Shout-out to Andrew!

The following is copied from a blog of a fellow Peace Corps Volunteer and awesome friend of mine, Andrew BoddySpargo. His blog is absolutely worth following and I suggest skimming through his past posts to get a different outlook on life here in Nicaragua, and just on life in general. =) Here he explores the use of the words “developed” and “developing,” which have been adopted to replace the terms, “first world” and “third world.”

Calling Nicaragua a developing country seems very nice because it focuses on the progress that’s being made in economic development, healthcare, education, etc. Still, it hit me the other day that development itself is a loaded term. It implies that there’s some path from one point towards an end goal of being ‘developed.’ As many Peace Corps volunteers will tell you, there are lots of benefits of not being ‘developed,’ too. People tend to rely on each other more and form stronger communities. They also have a closer relationship with nature and the environment. This closer relationship with nature gets to the heart of an important difference of perspectives on development. What if we think of development as a movement from the subjection of humans to nature to the subjection of nature to humans? At some point in our history we must have realized that our brains give us the ability to manipulate nature and make it more amenable to us. Isn’t that what healthcare is? Doctors changing the natural course of our bodies and artificially lengthening our lives? Isn’t that what infrastructure is? Cutting down trees and bulldozing hills so that we can more easily move around? Isn’t that what modern conveniences do? Keep bugs out, control the indoor climate, cook and freeze food to our liking. And modern agriculture? We essentially uproot what was and replant what suits us in row after row of monoculture commercial farms.

What if development is thought of as a move to artificiality? If the dichotomy is natural and artificial, then the value judgment is kind of turned on its head. Nicaragua becomes a less artificial country and the US perhaps the most artificial country that has ever existed. Now, obviously ‘artificial’ has its own baggage, and I’m not suggesting we stop using the word ‘developed,’ but as a thought experiment it helps underscore the influence of language on how we conceptualize our world. If we uncritically use the term ‘developing’ to describe countries that share characteristics like low material wealth and less infrastructure, then we risk stifling the diversity, beauty, and connections that are everywhere in the world. I don’t think we should stop using the word, but I do think we should think beyond it.

I absolutely loveeee this analysis and thank Andrew so much for sharing it with us! Check out some more of his blogs at http://boddyspargo.wordpress.com/ !