmental sociology (e.g.

Shove et. al., 2012) have also been an important part of the material turn in the social sciences

(Rinkinen et. al., 2015). Here the interdependence of human actors with material objects and

infrastructures is crucial to understanding the reproduction of practice. The broader material and

animal turns in the social sciences and humanities (which have occasionally overlapped in actor-

network theory and science and technology studies) have both asked questions of a narrowly

constituted ‘social’ at play within sociology. Research in material culture and in animal studies is

diverse and yet can both be situated within recent posthumanist and post-dualistic deliberations on

sociological ontology which partly decentre the sovereign human subject.

Sociology’s own slice of the animal studies cake, usually termed the sociology of human-animal

relations, has questioned the anthropocentric presumptions of the discipline and focused

sociological attention upon human/animal entanglements in a wide range of contexts (for examples

published in this journal – Peggs, 2009; Charles, 2014 and Wilkie, 2015; and see also Cudworth,

2016). One theme of this sociological focus has looked at alternative ways of doing human/animal

relations in the form of vegetarian and vegan eating practices which, most clearly in the latter,

contest the everyday commodity status of nonhuman animals. Furthermore, they have the potential

to incur the least carbon impact (Berners-Lee et. al., 2012; Scarborough et. al., 2014), with animal

agriculture responsible for more than 1 in 7 (14.5%) of all greenhouse gas emissions (Gerber et. al.,

2013).

2

Less directly concerning human-animal relations, though emerging from this animal turn, such work

is increasingly referred to as vegan studies (Wright, 2015), which is inclusive of specific sociological

studies of veganism (e.g. Cole and Morgan, 2011; Marta Andreatta, 2015). Now followed by over 1%

of the UK aged 15+ population1, and potentially offering part solutions to a range of contemporary

sustainability problems (including climate change but also of relevance to addressing biodiversity

loss, water conservation, antibiotics resistance and certain types of human morbidity), a concerted

sociological focus on veganism is timely. While the practice is understood as a transition away from

a whole series of animal uses (clothing and cosmetics for example) the focus here is on vegan food

practices.

The aim of this article specifically is to explore the material culture of vegans and to examine its role

in what could be claimed as the early normalisation of the practice. This is of particular interest

because the recent growth in vegan eating has had no structured policy steer but has emanated

from the vegan community of practitioners itself. It is the doings and sayings of vegans themselves

which has been largely responsible for the successful reproduction and growth of the practice. This

article emerges also from contemporary work on practice theory approaches to sustainable

transitions which simultaneously constitute developments in social theory around (but not reducible

to) the material and practice turns and are also part of the endeavour of environmental sociology.

The long called-for greening of the social sciences and the humanities (e.g. Catton and Dunlap, 1980;

Jagtenberg and McKie, 1997) still arguably requires disciplinary centring and struggles to be heard

amongst the natural science dominance of environmental and climate change research.

This article proceeds by exploring discussion in recent practice theory literature around the role of

materiality in sustainability transitions and then draws mainly upon interview data involving UK

based vegans to explore various modes of how the transition to veganism is materially constituted

and maintained. Taking what vegans do with food as the most significant form of material

constitution in vegan practice, this research discerns four such modes – substitution, new food

3

exploration, food creativity and taste transition – as important to the materially constituted

experience of vegan transition and the social diffusion of the practice. Finally, the article argues that

these modes can have a broader import for contemporary policy on sustainable food transitions.

Materiality and Practice

Warde (2016) provides a useful recent genealogy of the concept of practice outlining its emergence

as a focus of social theory in the 1970s and 1980s most notably in the work of Pierre Bourdieu.

However, Warde identifies the arrival of a second phase of practice theory associated with the work

in particular of Schatzki (e.g. 1996, 2002) and Reckwitz (2002a). It is this phase that is of most

interest to this article especially for the way in which it has been taken up and refined by social

scientists specifically interested to understand transitions toward more sustainable practices (e.g.

Shove et. al., 2012; McMeekin and Southerton, 2012). It frames practices in two senses, as socially

recognizable entities and as embodied performances (Schatzki, 1996; Reckwitz, 2002a), arguing that

changes to the everyday performance of a practice can eventually engender change in the overall

practice entity.

The work of Shove (notably Shove et. al., 2012) has been important for furthering a usable

conception of practice entities as comprised of the following three elements – competences,

materials and meaning. While this work might remain limited in its understanding of the political-

economic dimension of transition (e.g. Malm, 2016), its grasp of scale (although see Hui et. al., 2017

for attempts to address this dimension) and questions of whether the elemental structure is too

simplifying, it has been influential across social science transition research. The general argument is

that ‘practices emerge, persist, shift and disappear when connections between elements of these

three types are made, sustained or broken’ (2012, 14-5 original emphasis). This is important

because this article contends that the modes of material constitution identified below strengthen

such connections between elements and thus contribute to the consolidation and diffusion of vegan

eating practice. They further argue that connections form between practices themselves, forming

4

what they term ‘bundles’, an example might be shopping and driving. When such bundles become

part of routine social infrastructure we encounter deeply embedded practice ‘complexes’. To

underline, elements are framed as ‘qualities of a practice in which the single individual participates,

not qualities of the individual’ (Reckwitz, 2002a: 250) which has an implication for how the

framework imagines both change and intervention. This emphasis has been part of the attempt by

practice theorists to stress the socially embedded, routinised and affective dimensions of practice

contra overly rational and individualistic frames of some psychological research (see Shove, 2010).

