Hi wonderful vegans
I've been reading about the history of the origins of the vegan movement (that is, not necessarily the ideas & practices it represents which were as old as Ancient Greece if not earlier, but the modern movement in its current official capacity ever since the word "vegan"/"veganism" was coined by Donald Watson, founder of the Vegan Society in the UK in 1944).
Watson ultimately chose the word to represent "the beginning and the end of vegetarian(ism)", in quite a literal (as well as metaphorical or symbolic) sense: "vegetarian", the start and end of the word with the middle removed, but further the idea that vegetarianism was imperfect due to the increasing scrutiny on its inclusion/allowance of animal products & the problems (ethical, environmental, societal, health) with those, and that something better or more consistent needed to take its place (Though, it should be noted that it used to be the case that vegetarian, even without the clarification "strict vegetarian" which usually didn't include any animal products, was frequently on its own used to mean someone who didn't consume any animal products historically [not just who didn't eat animal flesh], and in some cases was even what we would call a vegan today since the word just didn't exist then, while people who did consume other animal products such as dairy or eggs were often called terms like lacto-vegetarian or ovo-vegetarian respectively, or lacto-ovo-vegetarian for both, & in some cases may have even used the prefixes api- or melli- to denote consumption of bee's honey. Over time the consumption of these animal products [to say nothing of leather, wool or all the other forms of animal exploitation] began to be assumed or allowed under the definition of vegetarian unqualified, leading eventually to its modern colloquial usage of simply someone who doesn't eat animal flesh).
Some other options that were rejected in favor of the word vegan were "allvega", "vitan", "benevore", or "dairyban", and I'm kind of glad none of those were chosen, although vitan is interesting (especially since vegetarian apparently came from the Latin word "vegetus" meaning something along the lines of vital or vitality, not vegetable, though I'm sure the double meaning was intended), because they all carry the same problem, possibly even moreso than the word vegan, which I think Leslie Cross identified as being present even in the word that was eventually chosen: they're linked to diet, too closely tied to vegetarian, and most importantly none of the names themselves have anything to do with animals (non-human animals). Arguably, they focus on humans and what we're doing, especially what we're eating, and even hold a health-focused connotation (especially vitan), which vegetarian itself may have always had too, although the main thing people associate it (and sadly to a degree vegan) with is vegetables (which are also not even the only plant food or non-animal food, or necessarily the best example [some see them as unappetizing, often forgetting or not realising how delicious they can be when prepared & served in certain meals & contexts], some vegetarians and vegans apparently don't even eat them or much of them [though they should for health reasons, which is important not just for our own sake but because being healthier does help us be better advocates & examples], and aren't necessarily representative of the varied diets we eat, though even if they were the association with diet is still arguably an issue).
It makes sense that the word vegan stemmed from the word vegetarian, and that it still retains some of the dietary-focused or health-focused elements of vegetarianism in the name (the "veg" in vegan), as the veganism movement itself was born out of vegetarianism, and even the more developed ideas of completely respecting & leaving animals alone/not using them at all for anything (&, arguably, an intention of reducing harm to them in all ways of living as far as practicable) evolved naturally from the groundwork laid by vegetarianism and other practices & cultures like Jainism, Buddhism & elements of Hinduism, and notions of ahimsa or non-violence to sentient beings, with non-exploitation simply being a logical extension of those ideas. However, as those ideas are incomplete & imperfect, and heavily diet-focused, it may be seen as important to get away from vegetarianism and establish veganism as more of a distinct idea than it has been. But that effort is somewhat hindered by not just the name veganism, but the reasons that name came about, which is that our well-intentioned Donald Watson originally defined veganism/vegan roughly as "someone who doesn't eat any animal products", AKA the much maligned & disowned (by modern "ethical vegans", or simply vegans, as veganism as we know it is inherently an ethical stance) notion of "dietary veganism" being a form of, rather than just one entailment of, veganism (and it sadly is the original version which was associated with the name, admittedly). Not only this, but the definition focused heavily on benefit to humans, human health, society, & the environment, in addition to non-human animals (not that these aren't important factors, nor that they aren't benefits of or good arguments/reasons for certain practical components of adopting a vegan stance, specifically the plant-based/animal-free diet & lifestyle that accompanies it, but rather that they aren't the primary intentions or definition of what would become "the only movement that entirely considers & acts in the best interests of non-human animals", even if doing so is extremely beneficial to ourselves as liberators as well).
