https://foodethics.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/p_foodethik/Ruby__Matthew_2012._Research_Review_Vegetarianism._A_blossoming_field_of_study.pdf

Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study.

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/24434085/Piazza_etal_A_2015_Rationalizing_Meat_Consumption_The_4Ns.pdf

Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns.

What does "ideology" mean? As a preliminary step to answering this muchasked question, I collected what seemed to be the most thoughtful and/or influential definitions circulating within the social sciences in the postwar decades. 1 A quick perusal of these definitions reveals the extent to which ideology remains a highly flexible conceptual tool (see Table 1). One is struck not only by the cumulative number of different attributes that writers find essential, but by their more than occasional contradictions. To some, ideology is dogmatic, while to others it carries connotations of political sophistication; to some it refers to dominant modes of thought, and to others it refers primarily to those most alienated by the status quo (e.g., revolutionary movements and parties). To some it is based in the concrete interests of a social class, while to others it is characterized by an absence of economic self-interest. One could continue, but the point is already apparent: not only is ideology farflung, it also encompasses a good many definitional traits which are directly at odds with one another. Indeed, it has become customary to begin any discussion of ideology with some observation concerning its semantic promiscuity.2 Few concepts in the social science lexicon have occasioned so much discussion, so much disagreement, and so much selfconscious discussion of the disagreement, as "ideology." Condemned time and again for its semantic excesses, for its bulbous unclarity, the concept of ideology remains, against all odds, a central term of social science discourse. How, then, are we to understand this semantic confusion, and how are we to deal with it? Five common approaches can be identified among writers in the social sciences: operationalization, terminological reshuffling, intellectual history, etiology and multivocality. In the following section, I outline each of these endeavors and demonstrate their limitations. I then proceed to a new approach which comprehensively maps the meanings of ideology onto a single, reasonably concise, semantic grid. I conclude with a brief discussion of "core" meanings for ideology, and a plea for context-dependent methods of definition. COMMON APPROACHES 1. Operationalization Among those who study "behavior" in American politics, discussion of ideology has centered on a single empirical question: how ideological is the mass public (compared, that is, with political elites)? There have been a good many twists and turns in this debate since it was introduced by Campbell et al. (1960), McClosky et al. (1960), Converse (1964), and McClosky (1964). But the debate over the ideological proclivities of the mass public does not seem much closer to resolution today than it did in the 1960s.3 The reason for this lack of resolution has something to do with problems of data incommensurability through time and differing methods of operationalizing variables, as generally recognized. Less often recognized are the various problems of definition inherent in the concept of ideology. Is an "ideological" mode of thought characterized by abstraction, internal consistency, external contrast, endurance through time, rationality, sophistication, a hierarchical ordering of idea-elements, parsimony-or some combination of these characteristics? Is it separate from group affiliation and/or party affiliation? Such questions, which merely scratch the surface of scholarly debate among behavioralists, are "definitional" in the sense that no answer can claim a priori precedence over another. Each definitional attribute may, of course, be operationalized in different ways, raising a second tier of disputes. Indeed, some writers take the position that definitional tasks are contained within-and rightfully subservient to-tasks of operationalization. "It matters primarily not what you call it, but how you measure it," is the implicit approach of many behavioralists. Although there is surely much to be said for a pragmatic/ empirical approach to concept definition, this has not proven an entirely successful strategy in the instant case. …

Ideology: A Definitional Analysis:

John Gerring's exceptional textbook has been thoroughly revised in this second edition. It offers a one-volume introduction to social science methodology relevant to the disciplines of anthropology, economics, history, political science, psychology and sociology. This new edition has been extensively developed with the introduction of new material and a thorough treatment of essential elements such as conceptualization, measurement, causality and research design. It is written for students, long-time practitioners and methodologists and covers both qualitative and quantitative methods. It synthesizes the vast and diverse field of methodology in a way that is clear, concise and comprehensive. While offering a handy overview of the subject, the book is also an argument about how we should conceptualize methodological problems. Thinking about methodology through this lens provides a new framework for understanding work in the social sciences.

Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework

This paper critically examines discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers in 2007. In setting parameters for what can and cannot easily be discussed, dominant discourses also help frame understanding. Discourses relating to veganism are therefore presented as contravening commonsense, because they fall outside readily understood meat-eating discourses. Newspapers tend to discredit veganism through ridicule, or as being difficult or impossible to maintain in practice. Vegans are variously stereotyped as ascetics, faddists, sentimentalists, or in some cases, hostile extremists. The overall effect is of a derogatory portrayal of vegans and veganism that we interpret as ‘vegaphobia’. We interpret derogatory discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers as evidence of the cultural reproduction of speciesism, through which veganism is dissociated from its connection with debates concerning nonhuman animals' rights or liberation. This is problematic in three, interrelated, respects. First, it empirically misrepresents the experience of veganism, and thereby marginalizes vegans. Second, it perpetuates a moral injury to omnivorous readers who are not presented with the opportunity to understand veganism and the challenge to speciesism that it contains. Third, and most seriously, it obscures and thereby reproduces exploitative and violent relations between human and nonhuman animals.

/pdf/vegaphobia-derogatory-discourses-of-veganism-and-the-2t0is01a27.pdf

Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers

This article, based upon an extensive examination of the literature on the concept of ideology, identifies some 27 definitional components or ‘elements' which are discussed in turn to ascertain their utility and coherence as definitional criteria. On the basis of this examination a number of these elements are found to be essential to the concept, and are built into a definition which allows consideration of, among other things, the expressive and justificatory dimension of beliefs often ignored in other definitions.

The Elements of the Concept of Ideology

Vegetarianism has long been associated in popular imagination with pacifism and nonviolence due to the prevalence of ethical motives underlying it. If this is so ethically motivated vegetarians might be expected to be more sensitive about and opposed to acts involving violence than either vegetarians motivated by health concerns or the meat-eating population in general. This article seeks to test such an expectation, reporting findings from a study using in-depth interviews with vegetarians variously motivated by ethical as well as health and other concerns, and with meat eaters. Respondents were asked their views about capital punishment, nuclear weapons, abortion, boxing, foxhunting, shooting and angling for sport. The data are used to assess theories of vegetarianism that emphasize meat as a symbol of violence and/or of domination and oppression. The findings present a varied and fairly complex picture with opposition to foxhunting and “blood” sports being considerably greater than among other ...

Eating Death: Vegetarians, Meat and Violence

Expressions of disgust at the idea of eating, handling, or even seeing meat have often been reported in studies of vegetarianism. Reasons for such reactions have rarely, however, been examined. Neither an ethical stance nor health concerns regarding meat consumption obviously indicate such a reaction. This article presents findings from research utilizing in-depth interviews with vegetarians variously motivated by ethical, health, and other concerns and with meat eaters. A clear difference was found in the sample regarding disgust reactions to meat between those who avoided meat consumption for ethical reasons and those who avoided it for reasons of health. Rather than concluding that avoidance of meat stems from revulsion or that revulsion is the consequence of avoidance of meat, the article concludes that meat is a substance that evokes, independently, both ethical concerns and feelings of revulsion and that the latter is heightened by the former. The research project upon which this article is based wa...

Disgust Reactions to Meat Among Ethically and Health Motivated Vegetarians

After thirteen years in opposition the fragile victory of the Labour Party in 1964 seemed to mark a turning point in British politics confirmed by the success of 1966. Wilson’s government seemed symptomatic of a wider and deeper change taking place in British society. The sixties were an optimistic period in Britain. Yet the country and the government were beset by economic problems which remain unresolved. The Labour Party began an electoral decline after 1966 which has not yet been reversed. Divisions within the party took on a more sinister and damaging appearance when they became linked with the institutional and structural cleavages within the party such as those between the Parliamentary Labour Party, NEC and Conference. Relations between the unions and the party were soured by the attempt to subject the former to regulation through legislation. The record of the Wilson years is, indeed, one of a strange mixture of triumph, optimism and dismal failure. It set the scene for a thorough reassessment of the party’s policy stance and the long and bitter struggle that was to ensue some years later on the question of the party’s constitution and structure.

Malcolm B. Hamilton

Papers

The Elements of the Concept of Ideology

Eating Death: Vegetarians, Meat and Violence

Disgust Reactions to Meat Among Ethically and Health Motivated Vegetarians

The Labour Government of 1964–70

The Easternisation Thesis: Critical Reflections