Noting the prominence given to materiality in the elemental definition of practice above it is worth

exploring further just what Shove and other practice theorists have said in relation to the

significance of the material dimension. From this perspective material objects are important for the

way in which practices become stabilized and diffused, and new designs in technology can suddenly

quite radically change the direction of a practice which in turn can shape the structuring of everyday

routines and habits. For example, a host of practice research is underway into how material designs

can technologically mediate energy demand and other resource use issues (e.g. Shove et. al., 2014).

In my own everyday routines incorporating panniers into my practice of cycling enables me to bring

back a heavy load of food shopping without resorting to a car or bus and, as I demonstrate below,

the process of vegan transition involves changes to the material engagement of one’s eating related

practices.

Schatzki makes clear that he sees objects as important for the order and maintenance of practice

and for new innovations. On the one hand ‘the presence of objects both stabilizes and regularizes

doings and sayings’ (Schatzki, 2002: 107; see also Reckwitz, 2002b: 206) but also the introduction of

new objects may partly co-ordinate new practices. They can be both enabling and constraining for

the dynamics of social life. Reckwitz takes a rather similar view of artefacts as a necessary feature of

both social orderliness and social change (2002b: 213).

5

A further contribution to exploring the material constitution of practice was a focus on everyday

design specifically in practices related to forms of household consumption (Shove et. al., 2007). This

work contributed theoretical groundwork for understanding the active material constitution of

practice in the sense of both hybrids between objects and human bodies and also the complexity of

interactions between objects themselves. It is critical of the way in which designers have delimited

their understandings of users largely ignoring how ‘rather than simply meeting needs, artefacts are

actively implicated in creating new practices and with them new patterns of demand’ (ibid. p.10), a

point which is later underlined in relation to the experience of new food practices. It is the later text

The Dynamics of Social Practice (Shove et. al., 2012) which sets out a theoretical framework of

practice theory. As mentioned this constructs materials as one of three key elements of a practice

alongside competences and meanings. They define materials as ‘including things, technologies,

tangible physical entities, and the stuff of which objects are made’ (ibid. p.14). Alongside their

integration with meanings and competences materials are cast as important for the recruitment to,

defection from, and reproduction of practices. Materials may be shared between different practices

and they may become obsolete or co-opted into new practices. Material substitution (p.58/9) is an

important process whereby practices change over time, and subsequent work by the Sustainable

Practices Research Group (Spurling et. al., 2013), placed significant emphasis on material substitution

to overall practice substitution in terms of potentially achieving low carbon transitions via new or

adapted practices – a theme I return to below in the context of vegan transition.

In a recent article in this journal Shove and others (Rinkinen et. al., 2015) exactly explore the

importance of material relationalities within everyday social practices. They draw upon empirical

diary data to explore the implication of material objects in accounts of keeping warm in everyday

life. Such material accounts enrich understanding of a social ontology inclusive of the nonhuman and

are important if social science is to contribute to the broader agenda of pro-environmental

transition. This endeavour includes the recognition that food practices, in common with energy

6

demand practices, are multi-layered and scaled phenomena including broad infrastructures as part

of the material constitution of practice-complexes.

A broader consideration of the material stuff of eating practices would include infrastructures and

such objects as dedicated vegan cookbooks and nutrition wall charts as aids to competence.

However, the focus for the remainder of this article is upon food itself. We can note this in previous

practice theory such as Schatzki’s interest in the (albeit medicinal) herb industry (2002: 112),

analyses of the sustainable re-crafting of food practice by experiments in a New Nordic diet (Spurling

et. al., 2013) and a recent study examining the potential for expanding bean consumption in a meat-

eating culture (Jallinoja et. al., 2016). A focus on food needs to be mindful that it is intimately

incorporated into the human body, and partly for this reason, but also because of strong

relationships between food and identity, is a materiality with varied and complex linkages with the

further practice element of meanings.

Researching vegan eating practices

The posthumanist sympathies of practice theory, which posit practices rather than people per se as

the primary unit of social analyses, have also prompted methodological reflection. In particular there

have been useful critical examinations of whether interview research methods are adequate or

reliable for capturing how people actively accomplish practices in everyday life (Hargreaves, 2011;

Martens, 2012; Hitchings, 2012). Practice theory, Hargreaves argues, ‘implies the use of

methodological techniques capable of observing what actually happens in the performance of

practice such as ethnography, rather than relying solely on the results of either questionnaire

surveys or interviews as is typically the case within conventional approaches’ (2011: 84).

Furthermore, because practices are often routine, mundane and performed unconsciously it could

be problematic to assume that people will always report useful or accurate accounts of their own

actions. Yet in exploring whether people can talk about their practices, Hitchings cautions against the

rejection of interview methods arguing that their usefulness may depend on the practice/s under

7

examination and the social positionality of interviewees (2012: 65). They remain valuable for

understanding performances and especially for novel innovations in a practice because although the

posthumanist leanings of practice theory to an extent decentre the human, what people do as a

nexus of intersecting practices remains important.

