ResearchOnline@JCUThis is the author-created version of the following work:Petray, Theresa, and Pendergrast, Nick (2018) Challenging power and creating alternatives: integrationist, antisystemic and non-hegemonic approaches in Australian social movements.Social movements are often discussed as either reformist or revolutionary, or more often, as containing aspects of each of these approaches. However, whether a movement seeks integration into the existing system or it seeks to overthrow that system and replace it, both approaches are hegemonic in nature. That is, they focus on totalising power structures. In this paper, we explore another aspect of social movements: non-hegemonic approaches are those which prefigure alternatives at the local level. Non-hegemonic approaches are not oriented to power structures like states.Instead of actively resisting power, they bypass it or in some ways, ignore it, as they create new ways of being. This approach may be limited in scope, and is unlikely to challenge the existence of inequalities at broad scales, but they can point to real examples of alternatives to existing power structures.

Increasing awareness about the environmental consequences of consuming animal products together with recognition of animal rights and health benefits, has played a significant role in the rising interest in veganism. The chapter analyses recent trends in veganism in the Western world, focusing on the substantial environmental impact of animal agriculture being highlighted by respected agencies including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and widely read publications such as the Guardian and the New York Times. Growing awareness of the environmental impact of animal products and greater visibility of veganism in the mainstream media have assisted in veganism emerging as an important response to the environmental crisis.

PurposeThis article explores the different ways in which the vegan turn within the animal advocacy movement in Australia has played out for two organisations, Animal Liberation Victoria (ALV) and Animals Australia. Previous research has found that this promotion of veganism has occurred to varying degrees for different organisations and this article will analyse some of these variations in greater depth, drawing on the sociological theory of resource mobilisation.Design/methodology/approachThis article provides a case study on the campaigning of ALV and Animals Australia on the issue of the dairy industry, as well as an overview of their histories, with a focus on the changing level of vegan campaigning over time. In order to explore this issue, this article will draw on the campaigning materials of the organisations studied, a wide range of academic literature and interviews with key figures from both of these organisations.FindingsLarger organisations have a limited ability to regularly promote a vegan message due to their need to bring in a large amount of resources to sustain costs such as their office costs and paid staff. It is more grassroots organisations that have far greater scope to consistently and strongly promote a vegan message, although they reach fewer people.Social implicationsThe increasing uptake of veganism will have important implications for animals as well as for human health and the environment. The environmental benefits of veganism become even more significant in light of the urgent need to tackle the substantial threat of climate change.Originality/valueThis article is a contribution to the expanding field of critical animal studies as well as to the literature on sociology and animals. It builds on the limited amount of existing sociological literature on vegan activism and contributes an analysis in Australian context.

This chapter investigates the dominance of the animal welfare ideology and the role it plays in the widespread consumption of animal-origin products. Animal welfare ideology promotes the humane use and slaughter of non-human animals. This chapter includes a literature review on the dominance of the animal welfare perspective. It also analyses how this ideology is reflected and promoted in the marketing of animal-origin products. This is done by exploring the packaging and advertising of the company Harvey Fresh as well as the role of the accreditation of the government-funded non-profit organisation the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Australia. Their marketing and accreditation are linked to the dominance of the animal welfare perspective and the widespread consumption of animal-origin products.