After Leslie Cross, a key member of vegan history (potentially even the most important & instrumental figure), was appointed to the Vegan Society's committee/board of director's in 1948, he noticed the lack of a clear definition (or, really, the flaws & limitations of the whole ethos) and sought to re-define what veganism was & what it stood for over the next few years before the 1951 publishing of "The New Constitution" and "Veganism Defined" when veganism was formally defined as "the principle that [humans] should live without exploiting [other] animals", with the goal/object being "the abolition of the exploitation of animal life by [humans]" or "the emancipation of animals from exploitation by [humans]", seeking to bring these practices toward non-human animals to an end not just on an individual level but for human society as a whole and right the wrongs of the human-animal relationship. A slightly unnecessary further elaboration was “to seek an end to the use of animals by [humans] for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by [humans]”. (Note that I replaced the word "man" with "humans" in every instance as it's more inclusive from a modern lens, but the usage of man of course did mean humans anyway). It was here that veganism officially became an ethics/justice-based position and movement rather than simply a diet.
This brings me to the titular question of this post, because I cannot verify this in the research I've done in various places, but I've heard on good authority from some knowledgeable old-school vegans that Leslie Cross was not happy about the name for the movement, "vegan"/"veganism", that he was left to work with in Donald Watson's relative absence (he officially stepped down the same year Cross was appointed to the board of directors), which aligns with the clear issues he found with the direction of the Vegan Society up until that point and the definition of veganism, or the nature of what is represented as a whole and the values it stood on. It seems very likely that, seeking to guide the movement into a morally-focused one centred around non-human animals and to remove the misleading connections with diet, health, environment or anything else, he also would have wished that the name itself had been animal-focused too.
The name of the social movement/philosophy/ethical stance/justice principle is something I've always struggled with personally. I think many of us share this sentiment, and there have been discussions before about whether it's time for a new name or if we would ever evolve to a different name in the future as the animal rights movement (which is to me & many others, inextricably linked with the vegan movement if not one and the same idea) inevitably progresses into something larger and more mainstream or universal (a common idea is that in a hypothetical vegan society, the word vegan wouldn't be relevant anymore, & that is ideal since there shouldn't need to be a word that describes not exploiting animals just like there isn't a word for "non-child abuser" etc). But for me it's a little more specific. And it's not because I care about some kind of traditionalist prescriptivist purity of adhering to an original intention (that reasoning could be used to argue for either Donald Watson's or Leslie Cross' definition, since Watson's was the first, but was underdeveloped & maybe a bit vague/confused & even contradictory in the initial stages whereas it was "finalised" when Leslie Cross redefined it clearly); rather because I think it would be functionally best (even from a utilitarian standpoint, though I think veganism is based on deontological principles, but in a manner which mostly aligns with utilitarian goals as long as those deontic principles aren't being violated), but I think Leslie Cross might have agreed that the animals being in the name of the movement at least would have been better (not that he wanted to change it, though the fact he seemingly didn't make an effort to at the time doesn't mean he didn't think about it [apparently he did] or didn't hope for it to be changed eventually).
I feel, quite strongly, that we would be succeeding more as a movement if we used more animal-centric framing in the language associated with the position, including its title, and that this is also more appropriate and respectful to the individuals which it focuses its attention on: the victims and subjects of the cause that seeks to liberate them from oppression, violence, discrimination, exploitation, etc. To this end, I nominate that we start using the terms animalist and animalism, in an ethical context, or develop other animal-focused words for veganism, which we can slowly start to use either in place of or in addition to veganism and popularise the usage of.
With the word veganism, I believe we have euphemised ourselves and the movement for animals, and in doing so shot ourselves in the foot, in a similar way to how people euphemise various terms for animal exploitation and hide behind labels like "eating meat" or "buying leather" or "keeping/raising/harvesting animals", etc and use distancing language to forget about or trick themselves into ignoring the real issues of what's happening to animals & their complicity in it, or publically appear to be talking about something different from it that's more surface level & superficially easier or more convincing to defend (making it a kind of strawman), compared to the underlying & well-hidden reality we're actually trying to draw people's attention to. Frequently I see vegans say "Replace vegan with kind to animals and see how it makes you sound: I could never be kind to animals. I don't think it's right to ask other people to be kind to animals. Being kind to animals is a personal choice but it's okay if I don't share your beliefs that we should be kind to animals". So why not do that? Why not replace the word? In practice, I much more heavily lean on saying animal rights, but the problem there is that it can't be used to describe a person or their values or practices etc, isn't as much of a simple effective word as vegan/veganism or animalist/animalism, and people don't really associate animal rights with veganism even though as Gary Francione said, "Animal rights without veganism is like human rights with slavery. It makes no sense. None whatsoever". If someone is an animalist, and it means they're vegan but we just use the word animal, it is way harder to defend not being one, because it sounds like feminist. No one wants to say they aren't a feminist or they wouldn't want to be feminist or oppose feminism (well, most progressives wouldn't anyway - and I know animal rights should be apolitical or nonpartisan for widespread adoption, but I still think it represents progress, and progressive minded people regardless of their other politics can ultimately help pave the way for universal acceptance of these ideas, values & practices).