In examining veganism, we confront a practice that diverges from the habitual norm of animal

consumption. It is consciously practised, and unlike many modes of eating practice which are weakly

regulated or co-ordinated (Warde, 2013: 25), it is rule-bound and defined as a way of eating with its

own forms of social events in the UK (e.g. vegan potlucks or food fairs) and organisations (e.g. The

Vegan Society, Vegfest, Viva). It is thus a type of socially identifiable practice which is arguably open

to a broad range of methodological approaches.

A combination of participant observation and interview methods were used in this study. I

transitioned to vegan in 2005 and during the last five years have participated, volunteered and given

seven talks at the burgeoning network of vegan fairs in the UK (specifically in London, Manchester,

Brighton, Lancaster and Glasgow). The main focus of this empirical research involved interviews with

40 vegans in three UK cities—Manchester (14), Glasgow (14) and Lancaster (12) during the second

half of 2013. Participants were recruited initially through an advert in the Vegan Society magazine,

through local vegan organisations and word of mouth. Once momentum was reached the sample

was simple to obtain via the snowball technique. The interviews were semi-structured and open.

First participants were asked to narrate their own story of transition. Secondly, participants were

asked about their everyday doing of veganism. Finally, participants were asked a set of questions

about transition and relationships (see also Twine, 2014).

Interviews lasted between 40 and 75 minutes and took place either at the participant’s home, my

home, in my office or in a vegan friendly cafe. Participants were aged between 18 and 72 years, with

the average age 36.8 years. Twenty-nine participants (73%) were female. Thirty-nine participants

(97%) were self-defined white British/European, one was self-defined mixed race British. Thirty-one

8

participants (77%) either had a first degree or were studying for one. Data was thematically coded in

terms of practice elements but with extra codes emerging for infrastructure and social relationship

dimensions. Further data can also be gleaned from the activity of vegan food companies and the

particular ways they are materially experimenting with food. A simple question transcends all these

areas: what are vegans, the vegan curious and vegan manufacturers doing with food as part of the

practice beyond the obvious exclusion of animal products? I draw mostly upon the interview data in

this article to explore emergent themes which can be argued as being crucial to the ability of the

practice of vegan eating to reproduce itself and attract growing numbers of practitioners.

Food materialities and vegan social change

The findings of this study are organised around four partly overlapping modes of material

constitution which emerged as significant to the transition to, and reproduction of, vegan eating

practices: material substitution, food creativity, new food exploration and taste transition. These

are shown to make links with the other elements of the practice, i.e. meanings and competences,

and in doing so have a role in practice consolidation and reproduction. Before exploring each of

these it is worth briefly outlining recent quantitative data from a 2016 Ipsos Mori poll (see note 1)

which provides some initial analysis of the UK vegan community. The poll which surveyed close to

10,000 people in England, Scotland and Wales found that 542,000 or 1.05% of the 15 and over

population identified as vegan. Demographically the community of vegans are disproportionately

young (42% in the 15-34 age category), urban (88% in urban or suburban areas) and female (63%

identified as female compared with 73% in my small sample). The total number is thought to

represent a significant increase over the last ten years, with the Vegan Society quoting an estimated

total of 150,000 in 2006 (see note 1). This seems to be borne out via the increased social visibility of

the practice and its practitioners in, for example, the proliferation of vegan food fairs and media

coverage of veganism. It would appear that unlike many practices a significant number of vegan

9

practitioners are regularly engaged in forms of activity which are intended to explicitly garner

interest, contest dominant omnivorous practice, and attract new practitioners.

i) Material substitution

An example of the greater visibility of veganism is specific vegan substitute foods in mainstream

supermarket spaces. These include a wide range of plant milks, vegan cheese, margarine and

yoghurt brands, and meat substitutes. Substitutes can be seen as aids to transition because they

allow for a high degree of continuity moving between omnivorous, vegetarian and vegan diets. They

afford less disruption to pre-established eating routines and consequently can potentially attract

new practitioners. Like all processed foods vegan substitutes are examples of skilling the material2

whereby competences can be built into the materiality of practice affording a temporal saving. This

is arguably enhanced in vegan transition as it shortcuts the expectation that a large degree of new

competency in cooking might be inherently required. Although in many cases the use of these new

materials is continuous with their animal based predecessor, others such as egg substitutes or plant

milks can involve a degree of learning, adaptation and new competence. Learning to avoid the

curdling of plant milks in coffee is one example. Indeed, some manufacturers have developed

specific products to address this problem pointing to the ubiquity of coffee consumption and the

importance, for many, of maintaining its routine. Substitute materials generally contest the meaning

of veganism as wholly ‘other’, offering familiar types of replacement and again potentially aiding

continuity.

Importantly they also point to a plurality in the doing of veganism. Those interviewed expressed a

diversity of orientation toward the use of substitute foods. One can be vegan without drawing upon

any substitutes, and whilst their use and appreciation was common in the sample, also present was a

degree of suspicion or negative affect toward certain substitutes:

10

I definitely use almond milk because I like the convenience of having a breakfast cereal in the

morning (Mary, 20).

