At around mid-summer, Trey and I had chats about why we are dissatisfied with our being in United Students for Fair Trade. We had criticisms with two scopes: Movement scope, Campaign scope and concerning ideology (which just means philosophically-oriented criticisms). Movement scope just means with respect to the entire Fair Trade movement, and Campaign scope means with respect to the local USFT group on campus.
Criticisms concerning Movement scope primarily have to do with Starbucks and the agenda/methodology of TransFair. (In speaking about TransFair, I will be, of course, restricted to the domain of U.S. imports and certification. So, it is not necessary that these criticisms of TransFair extend to European affiliates and other foreign affiliates.) I’ve come across in the literature centered on Fair Trade that (1) Starbucks thinks it’s pretty silly to entrust 30-40 people with all of their inspection needs. This argument was made by some higher up at Starbucks around 2007. TransFair is the FLO/US Fair Trade not-for-profit inspection affiliate. (But they do receive $0.10 per pound inspected.) In 2007 it operated with around 30 employees/personnel. Starbucks, as it has been argued, has a massive quantity of imports that drastically exceeds the inspection capability TransFair has to offer. Perhaps TransFair has significantly grown since 2007, but I doubt it. Nevertheless, this is a question to which I need an answer. I think everyone needs to obtain a sufficient answer to this question before they even put “Fair Trade” and “Starbucks” in the same propositions, positive or negative, about either entity because their capability insofar as their function will, in a serious way, be determined by the personnel/employees each organization maintains. It must be noted, too, that Starbucks has its own ethical trading/inspection group, CAFÉ, that attempts to, or actually does, serve the same purpose as TransFair.
Now the reason why I bring this group up at all (I am obviously aware of the “Nike inspecting its own sweatshops” argument) is because in order for TransFair to accommodate Starbucks import quota, it would seem that Starbucks would have to invest a substantial amount of money into TransFair in order for TransFair to do the job that Starbucks would require, as per TransFair’s certification process/criteria. As it stands, it seems that Starbucks would have to buy or assume a significant portion of TransFair in order for Starbucks to be served insofar as its importation needs. Starbucks’ ethical group, CAFÉ, would just become TransFair. So it seems like the Nike-inspector argument is inevitable. But furthermore, what about TransFair’s “100% Fair Trade” purchasers, who go the way of Fair Trade solely in virtue of their ethical commitments? And of their artificially reduced counter prices in the name of their commitments? (Be careful when you talk about whose not paying more per cup, customer, importer, roaster, small business, etc.) How would they feel about Starbucks owning major portions of their only means of acquiring Fair Trade beans? I raise more concerns on this latter topic later. Further, the argument can’t be, “Well, it’s just the right the to do. Starbucks’ fat cats have bloated pocket books anyway.” Which fat cats? Are you saying we should revolutionize our mystical free market system? ignore some of its tenets, like the one about liberty? All right, fine. If you’ll down that argument, why are you in Fair Trade? Do you not realize that it is just a free market initiative? It is itself governed by the whims and philosophical tenets of the system which you claim is loaded with fat cats. You’re not taking money away from the these gluttonous felines, you’re giving them new markets to exploit, the “oh, look I have a Fair Trade sticker” market, the “ethical market,” and the general, pervasive commodity fetishism that dominates our pathos kapital!
But is this an argument against the claim that (2) Starbucks should be doing more than purchase roughly 10% of their total coffee beans as Fair Trade certified? Well, this is an interesting argument because while on the face of it, it looks to be “economical” it might very well be taken as “moral.” Does the proponent of such a claim mean that Starbucks should be taking strides to do something ideological because what is ideological cannot be in a serious sense detached from the “labor” or the producers of their coffee beans? That is, can we say on behalf of Starbucks, “Well, they do have a business model to maintain. Financial sustainability comes first.” Well, we could go Marxist or Pathological Capitalist with this one. Nevertheless, no one will be sold by a straight allegedly “ideology” argument or a strict “economic” argument. Supposing there are clear distinctions here, as we usually do, either the side that wishes to “stick to their essential tenets” need to be convinced as to why their tenets are not so essential, or they need to be shown how their tenets cause an overall collapse of their system, economical or ethical. If Starbucks can be shown that their ignoring of “labor issues,” to whatever degree that dissatisfies Fair Trade proponents, in a serious way undermines their economic agenda, then Starbucks must give way. The other move can be to show that Starbucks’, or the Capitalist etc, tenets themselves are incoherent and flawed without an essential appeal to “labor issues.” So you can go with a “labor issues are essential” argument, but in which case you must show how “economic issues” are inessential, or you can go with a “economic issues the way you do it fail” argument, thus the Capitalist has no reason to ignore “labor issues,” because ultimately their system has imploded.
