Push for Terminology Change: Developing
Image Source: Wikipedia
Definition
Essentially, the term “developing” replaced “Third World,” and there is no official definition of what exactly “developing” means. The IMF admitted that their use of “developing” “is not based on strict criteria, economic or otherwise.” The UN doesn’t have an official definition for “developing” even though they use the term to describe 159 countries. It really seems as though rich countries use this term to label countries that are poorer or seen as ‘less than’ in some way.
The Problem
As I just touched upon, the meaning of “developing” varies from person to person or from institution to institution, and there’s no real consensus on what “developing” means exactly. Besides being a blatant replacement for “Third World,” the general sense of “developing” is that a country is not on the same level as a rich country like the US economically, technologically, or sometimes even socially, but it is working on it. So rich countries are labeled as “developed” and poorer countries are labeled as “developing.”
This is problematic for two reasons. One, this implies that how rich countries (typically those that are labeled as “Western”) developed their economies, technologies, and societies at large is the only right way for a country to develop itself and each country must follow this path to become “developed.” Two, this implies that rich countries’ development has peaked, that there is nothing left to be developed, which of course is not true. We can always improve our economy, technology, and society, so are we ever really done ‘developing’? There is also the matter of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): many of these so-called “developed” countries have not yet met these SDGs, so how can they be called “developed”?
While many people are content with “developing” as a label, there are just as many who aren’t. Some have pointed out that “First World/Third World” and “developed/developing” labels are essentially the labels used to distinguish between countries who were colonizers and countries who were colonized. Indeed, the “Third World” referred to former colonies. Even though some may not intend offense or prejudice by using “developing,” the impression the term gives in many contexts and phrasings is that these “developing” countries are found lacking in some way from the viewpoint of rich countries. The real problem is the legacy and origin of “developing.” And this practice where rich/colonizer countries classify the countries of the world according to their viewpoint and this classification becomes the standard imposed on all the countries is the overall issue fueling said problem.
The Alternatives
As translators (and interpreters), we are sometimes bound by guidelines or client requirements to use certain terms, that’s just a fact of our profession. Yet we also have the power to change the way we discuss an issue in our target language. We can advise or suggest, or even insist, our clients use terms that better reflect the feelings, representation, or cause involved. This blog series isn’t necessarily meant to disparage the usage of a certain term; it’s meant to present terms that (many) people find problematic and some potential alternatives.
In the case of “developing” (and by extension “Third World”), many institutions have already done away with the term. However, there are many alternatives used today:
The most common terminology I’ve seen (maybe due to the nature of my translation specializations) categorizes countries by income: high, middle, and low. So, there are high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries. The terminology is most useful when describing economic development and the most neutral in terms of secondary connotations.
Similarly, some people merely say rich countries and poor countries, as I did in this article—I didn’t want to give away the potential alternatives! Again, this refers to economic development, but it’s not as formal or standardized as the first alternative.
Related terms that wouldn’t refer to economic development alone are underprivileged and impoverished. In my opinion, these could also refer to technological or social matters.
Many are in favor of colonizer countries and (formerly) colonized countries because colonization is what caused much of the disparities referenced in the various classification terminologies. Who colonized who is historically verifiable, so who could be labeled as such comes from established fact; many who would object to the terms’ use wouldn’t be able to object to the facts, just to the usage itself. This terminology may be best used in specific contexts because while the usage is rooted in established fact, it may provoke emotional debates. For example, “low-income” may be a better term if the content is about economics and the legacy of colonization is not being discussed.
Many use the terms Global South and Global North, but these have the same issues as “Middle East” or “Western”—geographically ambiguous and lacked a definitive definition.
Majority World is a term I’ve only discovered researching for this article. As Borgen Project explains:
The term “Majority World” is often used to remind the West that these countries outnumber them. Majority World refers to countries where most of the population resides. On the other hand, the Minority World are the nations more commonly considered “developed” where a small percentage of the earth’s population lives.