The other day someone referred to the whole continent of Africa as “the third world”. Oh, come on, I thought, are you serious?
The terms “third world” or “first world” are out-of-date and inaccurate. It’s quite clear what people have in mind when they proudly announce “oh, but my country is not some third world country!” This is offensive because it’s based on prejudice and stereotypes.
The so-called “third world” is associated with extreme poverty. It carries the image of dirt roads as opposed to five-lane highways in the “first world”, shacks and huts instead of nice apartment blocks, and – in worst cases – an image of people somewhat inferior to those who were born in the “first world”.
It’s interesting to note that these number-based terms date back to World War II. According to the Nations Online Project, the “first world” is a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after the war, with similar political and economical interests (North America, Western Europe, Australia). The “second world” is their Cold War enemies, the former communist block (Russia and the so-called Eastern Europe). Now, the “third world” countries are… all the rest.
The Cold War ended two decades ago, but its legacy is still poisoning the thinking of today. However, increasingly the terms “developed world” and “developing countries” are taking over the vocabulary. The problem is that the term “development” is often used with economy in mind, leaving cultural achievements out of the game.
But who’d dare assign a tag to each country in the world, either ending in –ed or –ing? Definitions vary, and nobody knows what exactly they mean. “We are all still developing,” said Mr Wilfried Ruetten in his opening speech at the launch of TH!NK 3. That’s so true.
There is another way of categorizing the world. The alternative and more accurate way to call the “third world” is Majority World. This term highlights the fact that they are home to the majority of humankind, emphasizing the importance of people, not how much money they have. As Appropedia put it, “Majority World defines the community in terms of what it is, rather than what it lacks.” The term also suggests that those people have to be regarded seriously, because they are not somewhere on the belittled “third world”, they are the majority and thus should have the power.
“The problem is that the term “development” is often used with economy in mind, leaving cultural achievements out of the game.”
Well yes. Economic achievements are quantifiable (even if recent history tells us they are too often fudged). Even the thought of assessing countries on the merits of their culture reeks of the imperialism that European countries would rather you didn’t bring up.
I’ll admit freely and without reservation that Ethiopian cuisine is superior in every way to the Estonian paradigm of “we use ALL of the pig”. The intrinsic and individual value of each culture is not something reasonable people argue about.
Now, as for ings and eds. The countries asking for concessions are still developing. The countries that have aid to give are developed. Not a perfect description of a greyish world, but useful for the purposes of discussion, wouldn’t you say?
I agree that the eds and ings are useful for the purposes of discussion, however, I’d argue that the terminology used in whichever topic should be as accurate as possible. Compare, say, a “receiver” of aid and a “donor” with a rather more positive description of “partnership” - there’s a difference in their meanings, and it leads to a shift of mentality.
Because of all the connotations these terms carry (and these have been growing in the public mind for a long time), we have to be careful in how we use them (or use them not). And here we again come to the question: what is developed? Of course we can say out of the blue that the US is developed and Ghana is not, but the exact definition is just not there (at least I couldn’t find one that everyone had agreed on), and therefore it is actually a grey area that is nevertheless often described as black and white.
For this reason, I find the term “majority world” more relevant because it does not put any player in the subordinate position and only refers to the number of people affected by the inequalities in the world.
As for that pig - oh god. In Lithuania it’s potatoes… Not that there is something wrong with them, but I see your point. Cheers to that!
“there’s a difference in their meanings, and it leads to a shift of mentality.”
True. That shift goes both ways. We don’t WANT these countries to feel good about taking aid. We want it to be something shameful. We want to embarass them into getting their economies in shape as quickly as possible. Worked well for the Baltics!
We’re talking about aid. One of the players is in a subordinate position, inevitably. The term “majority world” is about as meaningful as that old joke about Mongolia being the world’s most independent country, since nothing at all depends on it.
Also, it’s 5pm, some zeppelinai would really hit the spot right now.
yes because they are made from both potatoes and the pig!
But I still believe the terminology should be as colourless as possible. Even the “developed” countries have many many citizens who wouldn’t exactly call their lives “developed” because they don’t have access to all the joys such as higher education or health services, or water in the toilet like in my grandparents’ village. If we define what exactly “developed” means, that’d be more acceptable, even though any kind of categorization is faulty to some of its categorized elements, you know.
Oh, and I agree with you that we don’t want the “developing” countries to feel good about taking aid. But we don’t want them feel indignity about it, either. M?
“The third world” is usually associated to the Bandung conference in 1955, and I agree that the term is kind of outdated. Without the Cold war division of the world in West and East, it is also incomprehensible.
The term is quite flawed, I guess, by dubious political use, but it has an obvious advantage over “developed world” - it is a term that the countries in question picked to define themselves, not a term that “we” made up to define “them”.
I would argue the statement “they are the majority and thus should have the power”. Such an end I believe doesn’t fit all the liberal idea of the article..