University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

423
constituting the social (Fairclough and Wodak 1997 quoted in Wodak & Meyer 2009:
5). While definitions of discourse are manifold, we will in this paper, understand the
meaning of discourse as argued by Philips, Lawrence and Hardy (2004), who draw
on Parker’s definition of discourse as “a system of statements which constructs an
object” (1992: 5 quoted in Philips et al. 2004: 636).
In other words, discourse is concerned with understanding how a piece of text is
constructed. Discourses, Philips et al. argue (2004: 636), “(…) are structured
collections of meaningful texts”; at the analytical level discourse is concerned with
examining the context of text production (Dick 2004). We understand texts here as
referring to a variety of forms such as, but not limited to: written documents,
transcribed interviews, verbal reports but also spoken words and dialogues, art work
symbols, pictures (see Fairclough 2003 and Philips et al. 2004). We are, in this paper,
specifically interested with what is referred to as ‘natural’ texts: “the products of
mundane interactions or everyday text production” (Dick 2004: 207).
At the analytical level, we are influenced by Fairclough’s work and critical approach
to discourse analysis seeing texts as social practices. Discourse is a method enabling
the examination of language use to produce explanations of the world we live in, of
how individuals use language to make sense of their reality (Dick 2004). Discourse is
said to be critical in the sense that the language is not seen as reflecting the nature of
individuals per se but as actively constructing their identity (see Dick 2004 and
Fairclough 1992). While different discourse analysis styles are available, we felt that
the context surrounding the use of a Fairtrade discourse as well as the discourse used
by retailers to talk about their producers was essential, and there have followed the
critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach.
CDA, as Wodak and Meyer (2009: 5) argue “consider the ‘context of language use’
to be crucial”. CDA sees a dialectical relationship emerging between discursive
events and the social structures in which they evolve. While CDA argues that the
discursive event under investigation is shaped by the social structures in which it is
framed, it also argues that these structures are in turn influenced by this specific
event (Fairclough & Wodak 1997 as in Wodak & Meyer 2009). “That is, discourse is
socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned – it constitutes situations, objects
of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships between people and
group of people” (Fairclough & Wodak 1997: 258 as in Wodak & Meyer 2009: 6).
We consider in this paper Fairtrade as both influencing and influenced by social
structures, and more specifically Fairtrade as a discursive event constructing a new
social identity in which different actors take part.
The Dichotomy: Free Market vs Fair Trade?
The academic literature on Fairtrade is diverse and spread across fields such as
economics, ethics, development studies, marketing and politics. This literature,
however, is very polarized: on the one side lies the rational motives of homo
economicus, with their roots in neo-liberalism and utility maximization; and on the
other side lies the concept of a collectivist ‘alternative market’ whose origins lie in
communitarian philosophies and research into ethical consumerism. While it is