I use fake meats and fake cheeses and soya milk and everything like that. I have a theory where if

you can make your diet as close to what it was before, the transition is so much easier. You don’t

need to completely change your diet (Tanya, 30).

These two participants expressed the benefits of substitutes for continuity with prior food routine

and for minimising disruption in the experience of vegan transition. This was the majority view

throughout the sample, however, also present was a more ambivalent orientation to food

substitutes:

I suppose there’s an underlying feeling that slightly makes me uncomfortable because I think

well, are we saying that we miss these products so much that we’ve got to really strive so hard to

recreate them and does that mean that there’s something drastically missing from our lives if we

don’t have them, and then the other part of me thinks, well if you can make it and you enjoy it,

just do it, so I’m sort of slightly conflicted really (Laura, 43).

It makes me a little bit queasy, especially the fake meats and I don’t like, yeah even the cheese,

yeah it makes me, it’s not anything I could be bothered with buying (Judy, 25).

Overall these extracts capture well a diversity of orientations toward vegan substitute foods. Most of

the sample, and I would suggest most vegans, use some form of substitutes especially to ease

themselves through transition and to negate the disruption of food routines. However, ambivalence

emanates from at least two sources. Substitutes can be perceived as highly processed foods (there

is much variation between them on this) and this can clash with often highly valued health meanings

associated with vegan practice. Cost of substitutes was also sometimes expressed as a prohibiting

factor. Secondly, substitutes might be seen as conforming to an omnivorous meal structure and may

position veganism as reliant upon this. A related ‘queasiness’ may emerge out of a continued

11

symbolic presence of meat or other animal products. Sinclair (2016), for example, writing in critique

of mock meats argues that they symbolically keep the animal present and thus to do not contest the

edibility of other animals. Yet most vegan practitioners remain untroubled by such considerations

and take pleasure in the mocking aspects of substitution. Moreover, they are not only consumed by

vegans and overall contribute to reductions in animal consumption.

Substitution, I argue, takes both corporate and community forms for the vegan community. Both

forms exhibit material creativity that re-constitute the practice of vegan eating in various ways. Over

the past 5 years food companies and specific vegan start-up companies have added choice for

vegans. Perhaps the most ambitious company (non-vegan in-vitro meat development

notwithstanding), based in the US, Impossible Foods® have drawn upon laboratory science to

produce substituted materiality (a vegan burger using extracted heme from plants to mimic the taste

of meat) and eventually, they hope, a substituted plant-based material infrastructure. Already

substantial UK companies such as Frys and Vbites sell a broad range of meat substitute products. In

recent years vegan cheeses have been developed by UK supermarkets and a diverse range including

new companies such as ‘Tyne Chease’ are sold in more specialist health food shops.

A US company Follow Your Heart® (a pun on the compassionate and health meanings of veganism),

now distributing within the UK, sells VeganEgg, an egg replacer materially constituted from algal

protein that can be used to make omelettes and scrambled ‘egg’. The packaging includes eggbox

cardboard and pictures of chickens. Substitution here includes not only the simulation but also the

parodying sense of the verb to mock. The approximation and in some cases indistinguishability of

substitutes has begun to have repercussions in the political economy. In 2014 Unilever (owners of

Hellman’s mayonnaise) attempted to sue Hampton Creek, makers of a vegan mayonnaise called Just

Mayo, on the grounds that a product must contain egg in order for it to be called mayonnaise.

Although dropped a subsequent freedom of information request revealed that the US government

backed American Egg Board had attempted to sabotage Hampton Creek and Just Mayo due to its

12

perceived threat to the egg industry3. Similarly, in the US, the dairy industry is currently lobbying the

Food and Drug Administration to make it illegal for plant milk producers to call their product ‘milk’.

Such developments capture well the competition between different practices, reminding us of the

political and economic contexts of practice dynamics (Sayer, 2013) and the potential of material re-

constitution to engender social, economic and cultural change.

ii) Food creativity

Forms of substitution by vegans overlap with the second mode of material constitution of practice

identified in this research. Whilst established food corporations and newer start-ups are engaged in

experimental, creative material reconstructions of food there exists a further domain of shared

creativity amongst the vegan community of practice. Social media is a further important dimension

of vegan material infrastructure affording opportunities for the global sharing of food creativity and

‘open source’ experimentality. Several participants were regularly engaged in sharing images of their

food creations, especially on instagram, with the practice of vegans photographing their food

something of a community stereotype and joke.

A significant example of vegan community food creativity over the last two years has been the

discovery of ‘aquafaba’ - a versatile ingredient used especially as an egg replacer. Prior to this

discovery vegans already used such foods as flax seeds to replace eggs in cooking but aquafaba (the

left-over brine found within cans of chickpeas) has proved decisively more versatile, capable of

binding, emulsifying, foaming and thickening. In early 2015 Aquafaba was proven to be the first

reliable egg substitute to be used to make vegan meringues, and an international online community

centred on the Facebook group ‘Vegan Meringues – hits and misses’ emerged as a site to share a

broad diversity of recipes. As of February 2017, this group had over 64,000 members and showcases

the use of aquafaba to make not only meringues but also cakes, biscuits, cheeses, ice cream,

mayonnaise, butter, mousse, macarons and pavlovas. This vibrant free community creativity has

enabled vegan cooking to expand into areas that were previously seen as out of bounds or

13

impossible. Creative material recuperation here plays an affective role of sensual reassurance that

previously enjoyed foods remain on the menu.

