Fair Trade as cultural artefact

Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised

Prompted (obliquely) by recent negative comments about Fair Trade (i.e. the Fair Trade mark and associated organisation) on the Jubilee Centre blog (here and here) and also by recent thoughts on reading culture, I thought it would be interesting to try a hermeneutic of Fair Trade. Perhaps looking at FT as a cultural artefact will shed light the criticisms. 

Remember that in the reading culture blogs, I tried a combination of Kevin Vanhoozer’s culture-as-text approach and Andy Crouch’s cultural-as-artefacts. We came up with three aspects to consider when thinking about a cultural item: Context, Content and Consequences. So, lets try a discussion based on those. I’ll tend towards Crouch’s questions to give a more precise focus. All this is pretty much off the top of my head, so it could no doubt be done better…
OK, so to start with: Context. Or, as Crouch puts it What does this artefact assume about the world? I guess, we have to say the obvious — that Fair Trade assumes a world where global trade is significant and one where trade is not fair. Since Fair Trade is essentially a brand before anything else, it relies heavily on a culture where branding has a significant place. (In some ways, I guess it is a creative re-use of the cultural artefact that is ‘branding’ for a very different use than its original intention.) In many ways it also assumes a consumerist culture, where we have a high degree of choice in what items we buy.
How about Content? We’ll bring in here What does this artefact assume about the way the world should be? Clearly, one thing it assumes is that a fairer trading system is possible, desirable and that some movement in this direction is possible by direct appeal to the end consumers. 
Expanding to a more general content, I guess it communicates a belief that a pure free market is insufficient to produce an equitable system by itself. It also expresses a belief that help the poor areas of the world require more than charity. The point is not to buy an item with added financial donation; it is to take part in a fairer system. 
OK, finally, Consequences. Crouch’s questions start with… 
What does the artefact make possible? We could say better conditions, prices, etc. for the workers/producers, but that was always possible given appropriate will. So, let’s try other directions. A key aspect is responsibility on the part of the consumer. It allows (or even puts pressure on) consumers to take responsibility for the provenance of the things that they consume even if they are not directly involved in the process. It also promotes, to some extent, the connection between the supplier and consumer: though it may not join them directly, the end user is conscious of the producer. This is in contrast to the case where a brand may follow ethical guidelines, but in a way that is not obvious to the consumer — the ethics are there, but the consumer is not connected; and, in fact, may not be thinking conciously about the issues.   

What does FT make more difficult/impossible? The main thing the FT mark makes more difficult is for consumers and manufacturers to disassociate their actions from the actions at the other end of the supply chain. The existence of Fair Trade forces the buyer to think about issues along the chain. On the other hand, it makes it difficult for ethical suppliers who, for whatever reason, don’t want to use the FT brand to emphasise their ethical status without some kind of branding, etc. 

What new culture is made in response? I guess that the FT mark (along with others) has led to a culture of consumers asking questions about the source of their purchases. It has also (in the UK, at least) led to specific sections of supermarkets that focus on Fair Trade goods and forced large corporations to introduce products that can be classed as Fair Trade to ensure that they don’t lose market share. Finally, it is led to a range of similar initiatives promoting related schemes. 
Based on these rough answers, lets look at the quote the Jubilee Centre used (from the Institute of Economic Affairs):
‘Whilst it is clear that fair trade might bring some benefits to particular groups, whether it brings significant net benefits to the poor in general is questionable. Moreover, the claim that fair trade transactions are more “just” cannot be substantiated. Customers also might be surprised to learn that the majority of the Fairtrade Foundation’s income is spent on promoting its own brand.’
It seems to me that promoting the brand is in line with the significance of the artefact. The FT mark is not primarily a charitable act, but a culture-forming one. The net benefits cannot be measured purely in the direct effect, but in the way that perceptions and practices (of consumers and suppliers) are altered. There are inevitably downsides and weaknesses, but not, perhaps, to the overwhelming extent that the Jubilee Centre posts implied.

Tags: , ,

Permalink | July 27th, 2008

Leave a Reply