Is The South Really Below?
Since we were little we have been taught that the north is up and the south is below. Furthermore, it turns out that what is above is conceived as better than what is below. But are we sure that the south is below?
A very present example in the Judeo-Christian culture resides in the belief that heaven is above and hell is below. The good go to heaven and the bad go to hell, therefore the good go up and the bad go down. This association up = good, down = bad has prevailed over time and is extrapolated to the most diverse situations despite its irrationality.
Students who get good grades are above those who get bad grades. The head of a company is at a higher level than his employees. There are professions that are above others and thus with endless examples.
If we look at a map of the globe, at the top are what are called developed countries and at the bottom are the developing countries. But, what would happen if we turned the map around, if Antarctica were in the north and the north pole was renamed the south pole? Would we still be the good above and the bad below? Maybe that north and that south are nothing more than subjective interpretations that could be exchanged.
The global south
From the theories of decolonialism it is proposed that there is a global south. This south is not something spatial and you cannot draw lines on a map to delimit it. This global south is distinguished from the global north by institutional practices. But what are institutional practices?
These are nothing more than the actions carried out by the institutions that govern the country. Those institutions that belong to the state. Examples that perfectly portray this division, sadly, are cases of gender violence. If a husband abused his wife and they were both high-class and wealthy, the police reaction would not be the same as if the case of gender-based violence occurred in a Roma family. Or if?
According to the theory, the actions of the police should be the same since we are all equal before the law, but the practice, once again, distances us from the fulfillment of this duty established by the law. And what if these two women went to trial? Would the judges and prosecutors of both women have the same opinion? Would it be the same penalty for both husbands? Although it is tempting to think so, the attitudes and attitudes towards these people would likely be different.
When a rich man loses his job he was unlucky, when a poor man loses it it is because he was lazy. When a rich man steals it is because they have made it very easy for him (see cases of corruption), when a poor man does it it is because he is a bad person who wanted to do harm. These types of interpretations are very common and are associated with beliefs in a just world.
Why defend those in the global south?
A common question is why give a voice and defend those who are located in the global south and not those who are in the north if injustices happen to both. The ideal would be to defend both, but as has been said between the two there is a great difference.
This difference is the treatment that the institutions give them. While the institutions defend some, they blame others and, therefore, it is necessary to support those who without merit or demerit have been born in the global south.
Nobody has the power to choose where they will be born and, even so, that difference will mark their future in many ways. As Jacques Derrida said, we must deconstruct everything that we believe to be true in order to divide it into such small parts that we can analyze them and understand what is true and what is a social construction.
Simple things, like knowing where the south and north are, can be surrounded by negative associations. Associations that end up being considered natural truths that we end up believing while, without realizing it, we harm others.