Vegan cheese represents a further example of homemade creativity with several participants making

their own cheese using unexpected ingredients such as cashew nuts. Vegan baking is another

significant area of food creativity that replaces traditionally used ingredients of eggs and butter. Such

creativity contests a widespread understanding of veganism as involving loss and thus challenges

negative meanings. Vegan substitution refers not to just ingredients but to whole meals and vegans

use their own verb, to ‘veganise’, to refer to the cooking of traditional dishes in vegan form. Once

more this provides the possibility to retain food continuity in this sense with prior food identities.

I enjoy cooking traditional stuff that I would have eaten before and there’s just no reason why

you shouldn’t be able to eat things like that. Like even St Andrew’s day coming in, the haggis, the

neeps and the tatties but you can do that so easily. All vegetarian haggis is vegan so things like

that (Tanya, 30).

This participant captures well the ability of food creativity and substitution to allow vegans to retain

participation in national and cultural celebrations. In a similar vein the creativity of vegans may be

orientated toward the retention of traditional and personally satisfying meals:

I’ve got a really nice winter dish which is ale, mushroom and lentil pie with puff pastry on top. It’s

just really sort of satisfying and feels a very traditional kind of meal with potatoes and broccoli

and that’s always gone down really well (Rebecca, 41).

These are significant because they suggest the material amelioration of potential alienation from

prior food identities that could arise after vegan transition, and again assuage perceptions of the

otherness of veganism. In comparison to mainstream omnivorous eating, despite the relative recent

proliferation of processed vegan foods, vegans have less processed foods to choose from. This does

have a consequence for the modes of cooking vegans participate in with many in this sample

14

reporting a renewed engagement with food and an increased likelihood to ‘cook from scratch’ post-

transition. Transition itself may consequently engender forms of creative experimentation. Vegan

cheesecake is a good example of the versatility of silken tofu which as Leslie pointed out can also be

used to make vegan mousse:

There’s a really nice recipe for a chocolate mousse that’s just really tofu and chocolate blended

together. You give that to people and they say, that’s too nice to be tofu, but it’s the easiest

mousse (Leslie, 47).

Another unexpected ingredient in vegan cakes is vinegar which stems from Second World War

recipes produced under conditions of rationing and austerity. As Rosemary recounts:

I used a Rose Elliot recipe for a sponge cake that used baking soda, baking powder and vinegar

and everyone was horrified that you would put vinegar in a cake but of course it’s a chemical

reaction and it works (Rosemary, 64).

Vinegar is also commonly used in vegan recipes for cupcakes. The vegan cupcake is part of a group of

foods that have become iconic within the vegan community due to the artistry and creativity put

into their creation. Others in this category include the vegan pizza (as vegan cheese manufacture has

improved) and the vegan fry up, or vegan breakfast. The community fetishisation of these foods can

be read in the context of a less resource intensive mode of hedonism (Soper, 2008) and as working

to secure meanings of pleasure in the face of stereotypes of veganism as bland. This suggests work

on the material constitution of vegan practice as intimately involved in contesting the meanings of

veganism.

iii) New food exploration

Although we can now point to evidence suggesting that it is a practice gradually entering the

mainstream of society, practitioners still certainly encounter problems with intelligibility. Ritualised

responses from omnivores become shared jokes within the vegan community. One of these is the

15

question ‘what do you eat?’, which suggests some degree of material ignorance over the vegan diet

(even though everyone eats food that is vegan). On social media a very popular hashtag used by

vegans to tag photos of meals (#whatveganseat) is itself a retort to this question. Yet a subtext to

the question is: what else could there possibly be left to eat once one omits animal products and it

reinforces the perception of veganism as restrictive.

In light of this, an interesting finding from this research is the tendency of vegans to explore new

foods that they had not consumed prior to transition. This subverts the negative meaning of

restriction and suggests veganism for at least a significant number of practitioners to be an

expansive, abundant diet and transition a time of exploring new foods and incorporating them into

daily or weekly food routines.

I’ve eaten foods that I wouldn’t normally have eaten, I’ve become a lot more experimental and

open to different types of food that I would normally have screwed my nose up at (Bob, 20).

People say well ‘what do you eat?’ and basically I eat many hundreds of plant stuffs whereas non-

vegans, they survive on half a dozen dead things. I suppose my diet has expanded in that I’ve

experimented much more with loads of different vegetables, nuts, pulses, seaweeds, I do quite a

lot of foraging for mushrooms and seaweeds and stuff like that (Paul, 48).

Both of these participants point to experimenting with new foods with Paul inverting the usual

assumption of vegan restriction, instead making an argument for the narrowness of omnivorous

eating.

