In a statement, the food retailer stated that John Brown Media – which produces the Waitrose & Partners Food Magazine – had announced Sitwell’s resignation as editor of the magazine with immediate effects. The statement continued:
We have told John Brown Media, in light of William’s recent emails, that this is what we think the right thing to do is. We will work with them to appoint an editor for the magazine. William has been a part of our company for over 20 years. We are grateful for all he has done for us.
Selene Nelson, a freelance journalist, pitched to the magazine a series of “plant-based” recipes due to the increase in popularity of vegan products over the past few years. Waitrose has, like other UK supermarkets, recently expanded its vegan product range.
Nelson’s idea was perfect. Sitwell, on the other hand, responded in a way that was off-key.
What about a series of killing vegans one by one? What are some ways to catch them? How to properly interrogate these people? How to expose their hypocrisy? Force them to eat meat? You can make them drink red wine and eat steak?
Media stereotypes about vegans are no longer as popular as they used to be. Media hostility towards vegans is not new. A 2011 sociological study documented the way UK newspapers ridiculed veganism, with vegans being stereotyped as angry or militant, self-denying or sentimental. The more people who try veganism and meet vegans, and the more they encounter vegan-friendly practices and products in everyday life, these stereotypes become more blatant.
Nelson’s politeness contrasted starkly with Sitwells’ vitriol, which was a response that ironically expressed an interest in “exploring why the mere mention of veganism makes some people so hostile.” This exchange may be a good example of the current plague of entitled anger, which contaminates public discourse when entitlements are challenged.
William Sitwell and his fellow Masterchef the Professionals judges Grace Dent and Tracey McLeod. BBC/Shine TV Ltd
Guilty conscience
In a society that is not vegan, the right to consume other animals’ bodies is a threat. In this context, has found that vegans can provoke defensiveness in non-vegans when they imply that they have failed to act on an issue of morality. Unresolved guilty plays out on a continuum, ranging from framing non-vegan practices (“I don’t consume much meat”) to anger towards vegans. These defensive reactions have a familiar range of style and tone to vegans.
The social power of food practices is a powerful marker of cultural and social identity. Any criticism, whether explicit or implicit, can be hurtful. The construction of masculine identities has been heavily influenced by meat-eating. The social and cultural identity of those who are dependent on non-vegan practices is threatened by challenging the dominant position.
Poor Taste
The criticism of Sitwell’s email led to the emergence of a stereotype about humourlessness. We have discussed in other articles how humour can be used to reduce oppressive power relationships. The “humour” that is used to disguise oppressive power relationships tries to shield it from criticism, but we must remain aware of the power dynamics and potency of these “jokes.”
Sitwell denied the ethical foundation of veganism in his initial apology: “I love, respect and honor people of all appetites whether they are vegans, vegetarians or meat eaters. I demonstrate this week after week through my writing, editing, and broadcasting.” Veganism is here reduced to a consumer preference – one of many dietary options – and not an ethical imperative aimed at eliminating human exploitation of animals.
Sitwell’s initial response was to say that his “good behavior” in the past is proof that his recent incident is not representative. He apologizes for any offense caused by others rather than for his own offensive actions. In doing so, Sitwell refuses to accept responsibility for his behaviour. It is a textbook case of victim-blaming without apology. In this instance, Sitwell uses yet another antivegan stereotype, over-sensitivity, to say: “I apologize profusely to any person who has been upset or offended by this.” Vegans are implicitly pre-programmed to be offended, while Sitwell’s actions are rhetorically positioned to be intrinsically innocent.
