Comité de Establecimiento de Norma de Fabricación: 4º Principio: Preservation of Culture and Heritage of Local Communities – Parte II
This is an ongoing documentation of a series of dialogs between members of our Manufacturing Group, charged with the task of developing exceptional standards for jewelry manufacturing. Follow this link, https://fairjewelry.org/madison-dialogue-manufacturing-committee for full review of past discussions including the entire principles and standards document that we are reviewing: Fair Trade Jewelry Manufacturing Principles and Standards – Working Draft
En este, the second and final part of the 4th Principle discussion, Steven Metcalf questions whether this principle is even needed. But in the end, the larger group was in favor of keeping this principle without specific reference to Indigenous People. It was decided that “culture and heritage” is fully inclusive, inherently covering issues of Indigenous People.
The discussion of this 4th principle was much more robust than I had anticipated at the start. There were some very acute points. I found some of Martin Rizzi’s observations very interesting, including the observation below:
“If I were going to make intellectual formulations regarding the intersection of traditional artisan culture and enlightened cosmopolitan merchants, the foremost observation that occurs to me is that culture today and particularly indigenous culture that fiercely adheres to one’s home language and traditions, could be said to be everything human that is left over after globalism.”
~ Marc Choyt, Editor
Steven Metcalf Wrote:
It has been my perception also that the presence of the Indigenous Standard is an artifact of following ARM’s format. ARM is dealing with resource and land ownership, environmental stewardship and their intersection with indigenous rights.
“Brainstorming” about where jewellery manufacturing intersects with indigenous populations, the issue of appropriation of indigenous designs comes up for me. Probably there are other areas as well, but we should be sure that the UN Declaration is the appropriate solution for this type of issue.
As you say, the Community Consent and Human and Worker Rights sections address equity concerns. Auditing compliance with the UN Declaration could easily prove to be burdensome; alternatively, manufactures might be inclined to lip service if it’s not evident why its required. My inclination is to omit this section, unless we clarify what we want to accomplish by including it.
Patrick Schein wrote:
Good point Stephen. The question is to know if jewelry Manufacturing is concerned by Indigenous People. In my field (refining in Europe) it is not. In mining it is.
So if jewelry manufacturing is concerned, I propose we keep it. If not, we can leave it and stick just to local communities.
I do not have the answer.
Melinda Nugent:
My concern about including the UN Declaration in the Standards is that it verges on taking a political position.
I think there is a vast difference between affirming/preserving cultural traditions and taking a stance on issues such as land rights (Articles 26 – 28) which may be met with disfavor by local governing bodies.
It is my understanding that the intent of the Standards is to improve the living and working standards of fair trade artisans, to facilitate self-determination and financial independence whilst preserving their cultural identities . Isn’t there a possibility that artisans may be discouraged from participating if the blueprint is not approved by ruling powers?
It is hard to articulate my concern, sin embargo, I do have some experience with the divisiveness of land rights and intellectual property issues in a so called ‘first world’ nation and have to worry that making unnecessary political statements in an unknown political climate may have negative consequences.
Greg Valerio Wrote:
If I understand your point, you seem to imply an appropriate and light touch to question of indigenous people/culture and manufacturing.
I do tend to agree, having worked extensively with ARM on its process with gold, the top line issues of land rights etc where all included, yet the process itself was very culturally contextual to ASM and Latin America. So there is a balance to be made there between identifying the correct issues vs the appropriate way of implementing those issues
Having worked in Nepal and Ethiopia with local/indigenous manufacturers over the years, to onerous a process will marginalize small artisanal/indigenous manufacturers.
I think given the restrictions on our capacity in this discussion we should do our best. At some point we will need to find a few willing pilots to see if what we are drafting actually is implementable and appropriate on the ground.
Martin Rizzi wrote:
When referring to the idea of culture, whether indigenous or otherwise, it is good to remember that there is no such thing as any theoretical culture in general since only individual human persons have cultural experiences. To act for the benefit of indigenous people is to accept the danger of falling into the bear trap of perception.
http://handcrafted-ethnic-jewelry.com/videos-of-guerrero/copalillo-fiesta
Copalillo Fiesta
Copalillo Guerrero is a town in the mountains a few hours from here in eastern Guerrero. I have known folks from that village for decades because they are itinerant hammock weavers In the 1970s I met a man I know today in the zocalo in matamoros on the Mexico Texas border anyway, Copalilo is primarily nahuatl-speaking village, and many people still do not know Spanish
If I were going to make intellectual formulations regarding the intersection of traditional artisan culture and enlightened cosmopolitan merchants, the foremost observation that occurs to me is that culture today and particularly indigenous culture that fiercely adheres to one’s home language and traditions, could be said to be everything human that is left over after globalism. Nooks and crannies of the world that have not been saturated with commercial media messages and sophisticated modern propaganda reflecting a materialistic world-view and philosophy of an empirical consumerist approach to everything.