There’s so many things that I’ve tried since being vegan I’d never have known about or tried

before, you know, coconut oil spread on toast instead of butter, which is absolutely gorgeous,

nutritional yeast which I use, and you know, just all the different sort of vegetables, like kohlrabi,

I’d never had a kohlrabi before (Fiona, 43).

16

For these vegans transition ushered in a period of food exploration and reinforces previous findings

that a vegan diet is often associated with increased and more diverse levels of fruit and vegetable

consumption (Haddad and Tanzman, 2003). Accordingly, transition cannot be reduced to a process

of material substitution but can involve an expanding and diversified material re-constitution of

eating and a re-design of eating routines.

iv) Taste transition

Such a process of exploration and reconstitution could not take place without simultaneous changes

in the social and physical experiences of taste as part of the physicality of food practice. This is an

important dimension that needs consideration in the broader literature on sustainable food

transitions. Attending to the embodied and sensual experience of food transition illuminates how

practitioners understand the concept of taste. In trying to understand food practices notions of

taste are pertinent to all elements of the practice – meanings, materialities and competences.

Aesthetic discourses around vegan eating are arguably heightened due to its part contextualisation

by mainstream portrayals of loss and blandness of taste. The aesthetic devaluation of vegan eating

may constitute a barrier to practice diffusion and it is thus not surprising to see vegans engaged in

broad strategies of vegan food aestheticisation. The three aforementioned modes of material

constitution of vegan eating – substitution, food creativity and exploring new foods - involve active

experiments with taste.

Alongside a celebratory taste aesthetics including practices of social display via, for example, social

media, participants spoke of taste in ways which underlined its fluid dynamic social construction. A

recurrent theme was the way in which people spoke of transition being easier than expected. This

was bound up for many in the exploration of new flavours mitigating a possible sense of loss. Several

participants spoke of trying out new tastes and being aware that it took time to get used to new

flavours, such as some substitutes:

17

I tasted vegan cheese and thought it was the most disgusting food I had ever tasted so didn’t

actually try that again for some years. But then I tried it again and it didn’t taste nearly as bad, so

I think it was about the comparison. Again, I tried vegan yoghurt not long after I turned vegan

and didn’t like it. I tried it a couple of years later and thought it was lovely stuff. So I think your

tastes do actually change over time (Leslie, 47).

I’ve found it much easier than I thought. I think I almost feel like I eat better stuff now that tastes

better because there’s less convenience food that’s vegan. You sort of have to cook more from

scratch but then that’s a good thing because you end up getting more variety (Claire, 35).

The first extract may also allude to the material work on taste performed by an increasing number of

plant-based start-ups interested in reproducing the taste of animal products (see Sexton, 2016). The

readjustment of daily food routines within transition is also arguably bound up within the learning of

a new competency of taste in which not only new flavours become valued but ethics and aesthetics

come to overlap. Participants were asked to reflect on their prior meat eating and often this was

expressed via taste or olfactory disgust again highlighting the dynamics of taste:

It disturbs me when I think of the taste now. I think if we were meant to eat meat we’d eat it like

every single other animal on the planet, we would eat it raw (Sophie, 21).

Arsel and Bean’s practice theory informed concept of a ‘taste regime’ is useful here. They define this

as a ‘discursive system that links aesthetics to practice…a normative system that orchestrates the

aesthetics of practice in a culture of consumption’ (2013: 899-900). They outline various activities

that practitioners engage in which bring together material objects and meanings. For example, a

‘taste regime problematizes objects by continually questioning how they align with the regime’s core

meanings’ (p.907). Understood in this way vegans are engaged in the construction of their own

taste regime, one which interweaves aesthetic and ethical meaning in the on-going dynamics of

what constitutes vegan practice. This may also extend to the problematisation of plant-based

18

material objects such as palm oil which may be perceived as questionably vegan due to their

implication in habitat loss for the orangutan.

Taste is further mobilised as a means to socially extend the practice but also to practice family and

friendship. Participants revealed a theme which I term ‘demonstrative veganism’ (Twine, 2014)

whereby they used food to communicate with non-vegan friends and family about veganism, to

draw omnivores into the material, sensual experience of vegan food. Here cooking for others and

the agential taste of the food serves to positively change the meanings of veganism, to again

domesticate its sense of otherness. Social events such as vegan potlucks and fairs are also designed

to be demonstrative of the taste regime to both practitioners and the curious, providing

opportunities, literally, for tasting foods and the linked circulation of meanings, materials and

competences. The network of vegan fairs in the UK has grown considerably during the past five years

extending now to also include smaller cities such as Lancaster, Bournemouth and Lincoln. Discussing

the importance of events to practice theory Birtchnell argues that they provide a celebratory context

for a practice which is ‘given visibility, merit and institutional blessing’ (2012: 500). Vegan fairs

comprise numerous stalls that visitors explore which act to project meanings, introduce materials

and demonstrate competences in the practice, with cooking demonstrations an example of the

latter. Vegan practice contests both a fixed view of taste and the dominant taste regime that

celebrates the tastes of animal products divorced from the ethical treatment of animals.

