As with any field of study, international development is constantly evolving. The academic literature surrounding international development evolves too. As a result, academics and development practitioners alike must be ever vigilant to stay on top of what vocabulary is the most up-to-date, accurate, and, most importantly, politically correct.
One of the most important and difficult to label concepts in international development is the category of countries/regions/areas that experience high levels of poverty/social issues/poor quality of life/etc. Even describing the category is challenging!
Post World War II, this category was classified as the “third world”. Capitalist countries were the first world, communist countries were the second, and everyone else was the third world. This term was dropped after the fall of the Soviet Union since the categories were no longer accurate. Also, the ranking of first to third was considered offensive.
Next came the distinction of industrialized versus industrializing countries, associated with modernity theory. These terms were all well and good, until academics began to realize that becoming “industrial” may not be the ideal thing for all nations. Modernity theory was also tossed out the proverbial window.
Next came developed and developing countries. These terms are still used today. However, some academics pointed out that these terms are patronizing: they insinuate that “we” are what “they” should become. Considering our problems with mass consumption and pollution, this is not particularly accurate.
Another, theoretically less dictatorial, set of terms is Global North and Global South. This based on the Brandt Line, a visual depiction of the North-South divide. Basically, North means wealthy and privileged, while South means impoverished and vulnerable. Considering the obvious flaws with this geographical divide (ahem, Australia!), this term, though still current, is also contested.
Really, it is exhausting for a mere student to keep straight.
I have most commonly used the developed versus developing terminology or Global North versus Global South, sprinkled in with some “emerging economies” and “impoverished nations” for good measure. However, my favourite textbook this summer, Geographies of Developing Areas by Williams, Meth, and Willis, pointed out the quandary about using the terms Global North and Global South. And it got me thinking…
Just how important is terminology? If I say developing countries and you say Global South, does it matter as long as we all know what we are talking about? How does public perception factor in?
I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter!
Definitely a very important issue to discuss. My 'favourite' to distinguish between countries and their level of 'development' is the developed, developing, and under-developed terminology. I have always wondered at what point do countries, if classified this way, move from one category to another. Are they measured in terms of economic performance? social progress? health and life expectancy? education and literacy? As you mentioned in your post, 'developed' nations still have much to be desired and are by no means perfect. Issues like pollution and our consumption patterns leave much to be desired.
ReplyDeleteFinding terminology that is descriptive but not patronizing is challenging I think and a lot of the time all of these terms are used interchangeably. Public perception that developing or Third World countries are somehow backwards is not helped by the terminology as it is patronizing.
As the academic field of development continues to evolve, I would not be surprised to see a new classification system being introduced in the future to distinguish between countries and regions of the world.
This is such a great topic Tallia, especially since in our 4 years together we have had professors utilize all forms of classifications except for first world/third world. As Lisa mentioned it is always going to be difficult to find terminology that does not offend anyone, however, I do believe that even with the creation of a new term it will always be considered offensive. Unfortunate as it is this sort of terminology is created by individuals in the "Global North" for the most part. And since, generally speaking, the money flows from the "developed" countries to the "underdeveloped" countries in the minds of many it justifies having this sort of distinction.
ReplyDeleteSince until recently most development theories have focused on economic prosperity the terms are directly correlated to money. They do not reflect development in terms of environmental sustainability or even how happy a population is (as cheesy as it is).
In the future we can hope that new terminology will arise, however, since so much of our global society revolves around the economy and where money is going I think we are far from having a distinction that doesn't seem offensive to some.
Great post Tallia,
ReplyDeleteAs Rylea said this complexity of terms is very clear as all of our professors in the last 4 years have used the different terms to mean the same thing. I honestly think that the wording of the region/country doesn't matter as long as the development work being practiced in that area is not patronizing or harmful. Sometimes I think we get to caught up in semantics, that the real challenges faced in the area of discussion aren't even addressed. It may be pessimistic, but I don't think there will ever be a set of terms that is completely politically correct and not offensive or confusing to the regions involved.
Really interesting topic though! This wording dilemma is definitely something we as INDEV students will face in the future.
I agree with everyone who's commented so far...clearly we've all had a fairly decent education on this topic already this summer (shout out to Prof Steffanie Scott.) But I agree that this a very complicated however necessary concept to talk about. Our society is so plagued with the need to be politically correct and it seems that everytime you turn around you could be offending someone. Who knew that the term jungle was a contentious term? I also think it's important to acknowledge the level of understanding on international development issues that one is able to gauge through listening to the terms others use. Those of us who are 'enlightened' stray away from saying 3rd world and notice when someone else refers to countries like that. But it is also just as important to not be patronizing in our tendency to correct people's terminology. Yes I agree that we should find a way to navigate through all of these terms, but to do so in a non offensive way is just as important as it is to learn what is the appropriate terminology to begin with.
ReplyDelete