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/ !
No comments:
Post a Comment