The label “Third World” is a problematic term that has been used since the middle of the twentieth century to refer to a diverse group of countries that are characterized by similar socioeconomic conditions, marked by poverty and an insufficiently developed infrastructure to support its citizens. These countries, however, have vastly different histories, cultures, and political systems. As is the case with most labels, the term “Third World” is misleading because it fails to explain the exact nature of the phenomenon that it purports to describe. Furthermore, the term implies a particular value judgment by using an ordinal schematic for organizing nations according to a hierarchical denomination. In recent years, the term “Third World” has been rightly criticized and in its place, the term “underdeveloped” or “developing” countries is often used.
While these terms are perhaps more descriptive, they too lack precision with respect to their capacity to explain the reasons why many countries in Asia, Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East do not enjoy the standard of living that is characteristic of the United States and most of Western Europe. These terms also obscure the regional characteristics that differ from one country to another and which must be understood in order to implement effective strategies that can be used to improve socioeconomic conditions.
The terms “Third World,” “developing” and “underdeveloped” countries are also problematic for another reason. They lump countries that are quite different into a category that is inherently general in nature, thereby perpetuating stereotypes and myths about such countries that are not accurate. As a result, such countries remain marginalized by superpower countries. Words have power, and the power of these terms is that they denote a particular position in global society; they also complicate notions of agency and autonomy by assuming that the standard against which a country should develop is the model posed by the wealthy Western world.
Much of our language is limiting, of course. Terms that are used to describe widespread phenomena are almost always problematic, as they risk creating generalizations that prevent us from seeing crucial underlying variables that must be taken into consideration if a social problem is to be addressed effectively. It is difficult, and perhaps even impossible, to find an adequate determine that can describe general conditions while acknowledging disparate characteristics that define the people who experience those conditions. By not using the term “Third World” or any of its synonyms, we may neglect our responsibility to examine and respond to the socioeconomic problems of Asia, Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East, which is not a viable alternative.
Although I find these terms that attempt to communicate so much about a particular country, whether it is a developing country or an underdevelpoed nation. problematic, I recognize that their use is important, if only temporarily, until we either find a term that can describe this phenomenon more precisely or we can determine a way of discussing the kinds of problems that characterize these countries without needing a label to group them under a single umbrella.