I feel like every time I've tried to bring this up I've gotten shot down about it (don't worry, I want people to speak their mind honestly about this), and that's fine, everyone's welcome to their opinion. I guess this is an unpopular one for whatever reason, with only a handful of other people agreeing with me on what I think about it, and even fewer bringing it up independently of me. But I want to make it clear I'm not saying we should change the name of the movement, just that it's something I think we should be thinking about and discussing.
Some other points:
● Sentientism. This word & associated philosophy would be good except for its vagueness in both how it may be used (does it mean that all sentient beings are equal or that "more sentient" beings are valued above "less sentient" beings [i.e. "sliding scale" sentientism, which is not aligned with the principles of veganism in my opinion]?) and of the understanding of sentience itself (does sentience even come in degrees or is it more of a binary term like alive vs dead or married vs unmarried, with rather degrees or types of intelligence or perhaps modes or types of sentience or consciousness or aspects/properties of sentience, none of which confer a difference in moral value in my opinion as most humans would agree they don't when it comes to their own species, not to play "Name The Trait" here), as well as some other problems in how it may exclude some animals from moral consideration (both being used to rationalize that some animals are "low in sentience" enough that they don't deserve/warrant moral consideration, as well as being used to deny that some animals are sentient either in spite of evidence that they are or simply because the evidence doesn't [yet] exist or is unknowable/unprovable & not using a precautionary principle in those cases) and may manifest the idea that if you start using some animals regardless of reason, it's very easy to turn on an "exploitation switch" and start rationalizing using others, in a kind of slippery slope, especially considering the addictive nature of using animal products especially in food, and food in general (note: slippery slope is a real & valid concept - I don't believe it's a slippery slope fallacy to acknowledge the possibility or likelihood of a negative outcome resulting from a worrying trend [not necessarily believe it's fully certain, which is what would be a fallacy unless there's evidence or sufficient reason to believe that was the case] and suggest erring on the side of caution as a result), and the simple effectiveness in human psychology partly due to existing taxonomic categories & mental groupings, of drawing a clear line against animal exploitation of any kind, rather than problematically trying to find exceptions or loopholes. The Sentientism website interestingly lists animalism as one of the concepts it draws on in addition to veganism, but states the reason it falls short is due to the possibility of "levels of sentience" mattering, or maybe hypothetical non-animal sentient beings (which veganism would likely also reduce the most harm to, but also would warrant a change in approach & potentially a version of sentientism if that came to be, but also could arguably just be a separate issue & movement in addition to veganism/animalism). Anyhow, veganism is about non-human animals, and sentientism somewhat sidesteps the focus (unintentionally) & almost does an "all lives matter" (in reaction to BLM) of focusing on the human oppressors too, which could be seen as downplaying the need for a movement to focus specifically on the nonhuman animals whose plights need our attention. And everyone knows what animals are, which again comes down to the importance of them being in the name, whereas lot of people don't really understand sentience, think only humans are sentient or don't consider non-human animals as being sentient beings in spite of all the evidence they are, and conflate it with something like sapience (which is also somewhat of a vague term, and however you define it, seems like either all sentient beings must be sapient, or by usual definitions of the kind of "high functional intelligence, wisdom, self-consciousness and/or speech/civility/advancement" etc typical of humans, there must be some hypothetical humans that aren't sapient either yet most agree deserve equal moral consideration - which is why the reactionary "sapientism" argument fails & just results in ableism).
● As much as we clarify what veganism means, there will always be people who don't understand it, and that is to be expected with the word it is and associations it has, not to mention how many people (such as Pharaoh Said That on YouTube) vehemently insist that it is a diet or health-focused and even appeal to the original (Donald Watson) definition to affirm that. However, we should continue to state the animal-focused, ethics-based definition of veganism as all you wonderful vegans are already doing. I just don't think it will be enough in the end.
