Modelos de estudios de Odontología en Europa

As I have outlined in Sections 2.2 and 2.4, Fair Trade action by churches can be described in terms of the engaged and the distinctive emphases of Public Theology. The action must hold the two emphases in tension, for example, in Chapter 5 I describe the manner in which the churchgoing participants hold the engaged and the distinctive in tension in their understanding of the relationship between Fair Trade and the Kingdom of God. A benefit of framing Fair Trade action by churches as a form of Public Theology, is to utilise the conceptual framework of the engaged and the distinctive emphases as a means of better understanding Fair Trade action by churches. The literature of Public Theology, which highlights the inherent tension at the heart of ‘doing’ Public Theology, can inform this investigation. The conceptual framework of the engaged and the distinctive not only characterises Public Theology; the practice of Fair Trade possesses its own specific form of holding in tension of engaged and distinctive

emphases and these are inherent within the definition of the practice. Just as Public Theology can be characterised as the holding in tension of engaged and distinctive emphases, so too can Fair Trade.

The aim of Fair Trade is to change the nature of trade, to bring about a fair and just trading system, and this impels a close contact with key players in the market. However, it will not succeed in its aim unless it remains distinct from the market within which it operates. To promote the fair and just, Fair Trade must itself be just. In its close contact with the market, the Fair Trade movement runs the risk that its values are diluted to such an extent that it can no longer offer a distinct contrast from the

mainstream market which the Fair Trade system was established to critique.

This is the essential paradox of Fair Trade. The emphases of the engaged and the distinctive characterise the nature of Fair Trade but they are

paradoxical. Stress on either the engaged or distinctive emphases of Fair Trade push the concept in different directions. At one end of the spectrum, a strong emphasis on engagement, to the exclusion of the distinctive, will lead to a mainstreamed Fair Trade which plays a strong role in the mass market but is barely distinguishable from it. At the other end, emphasis on the distinctive nature of Fair Trade, to the exclusion of engagement, will produce an ethically-pure Fair Trade characterised by justice but which is little known outside of a small community of ethical purchasers. Its scale will be such that it cannot assist all but a small number of producers and its ability to bring about change will be severely limited.

The paradox within Fair Trade is indicated by academic commentary on the Fair Trade movement. For example, Barrientos et al (2007, p.54) point out that the social movement behind Fair Trade has been to a large extent responsible for the expansion of the concept. However, this expansion has brought Fair Trade into ever closer contact with the

mainstream market which the social movement was set up to work against.

The paradox was encapsulated from the early days of Fair Trade in the description of its working ‘in and against the market’ (Barratt Brown 1993, 156-176). Raynolds and Murray (2007, p.223) refer to this dictum in outlining inherent tension within the concept of Fair Trade:

Fair Trade seeks to operate simultaneously against the market, campaigning for changes in conventional trade practices and

challenging North/South inequalities, and within the market, creating more egalitarian trade between Northern consumers and Southern producers. [Italics my own].

Raynolds and Murray (2007, p.223) characterise this duality as a tension between the role of Fair Trade as a social movement and as a tool of corporate reform. Indeed, Fair Trade does fulfil a dual role of actualising change in the form of a scheme of ethical trading that benefits millions of poor producers and of pointing to future change by highlighting the injustice of unfair trade.³ Raynolds and Murray (2007, p.233) are fearful that,

3 As discussed in Section 4.7.

without vigilance, Fair Trade could be absorbed by the market. This would take the form of a withering away of the social movement at the expense of corporate action; Fair Trade would essentially become a form of Corporate Social Responsibility. Raynolds and Murray’s description of Fair Trade highlights the hybrid nature of the concept, which holds together, within one movement, a diversity of actors, aims and courses of action. They describe Fair Trade in terms of contradiction, stating: ‘the key challenges facing Fair Trade arise from the inherent contradictions embedded within this initiative between movement and market priorities’ (Raynolds and Murray 2007, p.223).

The inherent contradiction described by Raynolds and Murray resonates with the engaged-distinctive dichotomy. The engaged emphasis equates with high levels of engagement ‘with’ and ‘within’ the market. It may be associated with corporate action and the ethical consumption scheme. Conversely, the distinctive emphasis can be seen as embodied by the social movement and calls for change in the structures of trade.

However, the picture is more complex than this. There is a high level of interdependence between the different aspects of Fair Trade. The

churchgoers in the study express the benefits of the mainstreaming of Fair Trade in terms of the raising of the profile of the concept.⁴ The increased profile has facilitated more effective campaigning and advocacy for systemic change. Support for the ethical trading scheme has not only assisted millions of poor producers it has also drawn attention to ‘unfair trade.’ The history of Fair Trade is one in which diverse parties, ideas and courses of action interact in a relationship of mutual dependence. For this reason, rather than characterise the relationship of the engaged and

distinctive emphases of Fair Trade as one of outright contradiction, I identify them as paradoxical.

Some of the social science commentary on the Fair Trade movement reveals frustration on the part of the authors at the hybrid nature of Fair Trade, with its diversity of partners, multiple means of engagement and

4 As discussed in Sub-Section 8.1.2

ways of working. Hussey and Curnow (2013), are critical of the

involvement of mainstream corporations in the practice of Fair Trade. To ensure a distinctive identity for the Fair Trade movement, they recommend that engagement with the mainstream market come to an end and that Fair Trade focus on demonstrating an ethically-pure trading system which can then be up-scaled, not by increasing sales, but by acting as a rallying call for political change. They are, in effect, challenging the holding together of the engaged and distinctive emphases within the same concept. For Hussey and Curnow, what is important is that Fair Trade retain a distinct identity as a protest movement with no corporate element. Anderson (2015, p.150) challenges academics who claim that Fair Trade suffers from inconsistency in its ideology and identity. Rather, he characterises Fair Trade in terms of compromise, stating: ‘throughout Fair Trade’s history, how the movement has defined issues of fairness has been the result of a process of negotiation and compromise’ (Anderson 2015, pp.149-150). Anderson argues that the central of aim of Fair Trade, that of achieving fairness in the global trading system, is a matter that requires ongoing repositioning. Even though the Fair Trade movement is in the business of compromise, this does not necessarily negate its role in demonstrating a vision of just trade. Raynolds and Murray (2007, p.223) ascribe the rapid rise in Fair Trade sales to the ability of the concept to: ‘combine visionary goals with practical

engagements in fair and sustainable trade.’ Fair Trade is characterised as, at once, practical and visionary.

Fair Trade is a paradox, the coming together of two emphases, the engaged and the distinctive. This paradox was there from the outset, encapsulated by the maxim ‘in and against’ the market. There is an element of competition between the emphases, leading commentators to view Fair Trade as contradictory. However, I argue that it is necessary for the paradoxical emphases to be held together within Fair Trade. At best, the emphases can be complementary and, however much they may appear at odds, both are necessary. Fair Trade is defined by the paradox, it is in the market but standing against it, it is working alongside it but distinct from it, informed by radically different values.

Conclusion: Bringing Fair Trade and Public Theology together I have argued that Public Theology is characterised by the

paradoxical emphases of the engaged and the distinctive. The stressing of one emphasis, at the expense of the other, will lead to radically different outcomes. In one sense, the emphases are in tension; however, they are both necessary to the effective functioning of Public Theology. Rather than envisage one emphasis winning over the other, both must be held together within the same action; a holding in tension is required. I have discussed the ways in which the characterisation of Public Theology as a holding in tension of paradoxical emphases applies to Fair Trade action by churches.

Indeed, the practice of Fair Trade itself can be characterised by the holding in tension of paradoxical emphases, inherent within the definition of the practice. Having indicated that Fair Trade and Public Theology share this particular characterisation, how then can this be taken forward to describe Fair Trade action by churches? Firstly, the shared characterisation is offered in evidence to support the framing of Fair Trade action by churches as a form of Public Theology. In the introduction to the thesis I set out the rationale for treating Fair Trade theologically. The involvement of theology in the Fair Trade movement, taken together with the public nature of the Fair Trade concept, serve as evidence that Fair Trade action by churches can be examined as Public Theology. The grappling of the Fair Trade

movement with the issues of engagement versus distinctive example, contributes additional evidence. The concerns of the Fair Trade movement are exactly those of all Public Theology, an attempt to balance genuine public engagement with a distinctive counter-cultural voice.

My second utilisation of the shared characterisation follows directly from the first. If Fair Trade action by churches is conceived as a form of Public Theology, then it is possible for both the Fair Trade action and the discourse of Public Theology to learn from each other. The Fair Trade action can learn from Public Theology in its discussion of the balance between engaged and distinctive emphases and Public Theology can learn from the Fair Trade action, as it serves as an example of Public Theology in practice, complementary (or at times contradictory) to the theoretical

content of the discourse. Fair Trade action by churches can serve as a case study to shed light on the presentation of theology in the public realm and, in particular, the challenges faced in balancing genuine public engagement with the retention of a distinctive voice, rooted in theology.

Thirdly, Fair Trade action by churches is a complex phenomenon which brings together diverse elements. The shared characterisation of both Fair Trade and Public Theology as the holding together of paradoxical engaged and distinctive emphases serves as a unifying theme. The tension between the engaged and the distinctive affects every aspect of Fair Trade action by churches. It is dealing simultaneously with the challenges which arise from the inherent paradox of Fair Trade as working ‘in and against’ the market and it is dealing with the challenges attendant to all Public

Theology; engaging in open engagement with a wide public, whilst maintaining distinctive witness. Within church action for Fair Trade the paradox of Fair Trade and the paradox of Public Theology are not discrete.

Indeed, there is an intimate connection between the two. The distinctive emphasis of Fair Trade is represented by the original ideals of the

movement and these were motivated and informed with explicit reference to theology. The theological concepts which underpin Fair Trade are rendered vulnerable in their engagement with a wider public and, in this, the paradox of Fair Trade and the paradox of Public Theology are one and the same.

Throughout the thesis, I will return to the engaged-distinctive dichotomy, as it provides an important tool to describe what is taking place and to achieve understanding of the nature of Fair Trade action by churches. In the next chapter, we will witness the playing out of the engaged-distinctive dichotomy in analysis of the ‘public’ nature of Fair Trade action by churches.

Chapter 3: The public nature of Fair Trade