I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I have been interviewing people (à la anthropologie) about their eating habits, conscious eating, and their experience of veganism or non-veganism. I have some preliminary findings. I didn't really know where I was going with this when I started, and I ended up having a very convoluted analysis. So I am trying to work on that to find something solid about what I researched.
Anyway... I am not going to post all of my findings. But one thing interesting... I felt that I had avoided talking to the non-veg*ans about the things I talked to the veg*ans about - that is, why were they or why were they not veg*an. I did not ask that question to the non-veg*ans specifically but drew my own conclusions from everything else. So I felt like there was a wall there with all three of them. I went back and interviewed one of them a second time, but emphasizing conscious eating. I basically beat around the bush and asked her all kinds of questions not related to animal products... but then I finally asked her about them when I felt comfortable doing so. I asked her if she had ever thought about why she eats animals, and she said she doesn't and wouldn't eat animals she has seen herself, like ducks and cats and dogs. She said quite frankly, "I don't know why it's different for cows and chickens. If I had grown up with them, my eating habits would probably be different."
We talked about the power of seeing.
What's really cool is that I had spent a lot of time around her, and she doesn't talk that much about this kind of thing despite caring. She had been open-minded in our discussions before, so I wondered why she didn't care enough to give up the animal products or something. I got to talk to her about some things that I otherwise would have just avoided so as not to offend. It was a very honest conversation, and I feel that avoiding the conversation was somehow dishonest.
I think I didn't learn that much new about why people make their choices because I feel like I've heard it all before in some way, shape, or form. I did learn some things, but not enough to write a paper about. Like, two out of three of those who ate meat had very much stuck to what they ate before, and they seemed more regimented in their habits than the veg*ans. And I learned some things about identity, like some people will call themselves vegetarian or vegan despite in some situations consuming animal products. Also, that identity affected whether or not people went veg*an because all the veg*ans I talked to had done so due to being close with someone who had the veg*an identity.... those who were not veg*an didn't seem to be close with anyone who was. So people had the vertical effect of health issues or environmental or animal issues... but then there was this horizontal issue of how they were affected by others' identity and habits.
But... perhaps more interesting was just learning that I could talk to people and break down this wall, this barrier that I have felt with non-veg*ans. I can actually get inside their heads by suspending judgment with them.
But then, doing these interviews, to gain their trust, I am not sure when it's possible to stop suspending judgment if it is. Is there a point when I can say, "This has been fun and all... now here's a video..."? I mean... I didn't really want to do this assignment on veganism because I knew I was going to feel the activist in me want to try to change them.
I read a Buddhist quote somewhere that the funny thing about change is that change is only possible after acceptance. So... where does this acceptance end? I don't understand acceptance very well... I spend all my time trying to change the world.
Has anyone else here done this kind of research?
Bookmarks