Materialising vegan practice: intimations for sustainable food transition

Focusing on vegan materialities in producing an account of the practice and processes of transition

affords insights into the rich material dimensions of veganism, and especially how food is actively

worked with as part of the practice. Importantly, it provides evidence for some of the significant

interweavings between materials and the other elements of competences and meanings. From

being an active participant in the UK vegan community, and through the rich narratives of the

interview data, I have argued that four overlapping modes of material constitution can be discerned

19

- substitution, new food exploration, food creativity and taste transition – which are important to

the experience of doing veganism. These modes of material constitution have contributed to the

diffusion of the practice and could be important for broader policies on sustainable food transition.

Specifically, they could help dispel the assumption that vegan transition constitutes an overly

demanding policy ambition.

The doing of vegan eating, as I have highlighted, is not a homogenous practice. There are variations

for example, in terms of consuming processed vs. non-processed foods, and between those more or

less enrolled into the health meanings of the practice. This research suggests that most vegans eat

some degree of processed substitute foods for their convenience value and the maintenance of prior

routine.

Modes of material constitution here are found to play a role in strengthening the links between

different elements of a practice. This takes place within the broader context of the dominant

practice of omnivorous eating whose practitioners perpetuate omnivorous normativity and may also

be engaged in the devaluation of veganism. Thus, working with and consuming substitutes presents

a form of veganism partly within the normative structure of omnivorous eating (i.e. a meal organised

around a protein object) but has the distinct advantage of remaining intelligible and within prior

routine. Ecologically this constitutes an example of what Spurling et. al. (2013) refer to as using

substitution to reduce the resource intensity of a practice by changing its elements. Vegans are often

aware of the parasitic nature of substitution, subverting it with humour if sometimes also exhibiting

ambivalence toward such materiality. As well as promoting a more normalised, domesticated doing

of veganism substitution also builds competency into the object itself, in common with processed

foods generally. Substitution represents one of the quickest ways in which a society might achieve a

sustainable food transition and should arguably receive a greater policy steer.

However, ‘skilling the material’ is more indicative of mass produced substitutes and this study

highlighted a realm of d.i.y. vegan cooking where practitioners not only took joy in ‘cooking from

20

scratch’ and the learning of new food competences but also experimented with modes of

substitution as underlined with the case of aquafaba. The varying time resources of practitioners

shape the mode of engagement with materials and competences. New food exploration and food

creativity actively contested mainstream meanings of vegan practice, promoting instead a veganism

of choice, not loss or restriction; pleasure not blandness; as accessible not onerous. The fetishisation

of vegan iconic foods by the broader community of practice online and at vegan events aestheticizes

vegan food in order to disseminate such meanings and create new patterns of demand. This new

taste regime is open to experimentalism and novelty. Such reflexivity to the dynamics of taste is

itself an important competency for imagining sustainable food transition and generally greater policy

knowledge of vegan practice could inform policies to promote practice interventions to facilitate

more plant-based eating.

This study may be of wider import to sociological interest in the relation between materiality and

practice. Firstly, by adding to understandings of the active implication of materials in the diffusion of

practice. Secondly, by further revealing ways in which materiality adheres with other elements of

practice and, thirdly, by suggesting avenues for accelerating adoption via new taste regimes which

actively enrol practitioners into their everyday reproduction.

There are also obvious limitations to a focus on the material constitution of vegan practice. It

potentially backgrounds cherished ethical meanings – especially those related to animal ethics -

important to practitioners and which were revealed by the narratives of my participants.

Interestingly, vegan advocacy has traditionally proceeded first by trying to convince people of ethical

arguments around animal sentience and so on. This has arguably over-rationalised the human,

assumed an autonomous actor and not taken on board practice theory insights around the habitual

and systemic nature of practice. What vegans do with food to materially constitute the practice

arguably illustrates a better awareness of the aesthetic and commensal dimensions of food

experience, as well as a recognition of how people accomplish vegan practice in everyday life.

21

While there are dangers in fetishising vegan food which might naively assume that plant-based foods

are immune from ethico-political scrutiny, the material constitution of vegan practice has been

shown to be a generator of cohesion between the elements of vegan practice and offers, in lieu of

any governmental steer on sustainable diets, a part explanation for the growing adoption of vegan

eating in the UK.

Notes

1 For further details of the 2016 Ipsos Mori poll, see https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-new/news/find-out-how-many-

vegans-are-great-britain

2 To the best of my knowledge this phrase was first used by Toke Haunstrup and Chris Foulds in their call for papers for the

‘Exploring the role of materials in practices and sustainability’ track at the 2016 4S/EASST Conference, at which an earlier

version of this article was presented.

3 See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/02/usda-american-egg-board-hampton-creek-just-mayo

References

Arsel Z and Bean J (2013) Taste Regimes and Market-Mediated Practice. Journal of Consumer

Research 39: 899-917.

Berners-Lee M, Hoolohan C, Cammack H and Hewitt CN (2012) The relative greenhouse gas impacts

of realistic dietary choices. Energy Policy 43: 184–190.

Birtchnell T (2012) Elites, elements and events: Practice theory and scale. Journal of Transport

Geography 24: 497-502

Catton WR and Dunlap RE (1980) A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology. American

Behavioral Scientist 24(1): 15-47.