In any case, both sides need to respect the commitments of the other because there seems to be an implicit pragmatic maxim that if you you ain’t talkin’ my language, then you are just wasting my time. I’m not saying any side needs to give up their guns. But they need to understand that the other side has guns that they feel are shiny and clever. Don’t just bark with your guns on safety.
The other Movement scope criticism centers on the potential charge of cultural imperialism. This was a favored argument of Trey. I stumbled onto myself, but by way of “market competition.” My initial discovery was first (3) Fair Trade pits non-Fair Trade farmers against Fair Trade farmers within a geographic region against each other. What this means is that non-Fair Trade farmers may have a quality product that is superior to the product that is usually determined by the Fair Trade certification process. But this means the non-Fair Trade farmer likely gets paid a variable rate depending on the success of the Fair Trade exports (sales). This is not necessarily a bad thing, as this is the way markets work. However, this seems to be in conflict with the ideological agenda of Movement scope. (4) Exactly which farmers is Fair Trade set out to provide with sustainability? Are non-Fair Trade farmers being economically undermined and alienated for reasons that have nothing to do with Fair Trade certification actually providing a comparatively better product? (5) The bigger charge is cultural imperialism. This is a very difficult argument to make clear, but it is a much easier argument to just make. One claim has been that certain farmers have their own traditional growing methods, and Fair Trade might undermine those methods, should those traditional methods (likely highly dependent on geographic restrictions–this is an important point) be inconsistent and incompatible with the Fair Trade certification. I have not come across any actual cases of this, but it has been brought up in the literature. I’ll be on the look out for “evidence,” whatever that means.
Trey’s argument is not this one, and I have not really fleshed out the complete form of my own. Trey’s argument is largely one that any “liberal-minded” Westerner will just get. The West, they say, has an imperialistic mentality–specifically the U.S.. This means the U.S. can be charged with nigh-innumerable counts of imperialism by means of force, economic alienation, cultural infiltration, and various means of general exploitation. All this is usually tied, as they say, to some variant of Capitalism, given the timeframe. Never does the liberal address the more deep-seated question of this bogus ideological commitment we have to the incoherent notion of “liberty,” “property,” and “individualism.” It’s just by-passed these notions and only the more perceptible enemy is attacked, such as the Pathological Capitalist or the C.E.O. or Market Monkey, etc. But that’s not my concern now, though Trey did very much, and I could tell, wish to address these more deep-seated (and likely incoherent wherever they appear in propositions) notions. In any case, back to my point that to most liberal-minded folk, the charge that the West will likely culturally influence these impoverished countries does not take much argument. I suppose if it is seriously necessary that one need an “example” of this picture playing out, one does not need to be involved in this kind of debate in the first place. Not that they do not have an adequate understanding of history, but it is more so that accepting this kind of argument requires that one, in an unbiased way, at least accepts for sake of discussion the interpretation of the liberal. One might simply not be able to “think in that line of thought” which in a way just means whoever utters such nonsense just doesn’t want to engage in dialogue. They’d rather just regurgitate their script and, I guess in some tacit manner, hope their jargon enters their (potential) opponent’s “nonconscious interpreter.”
The charge is that the West, by means of Fair Trade, will eventually expand so much so that, by some unsurprising, but likely irritating, chain of events, Starbucks will appear in the most now-destitute regions of Ethiopia or Chad or wherever coffee and similar commodities (as commodities) are grown. I’m being hyperbolic here, but I should hope the point is achieved. It is in the nature of things to assert their power, by whatever means, so goes the assumption, and this fact shows itself in the history books. Eventually, those “humble” and “noble” farmers who were once respectable and austere, for doing nothing more than sustaining themselves, like we all must do, will become Smith, your new Nigerian World-Unionican stockbroker buddy and wing-man who drinks the Starbucks he brewed and produced the beans for in his leisure time. Whether something absurd like this holds or not isn’t really the question, it’s more so the idea of assimilation of culture. Since we’re going for this queer concept of solidarity, it seems that it comes at the cost of homogeneity (of culture, identity, etc). But this latter argument is more “philosophical,” which I suppose in a strange way means something like “imminent.” Perhaps what Trey, myself, and any others who have observed the arguments we have observed, will likely be more concerned with the “immediate ethical” claims which are espoused from the Movement proponents. Perhaps we should not let our “imminent” feelings undermine the Movement’s agenda. But moral language is a seemingly universally applicable thing (which means it seems to be in contradiction to our “imminent conclusions”) if not as logical but by the simple fact that it feels like moral language attempts to say more, in principle, than it can actually substantiate.
