ESTABLECIMIENTO Y MANTENIMIENTO DE LA SALUD BUCAL

The churchgoers’ calls for political change to the structures of trade, critiques of the mainstream market and a view of society at odds with social justice are all associated to some degree with division within the public sphere. Morton (2004, p.29) describes a public space characterised by difference rather than shared values. He makes a distinction between

‘public’ and ‘community.’ In contrast to the divided public, community is understood with reference to shared values. The discourse of social capital could easily be applied to ‘community’ understood this way. Morton (2004, pp.33-4) also talks about ‘two publics in one’ and this contrasts the position

of the powerful and powerless in society. Their positions and experiences are so qualitatively different that they lack the shared language for

discourse. For Fair Trade, the producers represent the powerless and economic actors, including consumers, the powerful. Morton refers to the work of the public theologian Duncan Forrester in standing in the gap between the powerful and powerless and church action for Fair Trade can be seen as just such a work of Public Theology. However, this recognition of power imbalance, to the extent that the two can barely be described as sharing the same discourse, has a difference in emphasis from Nicholls and Opal’s (2005, p.174) description of the Fair Trade Towns network. In this description, the emphasis is one of engagement with the networks of the global south and global north coming together to constitute a social capital

‘writ large.’ This analysis cannot offer a full picture of what is taking place as it does not acknowledge the immense power imbalances between the networks of the global south and the global north.

The understanding of a divided public is confirmed by Habermas’

(1989) description of the contested public sphere, under threat by the powerful forces of the state and the market. The public sphere represents a gathering of diverse parties which can act as a bulwark against the powerful forces. In this interpretation of the nature of ‘public’ Fair Trade is, in effect, offering a space for the emboldening of the public sphere. The public sphere is a shared space in which parties are forced together, but the

commonality is in the space rather than in the substance. The public sphere must cope with difference and the competing aims of the different parties.

Habermas (1989) argues that in western society daily life is dominated by the state and, increasingly, by the market. The public sphere must create space to challenge the dominance of the two most powerful forces.

Ultimately, Habermas is pessimistic about the potential for resisting the power of the market in liberal economies; the rise in the morality of the market will destroy the values of the actors within the public sphere. The negative opinions of the churchgoers towards society reflect Habermas’

concerns that the values of the market are overwhelming the public sphere.

Ann’s observations regarding the pervasion of consumerism in society and

Felix’s criticism of a fixation on economic growth are examples of this concern.⁹ This view of the public space in which church action for Fair Trade operates is characterised by contestation; it is a place of difference. A Church response to this difference could be fulfilled by Kim’s (2011, p.22) recommendation of building a space for public discussion, acknowledging a divided ‘public’ but one with which it can enter into ‘critical dialogue and debate.’ However, the Church’s role in a contested public sphere may also require intervention with a different emphasis; one which seeks to challenge injustice with prophetic denunciation and the promotion of an alternative, distinct message at odds with the prevalent views within society. This view of ‘public’ space goes beyond the acknowledgement of contestation and frames ‘the public’ as a battleground of values.

Which analysis better fits church action for Fair Trade? Is it a significant repository of social capital poised to inspire a receptive public or is it a valiant fight in the battleground of a contested public, or even a fight against the public itself; the truth of justice ranged against a public of untruth? There are reflections of all of these in the statements of the research participants. Certainly, their reference to the Fair Trade Town project reflects considerable success on the part of the churchgoers in bringing together diverse sections of the community. The success of the churchgoers in bridging between the Church and the secular, between different sectors of the community and between the local and the global, does in many respects fit well with Putnam’s judgement of religious groups as considerable repositories of social capital. On the other hand, the

churchgoers’ consciousness of resistance to Fair Trade, and their understanding of the work for justice as a minority concern, fits with a contested view of the public space. To return to the understanding of Fair Trade and of Public Theology as a holding in tension of engaged and distinctive emphases; just as both are necessary but posed in a paradoxical relationship, so too are these different understandings of public. Fair Trade action by churches is a form of public engagement for the Church. There is

