Semantics and the "Third World"

For a few years now I have struggled with a question of terminology. What do you call a country with a standard of living somewhat less than that of the United States. Ah hell, even there I fall into the trap of definition, in this case “standard of living.” It would seem that in referring to things as complicated, nebulous, and fraught with political agenda and consequence, trying to assign an accurate and scientifically rigorous definition to these things only serves to leave out some of the very things it means to include. A definition may be precise, but it may be precisely wrong. Instead we turn to the model of example. Rather than define what a standard of living is or is not and what level exactly, we can use examples to indicate meaning, much as a primary language teacher would use examples to indicate the meaning of esoteric concepts like “in front of” or “more than”.

This question had been rattling around quietly in my mind for some time until it made itself clear one afternoon in Sri Lanka. I was speaking to a friend, a native and expatriate of Sri Lanka now residing in London. I mentioned in an off handed way that this was not my first third world country, and she bristled at the term. I quickly corrected myself and used “developing nation” instead. This seemed to fit for awhile until, some time and some countries later, that idea and term was also challenged.

This time the challenge came not from the outside, but from within, as I sat reading about social and economic rights in Haiti, fresh from a recent trip there myself. The author used the term “deprived world”, and suddenly that bold assertation threw the shortcomings of my previous answer into sharp relief. “Developing Nation” carries with it several assumptions that experience and reality has not born out. First, that development is actually happening, that there is progress being made of some kind toward a better standard of living. What then of those places that are stagnant in their poverty and misery (Haiti in the 70's and 80's) to say nothing of those actively backsliding (Cuba in the early 90's). To call these places “developing” is wishful thinking at best. And what about the other part of that label, the “Nation?” What about places where the nation state is none existent, under civil war, military coup, or unrecognized by other countries? (Palestine, Haiti, Rwanda, North Korea, Cuba, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, etc, etc...)

No, the term deprived world seems to fit far better, if only one stops to consider certain realities. First, deprived; that is to say their condition is not a product of fate or bad luck, but rather a consequence of action (or inaction), and generally traceable to inequalities of power. Yep, violence, abuse, poverty are all the result of rising tides of inequality. The current condition of most countries cited as examples and scores of others as well, is directly traceable to the influence or previous rule of another, more powerful country. France and Haiti, Belgium and Rwanda, England and Sri Lanka, the United States and Guatemala, and the list goes on. Deprived implies the relatively recent nature of the poverty; I can think of no place or race on earth that at one point or another did not flourish and thrive. The dirt floor poor country of Mongolia once ruled the largest empire in the world. The people in bombed out mud huts in Iraq once exported the first known human civilizations from the Mesopotamia river valley. There is a lesson in this, if we would hear it.

Finally, distinguishing between “nation” and “world” also lets us see those in our own backyard who live in these same conditions. One need not travel to Sub-Saharan Africa to witness the ravages of AIDS and multidrug resistant TB on a homeless and pennyless population, that can be found right here on the North American continent, and even within our own borders, as the inequalities of power continue to breed structural violence.

This is not to say there is no developing world, indeed I would count places such as Thailand firmly in the camp of the developing world as their people and society progress toward a higher standard of living in a more or less peaceful manner, but they, like every nation on earth, have a deprived segment of their population.


Whew, I hope you’ll forgive me for using this blog as a forum to test drive a few newish ideas and arguments, and not just a place to tell you about where and what I’m doing. If ya’ll have any comment or criticism about this piece or any other I may write, please let me know. If I’m not clear or wander off topic, slap me around and help me get better.

Thanks