● Animalist especially, & also animalism, are already used, more in European countries but elsewhere too (& even in some English dictionaries), to mean things along the lines of animal rights activist/animal liberationist, or animal rights activism/animal liberation/the animal rights position/stance. Humorously, veganist is also used in place of vegan.
● I know that animalism is a separate philosophy about the animal nature of humans, but the word has increasing usage as an ethical position for non-human animals. I vote that we amplify this usage and repurpose the word for our movement, especially since the philosophy isn't that relevant in the modern world anymore and was mainly established when the idea that humans are animals was a lot more controversial than it is today (though it can live on as a separate meaning).
● Animalist is more of a free term to claim than animalism since it's associated less with the "human animal" philosophy (or with an artist who depicts/paints/sculpts animals), & potentially even connected more with animal rights activist or animal liberationist (who doesn't strictly have to be an activist, just someone who holds the position & associated practices) than those other meanings. But from this point of view, we can leverage animalist into starting to use animalism too in association with it, or potentially start off saying animalist position/animalist movement/etc.
● I also am aware that animalism and animalist, though they (particularly animalist) often do have a clear meaning that does imply animal rights abolitionist/abolitionism in certain contexts, have also been slightly co-opted to mean a general "pro-animal" view in some cases (not to misuse Natalie Fulton's term which is great, and actually she is another person who thinks we should shift the language to focus more on animals and likes to say pro-animal rather than veganism, but I'm not sure what the exact meaning is, however I'm using it here to simply denote ethical consideration for non-human animals), which can sadly include either welfarism, new welfarism/animal protectionism, or abolitionism (the only one which can truly be considered the animal rights stance or aligned with vegan principles). But this kind of corruption/watering down of principles almost happened with veganism too before it was steered back on track. The same can be done for these terms, and they can grow to mean essentially what veganism means today, or animal rights abolitionism/animal liberationism.
● We could always have 2 terms. As the usage of animalist/animalism for the movement would hypothetically increase, that doesn't mean we need to abandon veganism or allow it to be further co-opted than it already is (or, misused, depending on whether you see it as a reversion to the original unfortunate & not well thought out meaning). It just means we can use both terms interchangeably to reinforce & clarify each other, like saying antislaver or abolitionist in regards to human slavery, or (formerly) Suffragette & feminist in women's rights movements, or antiracism & BLM for example, or other cases. Also, as a future idea that would only be tenable if animal-focused words such as animalist or animalism were firmly solidified as replacements for how we're currently using veganism, it would erase the problems with the word vegan potentially being used more loosely to be able to include "pick-me vegans" who don't really hold the vegan ethical stance as approximated by Leslie Cross that we're describing, or people who purely are vegan in action only but don't hold any kind of ethical stance, or those who just follow a vegan diet/animal-free diet, or however people are using it (not that they should, but they will).
● I know I'm suggesting co-opting words that mean other things in certain contexts (though animalist barely does, animalism does to a degree), and I have no problem with that. A co-opting is beneficial in my opinion if it makes sense or is useful or helpful, and not when it doesn't or isn't. For example, some may argue veganism was co-opted to mean an ethics movement for animals by Leslie Cross when it originally meant a diet. And that's good, i think. Also, that "plant-based" was co-opted to mean an animal-free diet or lifestyle in general (whether or not it contains oils or "processed" food) when it may have originally meant whole foods plant based diet (WFPBD) specifically. I'm okay with that co-opting, it seems strange & unproductive to occupy such a general term for a narrower definition than it literally implies which gatekeeps against non-whole foods unnecessarily (you can have health opinions about it, but it's still arbitrary to call it plant-based rather than WFPB). I also think the co-opting of plant-based to mean plant-forward (when that word already exists for the distinction), including as a marketing label, is unbeneficial & harmful in contrast, and even misleading & evidently causes some vegans to unknowingly buy (or have people they know buy them) items containing animal products that were listed as "plant-based" which many people assume means animal-free, or even vegan (which really should mean no products of animal testing either, as far as it can be avoided as a consumer like anything else unethical). And calling animal testing free "cruelty free" misleads both vegans & non-vegans/carnists/malzoans (without going into the discussion of what someone who isn't vegan should be called) into buying things thinking they're vegan, as well as tricks non-vegans into believing non-vegan products are cruelty free & helping to prevent feelings of guilt associated with consumption/support of animal products, enabling them to continue doing so.
I'm sorry for this very long post, I didn't mean for it to get this long. Curious to hear anyone's thoughts on the ideas in general even if you didn't read all of it.