9 These statements are discussed in Section 3.4.

a willingness to contribute to public life, in bringing together diverse sectors of the community and thus strengthening the bonds within society. In carrying out this engagement there is a corresponding concern for the distinctive element of Fair Trade, underpinned by the theologically informed original ideals of the Fair Trade movement. By necessity, this leads to challenge of the structures of society and a corresponding backlash by sectors of that society. Just as Fair Trade works ‘in and against’ the market, so too it works ‘in and against’ society. The message of Fair Trade affirms a coming together of people, transcending economic and

geographical location. Yet it also underlines division between the just and the unjust, highlighting the difference in experience between the rich and the poor. As the majority component for the activist body for the Fair Trade movement in the UK, churchgoers hold together both of these vital aspects for Fair Trade; engaging with a wide public and speaking out against injustice.

Conclusion

The public nature of church Fair Trade action is demonstrated by the ability of churchgoers to utilise a wide range of church-based and secular networks to engage the local community. The action is public to such an extent that churchgoers provide a vital contribution to Fair Trade activity across whole communities, including to Fair Trade Town projects. In my case study community of Skipton, churchgoers have taken a lead in bringing together different sectors of the community in order to promote Fair Trade.

Their contribution to the local community, in terms of strengthening bonds, can be understood as part of the wider analysis of the Church as a repository of social capital. The concept of social capital is useful in that it assists in the analysis of the contribution that churches can make to public life. The imbalance that the concept of social capital places on the engaged emphasis of Public Theology can, to some extent, be rectified by the concept of spiritual capital. In stressing the importance of the religious values that motivate the generation of social capital, the distinctive emphasis of Public

Theology is acknowledged. However, for my task of describing church Fair Trade action, a framing in terms of social capital does not offer a full

picture. Churchgoers promote Fair Trade in the public realm, not only to bring together diverse sections of the community in a common project, they also do so to draw attention to injustice and to combat that injustice by calling for structural change. The research participants express negative views of society, in the light of their experience of opposition to action for social justice and observation of the prevalence of the logic of the market.

This has resonance with an understanding of the public sphere as contested space. It is a very different public from the one which emphasises a coming together in community or even to debate in civility. It is a public deserving of denunciation and challenge.

There is a dichotomy at the heart of the public nature of Fair Trade action by churches. The action possesses an engaged emphasis in bringing communities together, strengthening bonds between diverse parties,

facilitating joint projects and building bridges between the global north and the global south. Simultaneously, it possesses a distinctive emphasis in denouncing injustice, calling for political change and resisting the

encroaching power of the market in a contested public sphere. Fair Trade action brings unity, solidarity, debate and division. All of these outcomes are part of the public nature of Fair Trade action and they relate to the different understandings of the concept of ‘public.’ The understanding of

‘public’ within the discourse of social capital has a marked difference in emphasis from the understanding of a contested ‘public’ sphere in which the values of the market must be challenged by outright resistance. The

evidence of the research interviews is that both engaged and distinctive emphases are present. The participants’ attitudes towards the Fair Trade Town project reflect the engaged emphasis of Public Theology in bringing diverse sections of the community together to promote Fair Trade. At the same time, the ‘public’ nature of the action embraces political change, challenge and resistance to a society which is viewed as oppositional to the work of social justice. The different emphases contained within the concept of ‘public’ highlight the difficulty in doing Public Theology. There is a

danger that an imbalance between the emphases may pose a threat to theology. An over-emphasis on the engaged element may lead to an unquestioning acceptance of the nature of society and an inability to challenge prevalent values, posing a threat of the co-option of theology by dominant discourses in society. Conversely, an over-emphasis on the distinctive element may render theology vulnerable in the face of the

opposition of society, it may appear alien and ultimately be rejected, leaving theology without an effective voice in the public realm. For a genuine Public Theology, theology must be made relevant to a wider public whilst remaining faithful to Christian tradition and belief. In this chapter I have discussed the ‘public’ nature of Fair Trade action by churches; the ways in which the action is publicly relevant, given the different interpretations of the concept of ‘public.’ I shall now move on to examine the action as an expression of Christian belief, seeking to answer in what ways can the action be understood as theological? I will apply the understanding of Public Theology as a holding in tension of engaged and distinctive

emphases, to stress the twin requirements of a theology that is both relevant and capable of offering distinctive witness.