I think you're talking about fads. Fads are a bit different than movements. Vegetarianism and not wearing fur are more like fads than they are social movements. Social movements fundamentally change a society.
And because they fundamentally change societies, they rarely have advocates who are "popular" or have "gravitas". If a social movement is a real social movement, then it does more than change what coats people wear to school. (Changing what clothes people wear happens every year. In fact, they made a whole industry out of it changing every year. The fashion industry.)
No, a social movement has the potential to threaten changes to everything, right down to the actual people in power at the top of a society.
If the people in the society generally accept the social movement as collectively beneficial, then the social movement becomes mainstream societal belief, and over time, will integrate into what we would call that society's "culture". If the people in the society generally reject the social movement, that's when you usually have a war.
For instance, republicanism was a social movement in France, but it's proponents could not get enough people to accept it as a good idea. The proponents refused to give up on the idea and it eventually resulted in war and the Reign of Terror. (Which, ironically, eliminated all of the ideas proponents.) France is now on its Fifth Republic at last count. (Not surprisingly, the Fifth Republic is one that had the support of the populace.) Similarly, the communist movement in Czarist Russia. Not enough accepted it. War ensued, which enabled the proponents to force communism on the people. Then the people got rid of it in the 1990s.
There are also movements that are accepted by the populace. Gandhi's radical idea of universal suffrage in India was readily accepted by legions of people on the Sub-Continent, and eventually, the British simply had to leave.
In all of these cases, those in power were staunchly opposed to the social movements in question. Obviously because those movements threatened not only their power, but to change, effectively, everything in society that even enabled their power.
Veganism, Vegetarianism, anti-fur, etc, those kinds of things just don't rise to the level of movements in my mind because they don't threaten to fundamentally change society in that fashion. There is no threat that the people making decisions if we eat veggies, would be different than the people making decisions if we eat meat. The societal structure remains in place in either case.
And because they fundamentally change societies, they rarely have advocates who are "popular" or have "gravitas". If a social movement is a real social movement, then it does more than change what coats people wear to school. (Changing what clothes people wear happens every year. In fact, they made a whole industry out of it changing every year. The fashion industry.)
No, a social movement has the potential to threaten changes to everything, right down to the actual people in power at the top of a society.
If the people in the society generally accept the social movement as collectively beneficial, then the social movement becomes mainstream societal belief, and over time, will integrate into what we would call that society's "culture". If the people in the society generally reject the social movement, that's when you usually have a war.
For instance, republicanism was a social movement in France, but it's proponents could not get enough people to accept it as a good idea. The proponents refused to give up on the idea and it eventually resulted in war and the Reign of Terror. (Which, ironically, eliminated all of the ideas proponents.) France is now on its Fifth Republic at last count. (Not surprisingly, the Fifth Republic is one that had the support of the populace.) Similarly, the communist movement in Czarist Russia. Not enough accepted it. War ensued, which enabled the proponents to force communism on the people. Then the people got rid of it in the 1990s.
There are also movements that are accepted by the populace. Gandhi's radical idea of universal suffrage in India was readily accepted by legions of people on the Sub-Continent, and eventually, the British simply had to leave.
In all of these cases, those in power were staunchly opposed to the social movements in question. Obviously because those movements threatened not only their power, but to change, effectively, everything in society that even enabled their power.
Veganism, Vegetarianism, anti-fur, etc, those kinds of things just don't rise to the level of movements in my mind because they don't threaten to fundamentally change society in that fashion. There is no threat that the people making decisions if we eat veggies, would be different than the people making decisions if we eat meat. The societal structure remains in place in either case.