During the last post you will recall I mentioned the term ‘tandem gift-giving’. Don’t know that the term is original on my end, and indeed, it may exist elsewhere however, my reference point is the concept or ideal of Fair trade and how it gives two-fold. What that phrase may mean to consumers, producers, activists, the author (0f this post) and indeed all stake holders on the ‘value chain’ of this social movement, is what this post is about.
I spent some time today looking at some of the challenges of Fair Trade ideology, because although the concept is an ideal, in practice it has its difficult realities. Actually, Fair Trade is more the model of how commerce should function. The resulting fissure of unfair business practices demanded the creation of a more responsible system of trade. As a retailer and a consumer, I enjoyed hearing the different sides of the argument at the LSE conference (links below), and found myself more sympathetic to some ideas than others. Social systems are never neat and tidy, indeed it is their nature to be un-neat and raggedy around the edges until we refine and clean them up 
. It always takes extra effort and care to create and maintain the boundaries of beneficial social systems. Ethics concerns which have long been a staple of the movement since its inception, are becoming more complex and sovereign to the elan vital of Fair Trade.
The idealogy can be described as a ‘best practices’ format in trade ideals, worthwhile and humane in its formation. This social movement has helped the marginalized and disenfranchised populations of producers worldwide, to be partners in a global economy that was historically barred, and often exploitive to them. It has also done its part in helping to preserve indigenous handcrafted traditions. On the other hand, no system or concept is without its problems, and this was what my exploration sought out. Always looking for avenues of positive social change and trying to understand things I don’t understand, there are things about Fair Trade that I have not understood. An example of this would be–what are the social concerns within Fair Trades structural core, what is its structural core, and how can I as a retailer be more-solution-than-problem-focused in my participation? The question of who owns Fair Trade posed at the London School of Economics (LSE) in the UK? was asked as Fair Trade has taken on the life of a brand. Is Fair Trade a brand? (seems so). How has brand familiarity and economic downturn spurred increased interest in Fair Trade? Is that a good thing and how has the evolution of Fair Trade garnered more of a mainstream focus recently? How does that test the fidelity of the Fair Trade ideal? These were all questions that were posed in order to try and clarify some of the deeper ethical and structural issues that need more consideration and clarity to protect Fair Trades core values, as a result of increased acceptance. People like Pauline Tiffen helped explain some of the mystique of this business practice and helped me get a better sense of what Fair Trade can offer. It is not utopia, but it is a macrocosm of core values and ideally (seems to me) striving to mimic the values of the microcosm (independent producer participants).
As Fair Trade becomes a familiar part of the vernacular, comes off the fringe or periphery and into the mainstream arena, the risk of losing a salient and vital spirit of a social milestone is before us. Please click the links below to hear Pauline Tiffen, Dyborn Chibonga and Kate Sebag at the LSE conference as well as others, who spoke about the evolving concept of Fair Trade and the current crossroads of this economic movement.
http://fairtrade.change.org/blog/view/pauline_tiffen_on_the_challenges_of_fair_trade
Karen,
brownstoneshopper.com
