The ideology of our globe being composed of three different “worlds” came to light during the 1950s when a man named Alfred Sauvy coined the term to describe the different players of the Cold War. In the “First World” we find western, capitalist countries; in the “Second World” we find the opposed communists, and then there is a category that captures all others who don’t fit into the previous groups and they were labeled the “Third World.” While the term “Third World” started off as meaning they weren’t aligned with either side of the Cold War, it has evolved to mean a country is developing or undeveloped (Andrews).
Even back during the times of the Cold War, the definition was unclear. In “What was the Third World” by B.R. Tomlinson he states that rather than being a clearly analyzed group, it may have been “simply a convenient and rather vague label for an imprecise collection of states… and some of the common problems they faced” (307). This convenience of grouping overshadows the diversity of countries that get lumped into the “Third World.” Not only do these places have different political beliefs, cultures, social aspects, economics, and histories from their global neighbors, they also have that same diversity within their own borders (Tomlinson 308). The ideology of Three Worlds, therefore, implements the kind of dilemma that is outlined in Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s “The Danger of a Single Story” ted talk.
Fredric Jameson, whose work is the topic of the reading by Aijaz Ahmad, labels this single story as “national allegories” and claims a piece of third world literature cannot exist outside of it. Ahmad refutes this thinking and brings up points similar to those of Tomlinson. Ahmad disagrees with the grouping of all third world countries and defining them based on imperialism and colonialism because it limits their story to one that is only significant when considering outside influences. Knowing the origin of the Three World ideology can help one consider how the term is likely outdated now, and how it was never a great categorical approach to begin with.
Works Cited
Andrews, Evan. “Why are countries classified as First, Second, or Third World?” History.com. Aug. 22, 2018. https://www.history.com/news/why-are-countries-classified-as-first-second-or-third-world. Accessed 1 Sept. 2021.
Tomlinson, BR. “What Was the Third World?” JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY HISTORY, vol. 38, no. 2, Apr. 2003, pp. 307–321. EBSCOhost, search-ebscohost-com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswah&AN=000182213300008&site=eds-live&scope=site. Accessed 1 Sept. 2021.
Other Useful Links:
—“If You Shouldn’t Call It The Third World, What Should You Call It?”:
—“5 terms to use as an alternative to ‘Third World’”
I hadn’t considered how “third world” is such a broad statement for countries that do not fall under the category of capitalistic ideal or communism. The term “third world” can fit the meaning for a number of different things. For instance, many Asian countries that are ruled under a different nation are considered third world because they lack resources and funding to be their own independent country. Also, certain African countries are considered to be third world even though they remain sovereign because their cultural beliefs and traditions are very different from countries in the Western world.
I didn’t know that the three worlds labels originated in the context of the Cold War. To be honest, I don’t remember ever really learning about them; I thought that they were all about how “developed” a country is, which seems like too vague a term to provide any useful information. It’s interesting how a distinction like “capitalists, communists, and everyone else” has become such a widely recognized idea, especially because I doubt most people are aware of its original context. There are definitely many more factors playing into countries’ national identities (if that statement even makes sense for them) besides their common established economic system (or lack of one). I agree with Ahmad that grouping all third world countries in this way is reductive, and I think these labels have outlasted their usefulness.