Why You Should Stop Saying Third World

Photo Credit: Heather Suggit

Words mean things and just like and just like you wouldn’t refer to a Black person as “colored” or “Afro-American”, you should consider refraining from calling any country “third world”. Language evolves as societies do. It’s not a result of being politically correct. Instead, it’s a result of wanting to be accurate and equitable. Language has the ability to perpetuate oppression or mitigate it. 

It's Outdated and Inaccurate

The term “third world” came about during the Cold War. It was a way to differentiate between Western capitalist countries (first world), communist countries and their allies (second world) and everyone else (third world). It has come to mean “poor” countries, but you’ll find a contradiction when countries as “rich” as Saudi Arabia are referred to as third world. 

It Places Countries in the Back of the Line

The number three is always after the number one and two. And while a seemingly tedious or nit-picky detail, by referring to a country as the third world (especially when we share one world), you’re tacitly putting them and keeping them “in their place”. It suggests and perpetuates the idea that “first world” countries are the ideal while “third world” countries have little to nothing to offer. 

It's a Blanket Statement and Removes the Humanity of the People.

The association with the term “third world” is almost always negative. But, equally so, it lumps a significant number of countries into one category, removing from them their history, their culture and their nuance—all aspects necessary to acknowledge when doing development work or when referring to someone’s land. This method makes it easier to take advantage of people, their economies and their ideas. 

It Lacks Specificity

Yes, this is a continuation of the previous paragraph. 

It is most easy to colonize, oppress and demonize groups and countries that do not have a face or a personality. When you’re participating in development work, you’re asserting the worthiness and value of the people you’re serving. Their need or want of necessary resources does not (in any way) diminish their unique offering to the world. The term perpetuates white supremacy and determines one’s value on what is valued in the “West”.

Ok, So What Should I Say?

Potential alternatives include developing world, lean economies, global south, and low and middle income countries.  All of the above have their issues and contradictions. Oftentimes they still reference what white supremacy argues is valuable. They also, at times, only take into account the data that certain countries collect vs. others. 

Consider referring to a country and the people in that country as a specifically as possible. Name the place. Say “Haiti” or if you’re referring to a group, consider the term “formerly colonized countries or people”. Ultimately, be careful about using language that dehumanizes, shames and discredits countries we (and you!) are purporting to serve.

Consider this small change to make a huge impact. This list is not exhaustive but it is where we stand. Language matters and words mean things.