Geography 141 - Not letting go of the 'third world'

A key reason I was interested in taking this class (Geography 141 - Uneven Development Geographies: Prosperity and Impoverishment in Third World) was to explore the differences in how Geography and development are taught differently at my home an host institutions.

Without having even started the class an immediate difference has already caught my attention: the use of the term ‘third world’ in the class’ title. At UCL students are taught not to use the term as it inaccurately portrays parts of the world as a standard for which ‘development’ should be measured against. However ‘third world’ is casually thrown around throughout the Geography 141 syllabus. This is hardly surprising considering the US was an early ‘exemplar’ for development, with President Truman’s 1949 inaugural address spurring the rhetoric that the ‘first world’ was dutifully bound to develop the ‘third’ (Donovan 1982).

With the Cold War over, terms used to describe ‘first world’ allies, ‘second world’ enemies and ‘third world’ non-aligned countries to the US should have been made obsolete (Gaddis 1998). In fact even their successors, ‘developed’ and ‘un-’ or ‘underdeveloped’, have been hugely criticised by post-development theorists. Such thinkers argue that these terms are equally problematic for merely reinforcing Western and Northern hegemonies, therefore allowing such countries to create development discourses (Sachs, 1998).

Mapping of the 'three worlds' during the Cold War 

It will be interesting throughout this class to see if the term is challenged, or whether universities in the US choose to hold on to Cold War imaginaries and terms which maintain the nation's status as a global superpower in the field of development.

References

Donovan, R. (1982) Tumultuous years: The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, New York: Norton.

Gaddis, J. (1998) We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History, Oxford: Oxford University.

Sachs, W. (1998) The Development Dictionary, London: Zed Books.