Consider the common terminology used for countries at the Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference. There was, of course, a huge variety of regional cultures, packed into political units called nations. Nations negotiated last week. They traded. They agreed. They pointed fingers. They got left out. They sometimes got results. But, ultimately, there was a we and there was a them. Some kind of dichotomy existed, as it has for decades and decades. Us and them.
This status in the language we impose on geographic regions and peoples around the planet is troubling. Over and over, media and leaders referred to nations that were either developed or developing. Are these terms helpful at a global conference? Are they helpful in any discussion of world events? What is at the core of these tags?
I live in a developed country. What does this mean? Does it mean we’re well-done? Baked? Climaxed? Ready for the Promised Land? Are we at the height of any known civilization? Ready to plant a suburb on Mars? Have we as a nation successfully surpassed puberty? Are all my fellow citizens developed, like me? What is the range of developedness? If I fall below a certain level can I get dropped from developed to developing? Can I, then, re-apply to be developed again? (Just checked my passport. Doesn’t say developed...) What is developed about my particular society? Is it all good?
So, OK, my friends in developing countries: What is it they evidently haven’t yet developed? Language? Polyester clothing? Cricket? Math? Private schools? Is everyone a serf? Do citizens of developing countries need lessons in manners? Are they evil? Are they aspiring developers? What do they lack? Why are they not quite there?
Don’t even start me on third world designations. (I'm done with snarkiness now…)
These tags are embedded in our language and everyone seems to know which country belongs under which classification. The two terms are loaded with comparative biases and tones of superiority or of derision. How can this terminology be acceptable for Country A or Country B?
Of course, it’s mostly a case for the dynamics of global history and geography. Of cultures moving from their lands onto others’. Of wars: conquerers and conquered. Of sailing ships to far shores in the guise of the White Man’s Burden. Of new countries eventually shedding colonial powers.
In more recent history, there appeared something called industrialization. Coal and then oil began powering the engines to do our work in the early 19th century, creating the Industrial Revolution. Some nations had the opportunities to reap the advantages of fossil fuels, and some did not.
So, an irony exists. The global climate change discussions by nations at Copenhagen Conference centered on levels of industrialization. Industrialization is at the root of a nation’s production; hence its Gross Domestic Product; hence its wealth; hence its higher contribution to emissions that are warming our atmosphere; hence its developed nation status.
Huh?
Why are the developed countries balking at cutting their own anthropogenic CO2 concentrations? Why are they so concerned that they may need to foot some of the bill to assist developing countries who are now just ramping up emissions but will be most affected by a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius?
At a time when we need to see Earth as one ailing organism, little is accomplished by the spirit of us and them: Developed vs. developing.
