THE VEGGIE PARADOX
When observing vegetarian products in the fresh section of supermarkets, one is immediately struck by a paradox. These products claim to emancipate themselves from "animal" products, such as meat and milk, and yet they constantly reference them.
This quasi-systematic summoning of attributes derived from butchery, charcuterie, dairy and cheese occurs on several semantic levels:
Naming: Terms like "bacon" and "sausage" are used, with even surprising negative wordplay for the brand Fauxmage, meaning "fake cheese."
Form: Vegetarian products mimic the appearance of non-vegetarian products like sausages, bacon, and cheese with meticulous attention to detail.
Taste: Recently, some products like plant-based milk claim to have the same taste as cow's milk, for example
Advertising: Here too, there is a constant reference to the semantic and iconic universe of non-vegetarian products. Vegetarian products define themselves by what they are not, meaning the negative: non-meat, non-cheese, and so on.
By defining themselves solely in opposition to meats and dairy, vegetarian product brands position themselves as an alternative, a second choice. The alternative is a default option, when the preferred one is not available.
This way of defining themselves in the market carries several inherently negative connotations:
Connotation of substitute: Vegetarian products are seen as replacements, conveying an imaginary of frustration, a substitute for what is truly desired. Vegetarian food is chosen (or endured) as a replacement for something missing, while still reminding and evoking what is missing.
Connotation of imitation: Vegetarian products seem to closely imitate non-vegetarian products. However, imitation is defined in relation to the original, while opposing it (it's the opposite) without ever matching it. As a result, it creates a value scale between non-vegetarian and vegetarian products, relegating the latter to a second position.
Connotation of illusion and deception: perhaps the most concerning. Using Greimas Veridictory Square, we observe that these brands position themselves as [seeming] to be meat or dairy-based products, without actually being them = [not-being]. [Seeming] + [not-being] means they represent an [illusion], and can only evolve within the impasse they have created for themselves. We can hardly build upon an illusion.
Greimas Veridictory Square
So what does the future hold for vegetarian brands and how can they find "salvation"?
It is not a matter of completely abandoning the semantic references to the non-vegetarian universe. It can still appeal to forced vegetarians who consume vegetarian products not necessarily for taste preferences but as a choice for their health - reducing meat intake - and for the planet.
However, in parallel, vegetarian brands must break free from this spiral of negativity to initiate their semiotic and semantic revolution. This transformation paves the way for innovation on several levels:
Naming: New product names that are emancipated from the non-vegetarian universe. "As soon as we name something, we bring a segment of the world to light, we feel it," as Boris Cyrulnik tells us. This means that by naming it, the thing exists and, furthermore, unfolds its own universe of meaning.
Design: This entails new recipes, combinations of ingredients, spices for new flavors and textures, and a new aesthetic.
A new independent semantic field, with the description of new flavors, much like specific adjectives in oenology describe the aromas of wine.
New rituals of preparation and consumption, inventing how these new products can be cooked and eaten.
This new path will be both essential and exciting. It will enable vegetarian products, by breaking away from their old semantic references, to captivate the world more effectively by showcasing their uniqueness, to write their own story, and to develop their own culture.