Charles N (2014) ‘Animals Just Love You as You Are’: Experiencing Kinship across the Species Barrier.

Sociology 48(4): 715-730.

22

Cudworth E (2016) A sociology for other animals: analysis, advocacy, intervention. International

Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 36(3/4): 242-257.

Donaldson B and Carter C (eds) (2016) The Future of Meat Without Animals. London: Roman and

Littlefield International.

Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A and Tempio G (2013)

Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation

opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Haddad EH and Tanzman JS (2003) What do vegetarians in the United States eat? American Journal

of Clinical Nutrition 78: 626–632.

Hargreaves T (2011) Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-

environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture 11(1): 79-99.

Hitchings R (2012) People can talk about their practices. Area 44(1): 61-67.

Hui A, Schatzki T and Shove E (eds) (2017) The Nexus of Practices - Connections, constellations,

practitioners. London: Routledge.

Jagtenberg T and McKie D (1997) Eco-impacts and the greening of postmodernity. London: Sage.

Jallinoja P, Niva M and Latvala T (2016) Future of Sustainable Eating? Examining the potential for

expanding bean eating in a meat-eating culture. Futures 83: 4-14.

McMeekin A and Southerton D (2012) Sustainability transitions and final consumption: practices and

socio-technical systems. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 24 (4): 345-361.

Malm A (2016) Fossil Capital – The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming. London:

Verso.

23

Marta Andreatta M (2015) Being a Vegan: A Performative Autoethnography. Cultural Studies -

Critical Methodologies 15(6): 477-486.

Martens L (2012) Practice ‘in talk’ and talk ‘as practice’: Dish washing and the reach of language.

Sociological Research Online 17(3) http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/3/22.html

Peggs K (2009) A Hostile World for Nonhuman Animals: Human Identification and the Oppression of

Nonhuman Animals for Human Good. Sociology 43(1): 85-102.

Reckwitz A (2002a) Toward a theory of social practices: A development in Culturalist Theorizing.

European Journal of Social Theory 5(2): 243-263.

Reckwitz A (2002b) The status of the ‘material’ in theories of culture: From ‘Social Structure’ to

‘Artefacts’. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 32(2): 195-217.

Rinkinen J, Jalas M and Shove E (2015) Object relations in accounts of everyday life. Sociology 49(5):

870-885.

Sayer A (2013) Power, sustainability and well-being: an outsider’s view. In: Shove E and Spurling N

(eds) Sustainable Practices – Social Theory and Climate Change. London: Routledge.

Scarborough P, Appleby PN, Mizdrak A, Briggs ADM, Travis RC, Bradbury KE and Key TJ (2014) Dietary

greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic

Change 125: 179–192.

Schatzki T (1996) Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schatzki T (2002) The Site of the Social – A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and

Change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Sexton A (2016) Alternative proteins and the (non) stuff of “meat”. Gastronomica 17(3): 66-78.

24

Shove E (2010) Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment

and Planning A 42(6): 1273-1285.

Shove E, Watson M, Hand M and Ingram J (2007) The Design of Everyday Life. London: Berg

Publishers.

Shove E, Pantzar M and Watson M (2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice – Everyday Life and How it

Changes. London: Sage.

Shove E and Spurling N (eds) (2013) Sustainable Practices – Social Theory and Climate Change.

London: Routledge.

Shove E, Walker G. and Brown S (2014) Material culture, room temperature and the social

organisation of thermal energy. Journal of Material Culture 19(2): 113-124.

Sinclair R (2016) The Sexual Politics of Meatless Meat. In: Donaldson B and Carter C (eds) The Future

of Meat Without Animals. London: Roman and Littlefield International.

Soper K (2008) Alternative hedonism, cultural theory and the role of aesthetic revisioning. Cultural

Studies 22(5): 567-587.

Spurling N, McMeekin A, Shove E, Southerton D and Welch D (2013) Interventions in practice:

Reframing policy approaches to consumer behaviour. Sustainable Practices Research Group Report,

available from http://www.sprg.ac.uk/uploads/sprg-report-sept-2013.pdf

Twine R (2014) Vegan Killjoys at the Table - Contesting Happiness and Negotiating Relationships with

Food Practices. Societies 4(4): 623-639.

Warde A (2013) What sort of a practice is eating? In: Shove E and Spurling N (eds) Sustainable

Practices: Social Theory and Climate Change. London: Routledge.

Warde A (2016) The Practice of Eating. Cambridge: Polity Press.

25

Wilkie R (2015) Multispecies Scholarship and Encounters: Changing Assumptions at the Human-

Animal Nexus. Sociology 49(2): 323-339.

Richard Twine is a Senior Lecturer in Social Sciences, and Co-Director of the Centre for Human-Animal Studies

(CfHAS) at Edge Hill University. His main research interests are in critical animal studies, the relationship

between food practices and sustainability, and the sociology of climate change. He is the author of Animals as

Biotechnology – ethics, sustainability and critical animal studies (2010, Routledge) and co-editor of The Rise of

Critical Animal Studies – from the margins to the centre (2014, Routledge).

26