I hold the opinion that it’s time for the terms, “First World” and “Third World” to retire.
Alfred Sauvy, a French anthropologist, wanted to figure out a way to organize the nations of the world during the Cold War. After all, being a demographer as well, that was what he loved to do: study the peoples of the world and give structure and organization to its diversity.
Sauvy devised his system in 1952. The “First World” was composed of successful, capitalist nations either in the Western world or with Western influence. The “Second World” contained communist nations that were a part of or allied with the Soviet Union. Finally, the “Third World” described countries not involved in either side of the Cold War.
In the 1970s, Chief George Manuel from the Shuswap tribe in Canada added his touch to Sauvy’s system: the “Fourth World.” The “Fourth World” refers to indigenous peoples and ethnic groups that melt across political borders.
Sauvy’s “worlds” still exist in modern conversation today. From 1952 to 1991, the groupings were based on Cold War context. Today, the terms are still alive, but the groupings are mostly based on the context of economic characteristics. In 2018, we don’t talk too much about the “Second World” anymore because it was made up of communist nations part of or allied with the Soviet Union, which obviously doesn’t exist anymore. It’s irrelevant information to us in modern day, so we talk about the “Second World” usually in a historical context.
The list of countries that make up the “First World” is pretty much the same today. The “First World” includes the United States, Canada, Western European nations, Australia, and New Zealand. Today’s “Third World” is made up of African, Asian, and Middle Eastern countries. Our current “Third World” countries are classified as such because of any combination of the following: high poverty, large debts, lack of a middle class, poor health and healthcare, high infant and maternal mortality rates, unstable and/or corrupt government, poor education, and high illiteracy rate.
I personally never use the terms, “First World” or “Third World” when describing nations around the globe. In fact, I cringe a little bit when I hear those phrases uttered. The idea of ranking nations of people numerically just seems so morally wrong to me. It fosters a competitive nature, to an extent, and the automatic labeling just seems impulsive and uncivil.
I’m not blind; I see the economic and social differences between our “First World” and our “Third World.” But describing a nation as “First World” sounds like suggesting that the nation is thoroughly superior, more worthy of respect, and “the best.” Furthermore, some people (who may need a few history lessons) may even interpret that label as suggesting that this particular nation was quite literally “the first,” which would be a humorous thought considering that a good portion of “First World” nations completely belonged to native peoples before they were horrendously massacred and forced out by European settlers. The whole “First World” idea is like a “holier than thou” complex. It just bothers me.
Conversely, describing a nation as “Third World” denigrates it wholly, in my opinion. It suggests the idea that the nation has no potential and nothing to offer the rest of us “First World” people. It’s like “Third World” nations are low, unimportant, and last place. It can suggest that the people of that nation are unsophisticated or barbaric, and less deserving of respect and common human decency. We need to remember that what makes this term even more powerful is the fact that white, English-speaking, predominantly-Christian nations make up the entirety of the “First World” and “everyone else” makes up the “Third World.” It just makes the hierarchy even more sensitive.
It’s confusing to me why Chief Manuel willingly called his people a “Fourth World” nation. Maybe he felt that that would be the most appropriate and most accepted label for indigenous peoples for “First World” people to use, but we may never know.
Theoretically, even if I was okay with the “First World” and “Third World” labels, it’s so difficult to truly make a science out of the world’s nations. Tons and tons of factors go into a country’s profile. For example, Nation A is mostly made up of wealthy citizens, but they have a virtually non-existent middle class and their government is corrupt. Nation B’s citizens are very physically healthy and happy, but they have a 57% illiteracy rate and their government is trillions in debt. How do we decide who’s in which “world”? And furthermore, who gets to decide who’s in which “world”? It’s just not a reliable science. It’s not a solid system.
Maybe I just don’t like the concept of naming countries, “first,” “second,” and “third.” I choose to describe a country as “developing,” or just mention that it’s healing from economic depression, huge debts, major societal issues, or whatever its current problems are. All the world’s nations have something to offer each other and I don’t believe there’s any need for Sauvy’s “worlds” system. I believe it’s antiquated, and frankly, wrong. It’s okay with me if the “First World” and the “Third World” retired forever.
Thanks for hearing me out!
Love, Annie
References and Images:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/12631/theres-first-world-theres-third-world-there-second-world
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/150.html
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm