Bodies that challenge the military social order: unpacking institutional resistance against veganism in the military

ABSTRACT This article contributes to the literature theorizing military social order, embodiment, and resistance in IR. The military institution is known to resist change, and much research have been devoted to challenges to the gendered order of the military. One area that has received little attention, however, is the reluctance of many militaries in the West to facilitate veganism during service in spite of the increasing demand for vegan food options, diversity, and sustainability. Drawing on research on the military social order and gender theory, I conduct an unpacking of conflicting elements and representations of military and vegan bodies, and theorize this reluctance as institutional resistance. Typically, the military does not offer motivations for its stance – which makes it difficult to detect and counter. As a consequence, vegans are silenced and excluded, not facilitated to enter the military. This is a challenge to increasing attempts at governing sustainability and diversity in the military.


Introduction
This article contributes to the literature theorizing military culture, embodiment, and resistance.Focus is on how a key public institution that is highly embodied, the military, is challenged by another embodied institution: veganism.Through unpacking this relationship as one of institutional resistance, it becomes possible to explore how bodies receive a political role in institutions.Given that many states in the West maintain systems of conscription, vegan bodies that would perhaps not by themselves approach the military, becomes an issue because the military has to consider their ethic.Vegan bodies can be thought of as political agents threatening the social order of the military through productive performances of care for non-human subjects and sustainability, through physical power that does not correspond to masculinized images of physical power and through embodying ethical resistance towards militarism.Previous research on bodies in IR mostly focus on the effects of regulatory and social regimes on individual or groups of bodies (Neumann 2008;Sandoval 2008;Wilcox 2015).When the body is related to resistance, it is the embodied resistance of particular individuals or groups that have gained attention (Sandoval 2008;Mavelli 2012;Puggioni 2014;Lilja 2017).Less focus has been directed at the role of bodies for institutional resistance, although the global sustainability goals connect institutions and bodies at different levels of governance.
Exploring the role of bodies in institutional resistance has the potential to explain why the military institution inhibits diversity and sustainability efforts, such as vegan food options.Many militaries in the West avoid efforts to facilitate veganism during service, even if the demand for vegan food options in staff canteens is increasing (Czarniecka-Skubina, Górska-Warsewicz, and Trafiałek 2020).In the 2020s, vegan food has become strongly associated with sustainability efforts, as food production has been found to be a large source of negative environmental impact (B.B.C 2020b;Dryden 2019;Krantz 2019;Palomo-Vélez, Tybur & van Vugt, 2018;Willet et al. 2019).As major public authorities, military institutions are significant sources of consumption, pollution, contamination, and ecological destruction, affecting not only the environment but also creating inequality for groups of people and effects on non-human animals (Belcher et al. 2020;Carson 2000;Clark and Jorgenson 2012;Crawford 2019;Daskin & Pringle 2018;Grima and Singh 2019;Procter, Özge Kaplan, and Araujo 2015;Saritas and Burmaoglu 2016).Military institutions are the subject of various forms of demands for transformation in the field of sustainability (Gibson-Fall 2021;Glenn 2005;Saulters et al. 2009).Still, research on the environmental sociology of the military is scarce.Efforts at introducing vegetarian food have been met with suspicion, which have been explained by military staff being unconvinced of its health benefits and the lack of ownership on the part of canteen staff (Milford and Kildal 2019).Gender and military ideology has also been put forward as explanations for the reluctance to embrace vegetarian food (Kildal and Syse 2017).Indeed, the military institution appears to resist veganism, although there are examples that fit on a scale from the most reluctant to the few who embrace veganism.This observation intrigues and need more attention, in particular given the climate crisis and the global sustainability goals.Military institutions fit well with the masculinities found to resist concerns for the climate (Daggett 2018;Anshelm and Hultman 2014;Hultman 2017).It is likely that military institutions effectively prevent the development of alternative, ecological masculinities (Hultman and Pulé 2018).
The vegan challenge is but one of the demands for diversity facing military institutions in the 21st century.Literature finds that normative transformation processes are the most difficult for military organizations to adapt to (Holmberg and Alvinius 2019).It could be argued that at least part of the sustainability agenda is characterized by normative changes, spurred by changing values, political initiative and societal trends.Identifying hindrances in terms of institutional 'challenges' that produce a form of resistance towards political goals on the part of the military are key to understanding how to successfully implement the sustainability agenda and build a more diverse military institution.Furthermore, Thompson, Cochrane, and Hopma (2020) argue that it is in the interest of democracy to take into account both the interest of non-human animals and diverse human requirements for food options.Religious and ethnic diversity may also benefit from this.
The purpose of this article is to unpack the relationship between the military and veganism in order to explore explanations for institutional 'challenges' and resistance on the part of the military.To allow an analysis of the relationship between the military and vegan spheres, both the military and veganism are conceptualized as institutions.
Institutions are understood as collections of norms and practices that are also embodied (Billo and Mountz 2016;Stowell and Warren 2018) -where the military is also connected to a form of organization that carries similar traits all over the Western world.Veganism as an institution is broader than an organization, and could rather be seen as a social movement motivated by ethical concerns (Cherry 2006).While veganism is spread globally, it should be noted that it remains marginal in most societies and is usually not a hegemonic social practice.Both the military and the vegan institutions are diverse.Although militaries carry similar traits, there are national differences (more on this below).Veganism comprises a broad spectrum of people that are motivated by different factors, which may also change over time.A vegan lifestyle is a societal trend that has many origins (Cherry 2006).For instance, the sustainability aspect of veganism is perhaps the most recent -triggered by the climate crisis.In this article veganism is conceptualized as an institution that comprises more than food choice.The essence of veganism is often not just eating plant-based food, but an ethical and ideological stance that supports animal equality and works against the suppression of animals in all areas of life (Adams 1990 on the scientific debate concerning veganism see Giraud 2013).It could be argued that the ethics of veganism prevent it from dealing with the military entirely.It is likely that many vegans might not approach the military on a voluntary basis.However, the increasing militarization of societies and the practice of conscription forces individuals into a relationship with the military.Conscientious objection might be an option to use for vegans who do not consider it possible for them to participate in conscription.This raises questions about the legal rights of vegans, and the responsibility of public authorities for making choices that reflect and include the whole of society. 1 Awareness of this diversity within the institutions does not mean, however, that it is not possible to conceptualize them as institutions and to conduct the unpacking pursued here.At the abstract level, the military and veganism are currently associated with different social orders -which are contested by the attempts at creating diversity and sustainability in the military.
This is a conceptual article, which uses previous research to explore and develop a theoretical explanation for the military's institutional resistance towards veganism.The presence of institutional resistance is a point of departure, rather than something that needs to be established.By bringing together knowledge from different literatures, an increased understanding for the challenges associated with an institutional encounter between the military and veganism are gained.In this endeavour, previous conceptualizations and representations of both the military and the vegan institutions are reproduced rather than questioned.Empirical material fulfils the role of illustrations and therefore lacks the systematic role it serves in an empirical study.In many ways, this exercise is unsatisfactory.Institutions and social orders can change, but what is presented here are static representations.In order to contest and change the representations of both these institutions and their relationship, an even more in-depth post-structural analysis of each area discussed is needed.However, as a first step -in making this relationship visible -the conceptual exercise conducted here is useful.This does not mean that this article argues for bringing the military and vegan institutions closer to each other, but that it is useful to sort out the relationship rather than keeping it in the dark.
As stated above, the article departs from the empirical observation that militaries across the West have difficulties embracing veganism and subsequently, to offer vegan food and vegan material options in all aspects of military life.Although the picture is messy, and militaries are increasingly pursued to offer vegan food options either voluntarily or forcibly, only one military -the Israeli -explicitly embrace veganism (more on this below).Typically, the military does not offer motivations for their decision not to offer vegan food and material options -which makes it difficult to detect and counter.This silencing also poses a problem for the research process, as there is little empirical material to analyse.It would demand lots of energy and time to require and collect official motivations and decisions from military organizations, if they exist at all.This author repeatedly, over almost a year's time, asked the Armed Forces of one country for the decision documenting that vegan food options would not be offered.However, no documentation of this decision was ever provided.It is essential that this problem does not prevent an analysis of the military's institutional resistance.Research that requires access to the military is often characterized by stakeholders and limitations that diminish scholars' ability to determine why to conduct research, how to produce knowledge, and who to address.This has for long limited the scope and focus of IR research on the military (Catignani and Basham 2021).Theoretically, it could be argued that vegan bodies are made abject by the military institution (compare Butler 1993;Wilcox 2015), but this should not inhibit the theoretical problematizing of this very process of performative power.
However, in order to offer some illustrations in support of the empirical departure, some unstructured examples of how the military institution approaches veganism are presented.These examples draw on news media, blogs, miscellaneous sources and -to a lesser extent official public documentation.The countries covered are the US, Canada, the UK, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Israel.Previous research in relation to vegans and the vegan institution are also referred.Most examples span a five-year period from 2016 through 2020.From this limitation follows that no claims of providing a thorough, updated, empirical picture is made, and data on how militaries approach veganism may be changing as pressure grows among soldiers.However, this does not affect the empirical puzzle: that there are observable challenges associated with the Western militaries' approach and transformation in relation to the demand for vegan food options.Militaries in the West share a number of cultural and organizational characteristics and their relationship to the society with demands for diversity is fairly similar (Holmberg and Alvinius 2019).While it may be interesting to extend the analysis to militaries beyond the Western context, where religion and food systems look different, it is outside the scope of this article to do so.
The article is disposed in the following manner.First, the theoretical point of departure is presented.It is argued that a focus on bodies may enrich the analysis of institutional interaction and resistance.The article then proceeds to an unpacking of the relationship between the military and veganism as embodied institutions.This section is structured in line with the challenging elements identified in the respective institution: physical and social appearance, capability, gender, and ethics.Empirical examples are brought up as illustrations.In conclusion, the contribution of the focus on the body for understanding institutional resistance and the military's stance towards veganism is discussed, and avenues for further research are addressed.

Theorizing bodies, institutions, and resistance
In the sociology of the post-war period, the separation of body and mind was a central trait, whereas more recent research are problematizing these dichotomies (Butler 1993;Mavelli 2012).In this context, Foucault's concept of biopower has been used to examine how the state and social communities control people's everyday bodily practices, for instance through weight norms, fitness norms, norms for femininity and control of reproduction (Foucault in Rabinow (Ed) (1984); Pylypa (1998)).Complicating this picture, Butler (1993) addresses the regulatory and social regimes that through performative power produces bodies and sets limits to their materiality.The 'corporeal turn' sees the body as giving meaning to an analysis of affect, emotions, or the somatic (Mutlu 2013;Hutchinson 2019).The focus of theorizing embodiment is 'deconstructing facile dichotomies and understanding human subjectivity as embodied and forged through social relations that have profoundly corporeal dimensions' (Adelman and Ruggi 2016, 914).In this context, certain bodies become abject -'at the limits of available ontologies, available schemes of intelligibility' (Butler 1993, 170).This article contributes by directing attention at how bodies become abject through institutional resistance.
As bodies have entered sociology, political science, international relations, and security studies (Neumann 2008;Wilcox 2015;Adelman and Ruggi 2016;Hutchinson 2019), there are numerous examples of fields being studied.Neumann (2008) has studied diplomats' bodies as gendered and classed; the politics of food, food consumption, and food production has been analysed through embodied methods that illuminate also the relationship between humans and non-humans (Wilbur and Gibbs 2020).Aistrope (2020) suggests a framework that links bodies, discourses, and social practices, exemplified in popular culture.When it comes to resistance, the focus has mainly been on how bodies of individuals and groups interrupts and affects events in IR.For example, Sandoval (2008) and Puggioni (2014) analysed immigrant's protests as embodying resistance; Mavelli (2012) showed that bodies become a positive force as protesters embody resistance in the Egyptian revolution in 2011; Lilja (2017) theorizes the perceived danger of resistance performed through bodies that gather in public assembly.Resistance towards surveillance has been theorized through gendered (Redden and Terry 2013) and organizational lenses (Ball 2005).There are, however, also a few examples of research that analyse the role of bodies in institutional resistance.Idahosa (2020, 990), who analyses resistance to women in academia, argues: resistance to transformation cannot be understood outside bodies and their intersection with gender, race, class and sexualities within specific institutional, historical and political conditioning of fields (see Fotaki & Pullen, 2019).It also argues that the normalisation of White and masculine bodies as the somatic norm (Puwar, 2004) obscures gendered processes within HEIs, leading to body-centered attacks and resistance to women's agency in academia.
Although the findings of Idahosa (2020) can be seen as an example of embodied resistance taking place within the framework of an institution, it is still individuals that perform the actual acts of resistance.Ansems de Vries ( 2016) takes another grip on the issue, highlighting the role of practices of governance-resistance in producing subjectivities of refugees.Still, her focus is on migrant resistance rather than government institutions.
In this article, embodiment is seen as a key component of institutional regulatory and social orders.As a consequence, it is also part of what is here conceptualized as institutional resistance -the averting of discourses, norms, and practices around bodies that challenge how the institution's social order is embodied.Although identities have been considered essential parts of institutions for a long time, Glynn (2008) claims that 'the link between institutional theorizing and organizational identity remains relatively unexplored' (Glynn 2008, 413).Institutional identities can be seen as constructed and maintained in institutional fields carrying social meanings and structures that become normalized (Cooper, Ezzamel, and Willmott 2008;Glynn 2008).Here, a mix of attributes, performances, and actions are possible to connect to the body and the institution.In this process, humans are made into subjects (Cooper, Ezzamel, and Willmott 2008).Whether challenges are accepted or resisted depends on their relationship to the identity and the field in question (Glynn 2008).Sociologists have for some time employed institutional ethnography in order to explore how the individuals that embody institutions produce norms and practices that come to dominate institutions (Billo and Mountz 2016).In organizational studies, researchers have presented efforts at conceptualizing institutions as embodied, for instance the concept of 'embodied inhabitation' (Stowell and Warren 2018).
Embodied inhabitation', then, is the sum of inhabitants' bodily experiences and emotions (and their representations) that can be seen as visceral discourses that maintain institutional order through shared bodily meaning and communication structures.We argue that attention to this overlooked, material dimension is important if we are to fully recognize the human, fleshy cost of institutional maintenance and the very real impacts on the people involved.(Stowell and Warren 2018, 786) Emotions play a crucial part in the above conceptualization.Neither in this context, however, is the question of institutional resistance addressed.
Basically, it is only in one area that the excluding mechanisms of military institutions' performative power have been addressed.Feminist researchers have pointed out the absence of bodies in the international relations literature.They have made efforts at theorizing bodies, subjects, and violence in relation to war and security practices, showing that the body is political, gendered, and racialized (Wilcox 2015).Indeed, bodies are key for the functioning of military institutions.
Directing attention at this allows for 'thinking about politics and resistance in ways previously overlooked' (Wilcox 2015, 5).Social orders constitute bodies, and the military holds power over how and which bodies are constituted to fit its social order (McSorley 2013a).In this way, it manages to exclude and resist numerous bodies, of which the female body is well researched (Höpfl 2003;Sasson-Levy 2003).Military embodiment has also been studied as a tool for authorities to make conscripts perform masculinity (Wells 2014); as a way of legitimizing military operations (Welland 2017) and as an appreciated figure in popular culture (Godfrey, Lilley, and Brewis 2012;Aistrope 2020).However, it could be argued that the military body is embodied as masculine and powerful in its physical appearance, but disembodied in terms of its psychological appearance -since the military body is not supposed to feel but rather act mechanically.The military institution thus struggles to keep up the separation of body and mind -a trait that is overcome by the vegan body who lives its ethics.
The vegan body has been researched in many ways; as gendered, in view of intersectionality, in relation to popular associations, and as a source of institutional resistance, to mention just a few (Aavik 2019).It could be concluded that the traditional military body is being challenged from a number of perspectives; societal (gender) technological (physiological) and ethical (the separation of body and mind).The production of the military body is a central part of the military's social order, and in upholding the exclusivity and the myth of the military institution.As such, vegan bodies and veganism as an institution may fundamentally challenge the embodiment of the military institution.

Bodies that challenge the military social order? unpacking embodiments of the military and the vegan institutions
This section addresses how key elements of the military and vegan institutions are represented as embodied in previous literature, and how these representations potentially challenge each other.The analysis is centred on five elements of the body: physical appearance, social appearance, representations of capability in relation to warfare, gendered performance and ethics.

Physical appearance: strength or weakness?
The military body is traditionally represented as one of physical strength and endurance.The literature also concludes that the military body is widely embodied as a masculine stereotype -there is a gendered aspect to this embodiment (Höpfl 2003;Sasson-Levy 2003).The regulative and social orders that perform the military body operates in the context of the preparation, practices, and aftermath of war (McSorley 2013b;Newlands 2013;Burridge and McSorley 2013).
In contrast to the military body, vegan bodies appear represented as lacking strength, endurance, and health (Aavik 2019).For instance, medical institutions construct the vegan body as deviant, disrupting social norms.Based on empirical material from Estonia, vegan bodies were found to be seen as malnourished, vitamin deficient, and as expressions of eating disorders.Without evidence, medical professionals referred health problems to the individual's veganism.The medical institution also tried to discipline the vegan bodies through recommending meat consumption and impose medical surveillance (Aavik 2019).Such views of vegan bodies are produced in spite of medical research that show that a plant-based diet is superior to a conventional diet in terms of positive health effects and equal in terms of fitness (Medawar et al. 2019;Nebl et al. 2019).This is likely connected to the hegemonic cultural values concerning strength and weakness that are present in society.It can be assumed that this image of the physical capabilities of vegan bodies is also present more broadly, and the perceived weakness associated with vegan bodies could make it be seen as less suitable for military service.At first glance, there are thus divergent representations of the physical appearance of military and vegan bodies.
However, there are examples of alternative embodiments of veganism being produced.The lifestyle/sport documentary Game Changers (Netflix 2018) explores how a vegan diet empowers elite sportsmen, while at the same time representing non-vegan food as unhealthy.It features celebrity Arnold Schwarzenegger -an icon of masculinity -but rewrites the embodiment of masculinity as someone that can care about sustainability while at the same time being physically powerful and healthy.This practice of framing plant-based food as vegan has been criticized, and vegan men have been seen as not fully embracing the ethics of veganism (Olivier 2021).Interestingly, while health, training, and fitness are key also to the military, the military institution does not seem to adhere to the vegan trend.Although interest is expressed, a vegan diet are often represented as difficult (Air Force Medical Service 2019; Military.com n.d.).This indicates that military institutions are reluctant towards embracing ecological masculinities (Hultman and Pulé 2018).Conclusions from Norway, which introduced a 'meatless Monday' in the armed forces, show that military personnel are sceptical towards the environmental and health benefits of vegetarian food.However, those that are open to the argument experience that the time in the armed forces have provided them with positive experiences of vegetarian food (Milford and Kildal 2019).

Social appearance: obedience or disobedience?
The body of the soldier is perhaps the most frequent example of a subject under control of the state (in this case the military institution), an obedient, disciplined body (Foucault in Rabinow (Ed) (1984); Gal (1985); Ydén (2008); Malmio (2022).Gal (1985) identifies obedience and commitment as the two pillars of military compliance (commitment will be further discussed below, in relation to the ethics associated with the military body).Obedience is seen to fulfil a central function as a shield against the questioning of the legitimacy of military missions.It remains at the very core of the representation of the military body, as illustrated by the quote below.
Military obedience is initiated by fear and punishment during the early phases of socialization into military life.It is enhanced by threat and sanctions and instilled through endless drills and orders.Obedience is gradually internalized by patterns of behaviours that become autonomous.But underneath, at the baseline, military personnel are controlled through their fear of negative sanctions.(Gal 1985, 2) This does not mean, however, that there is no internal resistance present in military organizations (Gal 1985;Levy 2017;Alvinius, Holmberg, and Johansson 2019).For the purposes of this article, however, military resistance will not be further elaborated upon.It suffices to establish that the military body is commonly represented as obedient, an embodiment which is seen as crucial for the survival of the social order of the military institution.
In contrast to the military body being represented as obedient, veganism, and the vegan body is being represented as disobedient, even exercising a form of resistance through this disobedience.Twine (2014) writes about vegan killjoys that contest established practices of eating and living.The body can be used for resisting consumption, environmental degradation, and mainstream ethics -important issues for the vegan institution.In this reading, vegan bodies refuse to become docile bodies and accept the political and social order provided by the state and the military.This 'disobedience' constitutes a challenge for the military institution which wants everyone to be the same and the logistics to apply to all.
The straight edge (youth) movement, which practice asceticism and self-restraint, constitutes an example that could be represented as deviant and disobedient.Veganism is a common trait of this movement, which constructs alternative masculinities.There are militant aspects of this culture, although not militaristic in the traditional sense (Atkinson 2006).In this context, the vegan body has also -although this representation is rare -been portrayed as a security threat, and have in media been associated with militant actions and even terrorism (Cole and Morgan 2011).Although this representation of veganism has not been encountered in the empirical illustrations in relation to the military, it can be seen as a potential challenge to the embodiment of the military institution and its social order.
There are numerous examples of the regulatory and social orders of the military not facilitating veganism.In their sample, Kildal and Syse (2017) find that Norwegian soldiers commonly represent vegetarians as 'weirdos'.The United States (US) is reported to offer vegetarian meals on many bases, and sometimes vegan options if there is a demand for it, but not 'meals ready to eat' -the food upon which deployed soldiers rely (Krantz 2019).This means that it is not uncomplicated to be a vegan in the US military.The Canadian Armed Forces have included vegetarian food options in all its service, but does not offer vegan food options.However, the issue is being debated in media and there are legal cases similar to the British one (see below) on trial (Dryden 2019).Military authorities appear reluctant to answer questions about how the military deal with demands for vegan food options.This could be interpreted as resistance towards opening up the 'one size fits all' social order in relation to food and that some militaries choose to continue to force vegan bodies to obey.At the same time, vegan soldiers and officers experience that their numbers are increasing (Krantz 2019).

Capability: ability or inability for warfare?
The post-cold war period is characterized by complex military embodiments.During the last decades, changing modes of warfare has evolved that challenge traditional representations of the military body (Luttwak 1995;McInnes 2002;Sheehan 2008;Singer 2009).At least two distinct focuses on military embodiment could be distinguished in this IR literature.Both challenge the traditional image of the soldier when it comes to what is needed in terms of capacity for warfare: the ethical soldier and the post-heroic soldier.The first operates on the ground, in the field, and has a mission based on values and caring elements.The latter operates at a distance, from above, but safe in an operations centre.The post-heroic soldier's battlefield is shielded and no physical strength is needed for the task (Bergman Rosamond and Kronsell 2018;Crawford 2014;Enemark 2014).
It has become accepted that new technologies and practices of war challenge the traditional military focus on physical strength (Godfrey, Lilley, and Brewis 2012;McSorley 2013b).New forms of distant warfare make it difficult to separate militarized and civilian bodies -an issue that has been the subject of intense debate (Armitage 2003;Crawford 2014;Enemark 2014).There are also those that argue that technology contributes to the militarization of the civilian body, a popular theme in film and literature (Armitage 2003).Another take on this issue has been presented by Strand, who argues that marketing communication contributes to re-gendering the military body, making it less masculine and more diverse as it enters the civilian world (Strand 2019).
How does the military react to these challenges to the traditional representations of what is needed for the military body to be capable for warfare, and what role does food play?An example can be drawn from Finland.Finland is increasing its amount of vegetarian meals offered in garrisons, reportedly due to climate and health reasons.According to news reports, there are also vegan food options available (Yle 2018).However, the increase in vegetarian meals did cause debate and resistance, also at the highest level in the vicinity of the Finnish military -as the Minister for Defence was quoted saying that nobody can fight wars by 'drinking cauliflower smoothies' (Svt 2018).This view questions the capacity of the vegan body for exercise and physical fitness -its capacity to fight wars.The view in the citation is clearly related to a traditional image of the war and the soldier as embodied by strength and endurance, which vegan food is seen to inhibit.

Gender: masculinity or femininity?
Women in the military have to adhere to the production of military embodiment if they are to be accepted as military bodies (Höpfl 2003;Sasson-Levy 2003;Rinaldo and Holmberg 2020).At the same time, armed forces have difficulties accepting women as military bodies, performing masculinity (Pin-Fat and Stern 2005).Female bodies in the military are found to be symbolically embodied as physically weak, leaky/unclean and sexually distracting (Steidl and Brookshire 2019).Women are also usually confined to female roles which are marginalized in the overall military context, such as dialogue with other women (Bergman Rosamond and Kronsell 2018).
Resistance towards bodies represented as female could offer an explanation for the military's reluctance towards veganism.The connection between meat-eating, men, and masculinity has been noted decades ago (Adams 1990).Although literature analysing the link between the military body and food is absent, it could be assumed that an institution such as the military would embody its central figure -the soldier -as dependent upon meat for strength and power.Adams (1990) argue that the sexual politics of meat induce men (and it could be argued, masculine institutions such as the military) to conceive of it as their right to oppress both animals, women, and the environment in order to uphold their consumption.An example that illustrates this is that during times of war, meat has been directed at soldiers (Adams 1990, 10).
Research has identified gender as a key element of the resistance towards vegetarian food in Norway.Kildal and Syse (2017, 76) argue that Meat equates to protein, power and comfort, and eating meat coincides with both the soldiers' mentality and the ideology projected by the military itself, since power, strength and tradition characterize both the soldiers' own identity and the military culture that they are part of.Because soldiers are expected to be strong, powerful and healthy, eating muscles to build muscles was regarded as a means to an end.Our study demonstrates how the implicit values within the military are connected to masculinity, which directs the soldiers' attitudes towards meat.Because meat is considered comfort food, the soldiers feel they have both a physical and psychological need for it.
As pointed out by Twine (2014) the comfort and happiness associated with eating meat is challenged by veganism.Because many vegans are women, there is also a gendered element to the challenge that the vegan body poses to the military.Veganism is often associated with women (Giraud 2013;Hunnicutt 2020), and vegan men are pictured as feminine (Greenebaum and Dexter 2018), but there are variations and changes may be ongoing.
[. ..] it is no surprise that vegetarianism, a diet that refrains from eating meat, is commonly associated with women and femininity.Refusing to eat meat due to compassion for animals is antithetical to the current hegemonic definition of masculinity.(Greenebaum and Dexter 2018, 638) This suggests that military institutions, characterized by not only hegemonic masculinity, but also hyper masculinity, have difficulties accepting veganism and vegan bodies.The gendering of vegan bodies as feminine adds to this challenge.Posthumanist thought has been argued to pose a complex challenge to masculinities (Mellström 2020).In the context analysed here, the values and practices associated with veganism become a challenge to the military identity and the myth of the military body.This could be a reason why it might also be socially difficult for men in the military to adhere to veganism.In an institution where masculinity is the ideal, associating with a female identity marker will be difficult for the individual to manage.Greenebaum and Dexter (2018) have studied how vegan men respond to veganism being associated with femininity, and how they conceive of hegemonic masculinity.Sometimes vegan men are embodied as ultra-masculine, so-called hegans.Greenebaum and Dexter find that vegan men challenge the femininity associated with veganism and traditional masculinity through what the authors call hybrid masculinity.This involves expressing 'compassion towards animals, dieting for health and involvement in animal protection organizations '. (2018, 640).This use of the concept of hybrid masculinity has, however, been criticized for failing to direct attention to what other researchers that use the concept find to be a too limited questioning of masculine values and practices (Bridges and Pascoe 2014;Olivier 2021).Still, veganism can be seen as a form of resistance towards and challenge for traditional masculinity.Research find that the representation of vegan women in news media is often characterized by anti-vegan and sexist discourse where these women are pictured as over-sensitive (Cole and Morgan 2011).It is reasonable to suspect that female vegan bodies may be more difficult to fit into the military social order than the male vegan body -in spite of their shared ethics -given the historical difficulties of the female body to enter the social order of the military.

Ethic: killing or caring?
Ethics is commonly thought of as something that is lived, that is, embodied.Military ethics, legal justifications and conditions of war have been debated for centuries.The right of the soldier to kill to fulfil a mission is central in this discussion (Gertz 2008;Bomann-Larsen 2009).This ethic is key to the embodiment of the military soldier.How the soldier manages killing has been problematized -often the military body is constructed as conducting acts of violence without too much reflection, in a bureaucratized manner (Shapiro referred in Armitage 2003;Gregory 2011;Delori 2014).This has been understood as part of the commitment to the military institution's moral codes and the sacrifices necessary (Gal 1985).The representation of the military body as one that separates the acts of the body and the mind contradicts the vast amount of literature on military psychology and evidence of post-traumatic stress.The social order of the military has even been shown to influence military veterans also at the end of their lives, long after active service (Plys, Smith, and Jacobs 2020).
The 'superiority' of the military mission and the right to kill has been problematized, also in relation to the non-human world and the concept of sustainability.Carson (2000) identifies two distinct approaches towards environmental concerns in the military context: the traditional one, which views the military as an exclusive institution, focus only on the military goal and disregards all other concerns.In this perspective, the interests and goals of the military precedes sustainability goals (Hultman 2017).For long, this approach had support in the state structure.However, in recent decades a new approach has developed that recognizes that the military are part of society's struggles for an improved environment.This literature notes that the sustainability discourse has been turned into being instrumental for the military (for example Saritas and Burmaoglu 2016;Wheland and Rottnik 2017).This form of industrialized masculinity has had a 'safe space' within the military institution for quite a long time.Greenwashing (Lyon and Montgomery 2015) by the military has been critically examined by scholars that question the implications of militarization both for non-human and human subjects (Harris 2015).In this analysis, the resistance of the traditional industrialized masculinity against sustainability efforts creates a situation where risk is produced through the military body (Merchant 1980;Hultman 2017).
Veganism can be seen as 'an embodied political practice which has the potential to disrupt established social order and institutions which rely on human dominance over other animals' (Aavik 2019).Societies in the West largely accept the anthropocentric order, in which, as noted by Shukin (2009, 11), '[biopower] hinge on the species divide'.Vegan bodies resist the ethics of the mainstream social order and thus, their ethics also potentially challenges the military's key tasks and the (inexplicit) eventuality of killing human others.The stories of vegan soldiers (Krantz 2019) illustrate how norms concerning military bodies affect vegan bodies that are part of the social order of the military.The vegan ethic challenges the human/non-human divide, which can make it uncomfortable because food is a key aspect of identity and something that most people can control in their daily lives (compare Twine 2014).This could be one explanation for why veganism is resisted and why vegans are represented as negative and ridiculed in various ways in media discourses (Cole and Morgan 2011).
Ethics have, however, proved to be a way of penetrating the military's resistance against veganism.The UK is known to harbour a key legal case, determining whether or not veganism is to be seen as an ethical conviction/philosophical belief.If it is seen as such, ethical veganism is protected by laws against discrimination, for instance in the workplace.In January 2020, B.B.C reported that a tribunal had ruled in favour of ethical veganism being considered a philosophical belief in the UK (B.B.C 2020a).The UK MoD reports that vegan food options are widely spread, the outcome of the legal case indicates that also vegan clothing requests will be catered for, as long as the request for this are founded in ethical convictions (Nicol 2019).Also in Portugal, a legal regulation tasking all public institutions to serve plant-based meals was reported on in 2019 (Murray-Ragg 2019).Although the news report from Portugal does not mention the military in particular, the military is a public institution and should be affected by public law rulings.However, in Sweden, the armed forces go against the grain as it informs the public in their marketing campaigns that no vegan food options are available for soldiers in basic education (including conscripts) (Swedish Armed Forces 2020).This stance has been criticized, and it has been claimed that the Swedish armed forces discriminate against vegans (Expressen 2020).
The examples above suggest that militaries are reluctant to offer vegan food options in all areas of service, although they may do so if legally obliged to.However, not all vegans define themselves as carrying an ethical conviction, nor might all be prepared to apply for such an exception.In Sweden, vegan conscripts with ethical convictions appear to risk being forced to service.In Switzerland, the issue of veganism and conscription was on the agenda in 2017.At this time, the Swiss Government ruled that a man that required vegan food and clothing were not to be exempted from military service, but the Armed Forces should see to his needs (Swissinfo 2017).This is a slightly different take on the issue, where the requests of the individual are not questioned, but instead the consequences for the military of not providing the request become the issue.
While the above examples testify reluctance towards veganism in the military, which has to be pushed for by interested individuals, legal rulings or are otherwise greeted with suspicion, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) stands out on the issue.It markets itself as the 'most vegan army in the world', in a YouTube campaign that is clearly addressing youth (Israeli Defence Forces 2019).There are allegedly more than 10 000 vegans in the Israeli army, and vegan food and clothing are offered to soldiers.At one point, the Supreme Commander of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) was vegan (Aronheim 2018).However, neither this approach has escaped criticism.The IDF has been accused of veganwashing in this marketing campaign (and previously, too), by parts of the vegan and animal rights community (Doyel 2019;Safi 2016).Admittedly, the Israeli case is an outlier (on the vegan social movement in Israel, see Schwarz 2020).On the other hand, the Israeli military is, too.It embodies a close connection to the society, involving both women and men.This could be one explanation for why, paradoxically, militarization is produced in different ways that integrate more with the social order of society, allowing for different genders, and an issue such as food is not perceived as threatening the military's social order.

Concluding reflections
This article has explored why vegan bodies challenge the embodiment of the military institution.It makes a case for how veganism poses a serious challenge to the social order of the military.A focus upon corporeal elements is key to understanding this challenge and make the responses to it visible.Theoretically, the piece contributes with ideas for explaining how bodies are connected to institutional resistance.Due to systems of conscription, vegan bodies are forced to adhere to the military in some way, either by joining or asking for an exemption.Drawing on an analysis of the very distinct and disparate representations of the military body and the vegan body, numerous challenging elements were identified: physical and social appearance, capability for warfare, gender, and ethics.The vegan body, through its very presence, challenges the masculine military institution by refusing to behave as a ´docile´ body.Through its practice of eating the vegan body questions the social order of both mainstream society and the military.A few findings are similar to the institutional resistance identified by Aavik (2019), but it also extends her findings with a focus on ethics.The vegan ethic of not harming non-human animals can easily be transferred to not harming human animals, which gives it a pacifist ideal that stands in contrast to the military ethic.Since vegan bodies usually represent diversity (young, female, religious, etc.), they also challenge older men, which hold power and controls the social order of the military.This performs an industrial masculinity that represents a traditional view of the military and the environment (Hultman 2017).Previous research on embodiment in IR have focused on groups of individuals and actors rather than on institutions (Wilcox 2015), thus failing to grasp embodied institutional resistance.
The feminine ethics of sustainability and veganism are a central part in the dissonance between the vegan body and the military body.A challenge posed by the vegan body is that it is largely constructed as feminine and associated with values that are in conflict with the military institution and the military body as traditionally conceived of.If vegan bodies are allowed, the myth of the masculine military body and the industrial masculinity that the military institution depends upon is undermined.The empirical examples show that vegan bodies are sometimes totally silenced, sometimes barely and reluctantly accepted but not recognized.They are mostly seen as totally unfit with the social order of the military, which means that the development of alternative, ecological masculinities are not allowed (compare Hultman and Pulé 2018).Silencing can be seen as a form of resistance.The focus upon material issues such as logistics of food distribution is another avenue for resisting veganism in the military -not providing 'ready to eat' meals, etc.This is a more or less implicit form of resistance that has been and can be targeted by vegan soldiers.However, resistance towards vegan bodies may also be hidden in medical screening orders that are rarely visible to the public.Such techniques of power need to be further analysed.Theoretically, institutional resistance in relation to something that is 'abject' need to be further elaborated, since it implies an inherent paradox.More research is needed on the efforts at challenging the military institution on these matters.As has been reported by media referred to above, most changes have come from individuals that have demanded rights that have made the institution open up.Conscription is key to this, which shows that this system set in a democratic context is still a mechanism for controlling and making the military adapt to society, as argued by political scientists and military sociologists' decades ago.By interacting with the public in the way that is done through conscription, the military social order is forced to negotiate its social order in a broader manner than it would have to do with a strictly professional army.
Militaries in many Western countries already have problems in finding recruits that meet the health standards of their requirements.The ideal military body is difficult to find, and excluding vegan bodies may make it even harder.Conscription is significantly more difficult to pursue in the 2020s than it was in the 1980s.Individualism, globalization, increased knowledge, and societal trends are difficult for the armed forces to manage (Holmberg and Alvinius 2019).One overlooked issue in this context is that of food and vegan ethics.This challenge, and the resistance that confronts it, has previously not been recognized in the security studies literature.In relation to the 'animal question' in IR (Youatt 2014;Fougner 2020), it shows that relations between human and nonhuman animals are present and political in everyday IR.The growing influence of veganism in society makes it important for the military to face its concerns.
The case also illuminates the challenges involved in governing sustainability efforts that involve plant-based food.Institutional resistance in relation to sustainability efforts highlights the political nature of these policies, and more critical attention should be directed at major public agencies' own ideologies in this respect.When it comes to the military, it is ultimately a question of a contestation of perceptions of security and threat that run contrary to the embodiment of the military institution.