I read some economist (perhaps just an economic journalist) who makes this similar argument, that of Fair Trade being charged with cultural imperialism and undermining traditional growing methods. The “economic alienation” argument is more so my own that I worked out. The Western imperialism argument is from Trey. I take them to be criticisms that each deserve a response, and not a gesture of unimportance, for each criticism attenuates, I think, many of the “general moral claims” expressed by the Fair Trade proponent. If the Fair Trade proponent means something more like “look over there, fix that,” then perhaps they have more of a leg to stand on. But here we are again, in need of a serious discussion of economics, concepts like “the long-run,” and the repeated charge that Fair Trade is too weak of a solution because it is “market-based.” That is, does Free Trade even work given dissimilar (and incompatible) governments and the errors existing between disparate “markets,” some being free, others being not-so-free.
Another point is that (6) 100% Fair Traders in the West, specifically, have become dissatisfied with how they are misrepresented on TransFair pie charts. I haven’t really made the problem clear for myself, but it generally seems to be that 100% Fair Traders’ “ideological commitment” to purchasing 100% Fair Trade coffee beans is not being accounted for by TransFair when fat-companies like Starbucks and Sam’s Choice are thrown into the mix. It seems like, these devout Traders say, they’re not being represented because they are small, whereas Starbucks et al will skew the percentages which indicate representation because they are big. I think the real issue is How do you “represent” ethical commitment at all on a graph? Maybe I an completely misunderstanding the issue, but this argument can be found in “The Pros and Cons of Fair Trade.” On the face of it, it just seems like TransFair is hurting its ideological buddies because of the nature of its economic commitments overall.
I suppose this covers, for the time being, the issues I (and Trey) had concerning the ideological and the Movement scope. Now I pass onto the USFT campaign at UH.
Perhaps the largest influence acting on my own decision to leave the group had to do with taking Epistemology and being tossed into bouts of skepticism and nihilism. Specifically, issues with theory, evidence, and interpretation. Trey and I equally share a disdain for “metanarratives” and “myths.” But what is much more alarming was the tendency toward incorrigible myths. Of course, with any “campaign,” as such, it must have propaganda devices to keep its proponents inspired, but their must be a close relationship between that propaganda, or propensity to construe myth-like rationalizations, and the evidence to which that camapign’s constituents have accessibility. Perhaps Trey and I were overwhelmed with the tendency or we simply failed to ask questions.
My primary worry was that of being misunderstood. I felt often misunderstood, so I felt I could not but be slowly ousted if only for incompatibility between myself and the campaign. For example, it made no sense to me to agree with the conclusion that “the local campaign stopped a Starbucks,” given I had the evidence of financial services claim that (a) Starbucks shut down 600 locations (and all the press I read then related to the closing of those 600 locations) and that (b) the SGA made an error, mistake, or whatever you wish to call it. Because it is an unforgivable mistake, perhaps, does not justify the legislation passed. It just means “mistake,” regardless of one’s opinion of it. Third, (c) the SGA and financial services claim library officials like their Lounge the way it is (at least for a little while, I suppose). Fourth, the Chartwells press release is irrelevant. I failed to see a necessary link between Chartwells’ planning and Aramark’s planning (especially given that the Chartwells’ press release come off like a suggestion and was nonetheless 4 years old. Fifth, so of course, the most substantial evidence, the “fact” that the library official Dana Rooks was not aware of a “final decision” made about the library Starbucks or the Fair Trade kiosk. I wasn’t there for the chat with her, but I have a feeling her immediate response was to a more general question, “Yeah, we haven’t decided on that,” not “Yeah, we’re aware of the SGA Fair Trade resolution, but we’re still contemplating Starbucks.” I don’t think “no final decision” means “Starbucks is a viable option as opposed to Fair Trade”. I think it just means, as far as she was concern, “Oh, you guys passed a bill? Interesting. Well, we haven’t made a final decision yet. I’m not really in a position to legitimize the governmental processes, as I myself only attend meetings and make my own personal suggestions,” etc. A lot of this story appears incoherent at best, and it is definitely not a story bearing the capacity to substantiate claims that the campaign on campus has denied Starbucks’ viral growth.
As it should be known, I am the Webmaster of the UH Students for Fair Trade website, but I am becoming worried about the allegations being made and the events which have occurred that make for them.
For instance, “They [the editor-in-chief and opinion editor] claim there is a DC policy stating that they are not allowed to print editorials critical of the Daily Cougar!!! Sounds like something out of a dictatorship doesn’t it? Not from a country built on FREE SPEECH.”
