Developed – Developing: Dialogical Integration in InternationalConferences

I recently came across a question posed by Dr. Ashraf Salama in his website. DrSalama asks, “Conference Attendance: Do the Developing have Something toOffer the Developed?”

The question is interesting because it may not be possible or prudent to try andanswer it without first understanding the conditions imposed by the notion of ‘developed’ and ‘developing’. Can an answer be attempted without questioningthis dichotomy? And as Dr Salama rightly points out, if there is more than ‘something’ already offered by poorer countries, what has prevented an evenlarger contribution and due acknowledgement? Dr Salama illustrates the questionby providing some examples. He notes a low level of attendance to internationalconferences on the part of developing countries. He also notices that when peoplefrom poorer countries attend, there is an “implicit assumption that they go tolearn”, rather than to share their knowledge or, why not, even teach. Dr Salamahowever claims that there may indeed be a lot of learning coming from the ‘developing’ world but that it is not appropriately acknowledged. For example, heclaims that much is learnt from the developing world in matters of conservation,ecological design practices, historical analysis and education.I would add to the list: water treatment, emergency housing, disastermanagement, community planning, alternative building technology such asbamboo, rattan and earth construction, low cost and social housing, desertarchitecture and public transport (for example Curitiba and the TransMilenio inBogotá). From theory to practice, to some degree we have embraced theknowledge of scholars such as (to mention a few), Spiro Kostof, ConstantinoDoxiadis, Ali Madanipour, Necdet Teymur, Alberto Pérez-Gómez, to the social andurban knowledge of Jaime Lerner. Scholars, philosophers and practitioners havein one way or another shared their knowledge. However, it could be argued thatwhile some have achieved a degree of recognition—and in the process referencesto the geographical origins fade away—what most have in common is that theyhad made their way through an international, mostly Anglophone institution, forexample a British or US university. Something prevents a direct input, one that isnot mediated by renowned Anglophone institutions, or by having migrated toricher countries and with that having mastered the English language. Indiscussing this matter, Dr Salama suggested that perhaps different historicalconditions to those of today may have determined the path of scholars such asSpiro Kostof and Constantino Doxiadis. If this was the case, it would be importantto ask how opportunities for recognition and/or influence may have changed inthe last decades. At this point it is pertinent to make a distinction betweenacknowledgment and influence and to ask whether or not internationalconferences create equal conditions for dialogue, acknowledgment and for theinfluencing of the discourse by all and what determines such opportunities.While commonly used, an established convention on the use of the terms ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ does not exist.

According to The World Bank, somecountries (with ‘transition economies’), might fall within either category accordingto the criteria used to make the judgment. For example The World Bank classifies

countries according to income. However, it makes exceptions for, among others,countries such as Israel, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. Withinacademic circles, the lack of proper definition (if this could ever be reached) is notoften accounted for or acknowledged. Instead these terms are used as if theyreflected an objective reality and most times used subjectively to validateenormous oversights that, if properly examined, could indeed have enlighten thediscussion.More than a divide across developed and developing—a very poor dichotomy thatdoes nothing to explain rich cultural differences within and which promotes adegree of stagnation among the ‘developed’—I suggest that the divide might liealong the lines of an Anglophone world and the ‘rest’ of the world. The reasonwhy I put forward this untested hypothesis springs from an ongoing research intoarchitectural education, where I have noticed that leading theoreticians inAmerica (a continent with a majority Spanish speaking population), such as EdgarMorin, are virtually unknown in Australia and I assume equally less known inother Anglo speaking countries. Edgar Morin has been translated from French toSpanish, Italian, Portuguese and Russian, but little can be found in English. In asimilar case, Henri Lefebvre’s

The Production of Space

, today one of the mostinfluential books among urbanists and some architects, was originally published inFrench in 1974, and translated to English almost twenty years later in 1991.Many more could follow in this important list of mostly unknown architects andscholars to the English speaker.While a degree of unawareness of what others are doing may not be intentional,this is reinforced by architectural institutions and an architectural media, thatinsists on the architectural achievements of large, mainly European companiesand architects, giving no opportunity for an equally great work produced by localarchitects and companies in poorer countries. For a random example, this month,the electronic newsmail produced by the World Architecture News (Issue No.123 /04 January 2008) features six projects, all of which, whether in the UK, Dubai orShangai, are designed by British/European architects and all of which are large,to very large corporate buildings. Within this list of six architects the work of ZahaHadid is featured—some may want to consider her an exception.The notion of a conference as an opportunity to advance knowledge and ideas isimportant. However, too many of them are stifling and costly, making it difficultfor those coming from poorer countries to justify the expense. This situationprevents the most needed multiplicity of views while recycling stagnant ideasfrom a prevailing culture.Back to the original question, I have no doubt that professionals and scholarsfrom poorer parts of the world have much to offer to the rest of the world—in factsome have already done so, and it is here where Architects for Peace has a greatrole to play, to be the gateway for direct input of the many forms of contributionsand the many unpublished projects happening right now everywhere. It isperhaps in poorer countries where creativity and alternative approaches are thenorm and are daily tested.