Marc Choyt Wrote:
Clearly there continue to be important concerns among many, incluido yo mismo, regarding the framing of this, Indigenous People. Principle. Yet at the same time, I see unequivocal sentiments that “culture and heritage” is important.
After weighing what has been said, I feel that respecting culture and heritage of local communities includes the culture and heritage of Indigenous People, so I do not see that we have to single out Indigenous People, since even defining such a group is difficult.
I propose that we leave re-title this standard, “Culture and Heritage.”
Segundo, in this case, the 4th principle would read like this:
“Employers will respect the culture and heritage of local communities.”
Regarding the progressive standard 4.3,
4.3p. “The company takes an active role in supporting the rights and culture of indigenous people.”
Let’s just delete it, as it is implicit in the document.
Thank you for your ongoing consideration and thoughts.
Steven Metcalf Wrote:
The question for me is how does a manufacturer demonstrate that they have respected culture and heritage? The other standards imply concrete actions, but #4 seems too vague.
I believe we should have more information about the ways that small operations might negatively affect communities, culture and heritage, if at all. From this, one could respond appropriately. Without such clarity, my inclination would be to cut the principal altogether for now, with the proviso that it could be re-introduced by stakeholders in a way that reflected the challenges they face, or not.
Marc Choyt wrote:
I believe there are very clear ways that a manufacturer can choose to respect or not respect cultural heritage. Manufacturing often takes place in settings where seasons are tied to critical ceremonies or events, from Ramadan to other holidays critical to the maintenance of culture and tradition. I believe that the two standards quite clearly point out the way.
4.1: Within reasonable limits, fair made manufacturing companies must give allowance for family traditions and cultural events.
4.2 Manufacturers create an annual time line of cultural events in order to plan production schedules so as not to disrupt operations.
I would like to hear from others on this point.
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
En mi opinión, Steven and others have voiced a very valid point; anyone’s attempt to act on behalf of culture is fraught with traps.
I suspect that anyone involved with the establishment of a jewelry production in a third world situation would already be sensitive and sympathetic to the people or he or she would not still be there. Of course the foreign buyers are much preferred by craftspeople to the local commercial dealers, the ordinary customers for their jewelry.
As for respecting fiestas and other cultural events of a producer society this reminds me of the statement that culture begins at the fringe of globalism (and is subject to continued banging blows and hot iron pressure from it). If the local craftspeople are to be considered as human beings, consumers and creators of culture, not driven only by money profit motives then the enlightened cosmopolitan merchant might want to be a part of fiesta, him or herself.
Sin embargo, if the craftspeople are to be regarded in an abstract formulation framed by the idea that their “culture” is being respected in the business plans of the foreign entrepreneur, the redemptive experience of traditional cultural practices becomes an anthropology freak show.
Globalism insists that all persons need money and dedicate themselves to getting money there is NO room for fiestas or processions in the philosophy of consumerist materialism. When artisans are expected to produce jewelry to make money as the alternative to their traditional modes of incentive and of habitual ways of thought, then they are being prepared to be handed over to the gods of globalism (migration, death, despair) there is no sense in pretending that the adaptation of artisans to globalism can be justified in terms of idealistic principles pretending to provide material benefits or even a vanishing hope for such people.
I would recommend letting the craftspeople take care of their own culture since they are fighting a life and death struggle every day to be able to retain any small part of it.
Recognition of the beauty of human culture and its value is however, in my opinion, very appropriate to include in a statement of principles on the part of enlightened fair trade style business.
Marc Choyt Wrote:
At this point, I would like to see if there’s any further argument against my proposal. Re-titled, this standard, “Culture and Heritage” the 4th principle, would read like this: “Employers will respect the culture and heritage of local communities.”
As far as I can determine, this reflects the strong majority of our group. If this is the case, then we will be able to move on to the fifth standard.
Mary Lee wrote:
I’ve followed the discussions, and I agree with this
Vivien Johnston Wrote:
I have been following the conversation to date on 4th principle and I am satisfied that valid points have been addressed and that the 4th Principle is now a solid base to proceed with.
Flavia Aarden-Kilger Wrote:
I am on the same page with you on this. As with any culture or religion in a country, you need guidelines. That is what has been created.