Now, on the face of it, what is quoted seems to not accurately and completely account for the contents of the discussion which occurred between the persons involved. What this tells me, or perhaps a person less likely to even be aware of or in the capacity to understand the rules and tradition which govern the goings-on of the paper, that the Daily Cougar is not allowed to print stuff critical of the paper. Sure, it reads “editorials,” but it does not account for the fact that the paper will run (print) letters to the editor or letters to the paper which are critical of the paper. The editor-in-chief gave the justification that it is tradition that papers follow this formula. The logic behind the paper is manifest by the tradition. But let’s get one thing clear: editorials are written by staff writers, section editors, the chief–paid personnel. Writers of editorials are paid. We could play a funny linguistic trick, as I thought would hold, and say that the Fair Trade group wishes to be paid for an article critical of that medium, the Daily Cougar, that printed the article. In a word, the Daily Cougar would be paying for something which would criticize the Daily Cougar. Would you pay for someone to fail your exam? slash your tires? I’m sure this holds for any company: why pay the Fair Trade group to be critical of the Daily Cougar when the people who actually work for the Daily Cougar could be critical of the Daily Cougar? I’m sure they’d do a much better job, given that they work there and actually have to churn the puppy out. Potentially every systematic wrong turn during production could end up in an article. Luckily, “editorial” cannot be what the Fair Trade group meant. Perhaps, in theory, we are our own worst critics, is what I’m getting at.
So they mean “guest commentary,” something for which they would not be paid. All the same, however, the Daily Cougar provides the guest commentary as a free service to students willing to write. So the Fair Trade group would be biting the hand that feeds, which, even if their criticisms are accurate, would nevertheless, as appearances are important to campaigns, expose a seriously bad form. It’s just plain stupid–for both the Daily Cougar and for the Fair Trade group. So run it as a Letter to the Editor. What does this mean? Well, it means the length of the piece will be cut in half. I am sure what can be said that is critical of the Daily Cougar could be truncated significantly, but maybe I am wrong. My understanding of the content that would appear in such an article would be something along the lines of, “The Daily Cougar likely accepts bribes” and “The Daily Cougar is in the pockets of the University Officials, despite, as they claim, that the Daily Cougar is not funded for by the University.” I’m sure 300 words could cover that much without too much detail. But I guess evidence would have to be given as to why the Daily Cougar simply can’t disagree, supposing that it does disagree with the group with respect to some important issue, for the same reason the Fair Trade group’s other opponents disagree. So the University and the Daily Cougar both think the Fair Trade group is a bit too much. That does not entail that the Daily Cougar and the University have “joined forces.” It doesn’t seem that far-fetched that the Fair Trade group would have very few friends, considering that the group is more so out to convince others of their faulty assumptions or immoral and blind tendencies, rather than make friends.
Not that I’m passing judgment, but these are the charges that I recall. And I don’t need “friends” or “allies” if they’re fundamental wrong, and they do in fact need to be informed of just how wrong they are when they are in fact wrong. But are they wrong? Further, are they in fact wrong?
But back to the claim of tradition. I think tradition is an important concern that must be respect, at least in the sense of the newspaper. Because in this case, “tradition” is a concept that takes on a very peculiar form. It doesn’t mean something like, “This is the way we’ve always done it.” Sure, the person making the tradition-claim might seem to come off as if he or she is doing this, but I think it has more to do with the logical consequences that “tradition” has. Arguably so, many of us philosophers take it without argument, and thus as tradition, that “existence is not a predicate” (at least the way “we” thought it was 100 years ago). Sure it’s tradition, and we might only hold that belief because of a causal-tradition link. But that does not preclude the fact that in some real sense existence just ain’t a predicate (or at least there are serious arguments against such a now-bold claim). We might not be aware of these arguments when we appeal to tradition, of course. It does raise the question, I suppose, of the burden of proof. If you claim something like “tradition says we do the paper this way,” you can likely be asked to justify such a claim. Of course, with the Fair Trade group, they’re more concerned with the “guideline” or “document” which further justifies the logical make-up of the paper…as if having a “signed document” will illuminate why the paper runs the way it runs. Perhaps the document is 10 years old? Perhaps it has no features that elucidate the structure? You might fight an empty document that says, “Hey, Daily Cougar, do X.” What will the Fair Trade group say then? They certainly won’t be happy, and they might try to amend the mandate. Perhaps a pause to reflect on the nature of how newspapers run will be illuminating, or perhaps asking sincere and exploratory questions of the editor-in-chief will be helpful. Not that I think it will, since I think it makes sense, as I have already argued for, that the paper should not run guest commentaries critical of itself.
(Sources will be provided when I find the motivation to look them up. I will be grammatically and stylistically repairing this garbage over time.)
Original report: