Armchair potatoes dressed to impress
Mansfield JCR rejected a motion to boycott after a ‘taste test’ proved a more ethically acceptable brand unpopular
Having enjoyed a summer of Live-8 festivities and self-congratulation, Oxford’s charity wristband wearing, fair trade coffee drinking, armchair activists have returned to the city in their hundreds.
Does their presence mark the beginning of a new social conscience and political interest amongst Oxford students, or just an interesting manifestation of our ever-increasing political apathy? 22 colleges have introduced fair trade policies and Wadham has opened a Café Direct fair trade café in its JCR. Students can now enjoy their essay crisis cups of coffee without the bitter taste of Third World exploitation.
But is this really an encouraging sign that we are finally becoming more politically aware consumers? This week a motion was passed at OUSU council to support SINALTRAINAL in their international campaign for a boycott of Coca-Cola. It has been debated in several colleges and suggests that Oxford students are starting to question whether their lifestyle choices are ethical.
Coca-Cola has been criticised, in particular in relation to claims of it illegally draining groundwater in Kerala, leaving local farmers with water shortages. But other universities took action years ago. Perhaps we are just not as interested, or perhaps Oxford has its unique concerns. Coca-Cola have offered to sponsor several students at the School of Geography and at Linacre • ironically to research water sustainability. Thus we stand to lose more than most universities.
Balliol JCR passed a motion boycotting the company, but it was repealed after only four days. It was deemed that the pantry might not be able to sustain the financial implications. The attempts at Coca-Cola boycotts by St Hugh’s and Mansfield JCRs fell through. In the latter they held a comparative taste test to decide upon the motion. Perhaps the political draw of a fizzy drink isn’t quite so addictive as the flavour.
What should we think of the marginally more successful fair trade movements in Oxford? Students are usually the most radical and politicised sector of society. There is a colourful history of student riots and demonstrations, and movements in Oxford tend to attract the attention of the rest of the country. Yet it was Brookes, of all places, who outshone us, by becoming the first ever ‘Fair Trade University’.
Compared to the student revolts of the 60s, this half-hearted attempt to get people to support slightly less morally repulsive companies seems a little lame. Merely being willing to pay a few pence extra to consume Fairtrade products when they are readily available hardly shows a great level of thought, dedication or commitment to the cause. It also shows a certain willingness to work within the present system.
Perhaps we should be making a more concerted attempt to address the question of why there should ever be a distinction between ‘fair trade’ and ‘trade’ in the first place? We praise those who choose to eat a Fairtrade chocolate bar instead of their usual, Third World exploiting variety, but this recognition is testiment to the fact that we can make the choice to be ethical when it suits us. It would seem people look for peace of mind, not radical change.
Or is it a fashion thing? Whilst our parents joined demonstrations and riots, our latest political statement has been to wear charity wristbands. The motivation behind these is fantastic. You can get a colour coded band to express your dedication to warding off whatever evil you choose, be it poverty, racism, bullying or perhaps support of the orange revolution in the Ukraine. ‘Make Poverty History’ bands were even readily available at last year’s Alternative Freshers’ Fair.
In purchasing such a wristband you not only donate one pound to the cause of your choice, but you have the added benefits of being able to show everyone what a fantastically generous and caring person you are, whilst looking as stylish as Sienna Miller, David Beckham or Tony Blair. The only thing that could possibly go wrong is if you end up buying a fake, charity’s equivalent of fashion’s fake Burberry visor, only even more objectionable.
Wristbands have essentially become no more than an over-hyped fashion accessory. The number of fakes makes the political statement in wearing them laughable. Even the Park End wrist band handed out at the Freshers’ fair is, from a distance, virtually indistinguishable from the Anti-Racism bands. Yet it was reported earlier this year that the ‘Make Poverty History’ bands were made in Chinese sweatshops.
Oxfam bought 10,000 of them from the Tat Shing Rubber Manufacturing Company, where workers were forced to give a deposit against future breakages of machines. It then bought another 1.5 million bands from the Fuzhou Xing Chun factory, where staff worked for below the minimum wage, no overtime pay or leave and risked disciplinary pay reductions. The reaction from the hundreds of activists who had bought their wristband was incredible.
Forget pictures of apologetic, quivering bosses splashed all over the tabloids; people seemed so uninterested in the possibility of their newly acquired piece of jewellery being the fruit of slave labour that it was almost impossible to get a response from Oxfam. Later investigations have revealed that none of the bands made in the controversial factory were sold.
For a while, however, it appeared that we were all too concerned with the outward appearance of making a political statement, or perhaps just unwilling to devote too much time to our philanthropy, to consider fully where our money goes when we give to charity. It would be wrong to suggest that political statement and demonstration have become entirely absent from Oxford life.
There have been some genuine movements following the war on Iraq, or those concerning the asylum application of Azim Ansari. However, the vast majority of other demonstrations are very Oxford-based and personally motivated, concerning issues such as top-up fees. Of course, it would be very sad if we became entirely immune to the idea that charity is worthwhile. Given our fast-food, fast-track culture it’s hardly surprising that charities have had to find ways to keep up.
But perhaps we should start being honest with ourselves and stop believing celebrities such as Bob Geldof when they speak of a new social conscience. It may be going too far to suggest we are entirely apolitical couch-potatoes, but it seems that for now at least, we are very keen on the luxury of our stylish armchairs.
27th Oct 2005