How is the third world represented in contemporary narratives of the twenty- first century?

1. How is the third world represented in contemporary narratives of the twenty-first century?  Consider how representations have changed over time and the impact of these representations on third world communities.

“The word “poverty is, no doubt, a key word of our times, extensively used and abused by everyone…who is qualified to define all that?”^[1] Majid Rahnema addressed the focal problem with contemporary third world narratives with this simple question in his paper ‘Global Poverty: A Pauperizing Myth’. The story of the third world has always been defined by the “First World” since the conception of this label for the predominantly non-occidental nations. The existence of the third world as a collective term was created by proxy to differentiate from and denote its inferiority to the two warring factions during the Cold War. The western states that supported the US were seen as First World Countries and the nations that belonged to and/or assigned allegiance to the Soviet Empire were considered as ‘Second World’.^[2]This denotation of inferiority continues to be in the case in modern society where we often see the third world as a synonym for struggle and deficiency.

In contemporary society the term is used to refer to countries, which are less economically developed in comparison to western states. The rhetoric surrounding discussion of these nations tends to feature heavy use of a particular vocabulary that conveys an image of lack and backwardness. Terms such as ‘densely populated’, ‘acute hunger’ and ‘poverty are often found in literature on the topic of the third world.   Development is also often spoken about in conjunction with the third world, possibly due to society viewing the third world as one giant ‘problem’ that requires resolving rather than individual nations that may share similar post-colonial struggles. A pattern of derision in third world representation and the narrative that permeates this representation can be seen if one traces the story of development beyond the popular assumed start period of the post-1945 era.  Ruth Craggs surmises this idea by emphasizing that

Though conceived and practiced differently within and between European empires, development was central to the colonial project, particularly from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Many of the ideas, policies and priories of postcolonial development can trace their genealogies to the colonial era, where they were shaped through metropolitan concerns to maintain and modernise colonies, and through contact with the local people, knowledge, and conditions.^[3]

If the principles and practices that define attitudes and actions within contemporary development are considered to have developed not post-war but rather during the late colonial period, a more predictable view of third world rhetoric can be expected. A vocabulary based on dichotomy; us and them, superiority and inferiority, a discourse that emphasizes the power difference between the colonizer and the colonized is implemented in full force. A clear example of this mind-set can be seen in US President Kennedy’s Inaugural Address following his election in 1961. The focal point of the speech was the nature of the relationship between the United States and the ‘Third Word’:

To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required-not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.^[4]

However in contrast it could be argued that rhetoric concerning the third world has indeed been shaped by the post-war era. According to Escobar, “The discourse of war was displaced onto the social domain and to a new geographical terrain: the Third World.”^[5] The terms used to address the problems within the third world can be considered military in nature, painting the situation as a battle and the denizens as victims of tragedy beyond their control. Regardless of how the condition is described, the West and its development institutions are seen as the saviours, possibly drawing from an ingrained messianic complex founded in colonial pasts. “…the root of many enterprises undertaken by North Americans in colonial and post-colonial contexts..[is]…: the “reformers zeal” and the drive toward reform and pedagogy; the utopian posture that finds a “missionary’s paradise” in those lands riddled with “a marvellous number of practically insoluble problems”.^[6] 

Various key representations are commonly found across the board when referring to the third world despite each region having extremely varying individual problems unique to that area. One such representation is the idea that all individuals in a third world country suffer from hunger. Another potent image related to the third world is that of every individual living in extremely dire conditions economically. Apthorpe postulates the using specific labels “stigmatise people as 'poor', 'resource less' and 'dependent' and turn them into 'clients' of 'legitimate' interventions.”^[7]The West is able to justify its continual presence within the third world in all its forms by painting the nations in question as helpless and requiring the involvement of institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.

The universal discourse applied to third world nations is generally belittling and disempowering. There is a call to pity and charity in terms of the third world rather than to empower and capacitate. However it can be argued that this is the intentional purpose of development agencies that package developing countries as financially and socially crippled in order to gain the funding they require from the donor nations. James Ferguson expands on this point in stating “It thus suits the agencies to portray developing countries in terms that make them appropriate targets for such packages. It is not surprising, therefore, that the ‘country profiles’ on which the agencies base their interventions frequently bear little or no relation to economic and social realities”.^[8] 

During this current post-development era, there has been a rise in the practical application of post-development ideologies through alternative development methods such as localisation and communal participation. The success of these projects relies on the initiative and active involvement of the communities involved. However how can it be expected of a marginalised population, divested of pride and fervour due to the universal external rhetoric that they have internalised to form their ‘identity’, to effectively and successfully fulfil what is required of them? Rahnema considers the effect of this mentality, particularly in terms of the leadership of third world nations stating “…many of those elites now believed, deep in their hearts, that only the model of society incarnated by the North – and the kind of power associated with it – could now allow their populations to wipe out the consequences of their ‘underdevelopment’.”^[9] 

An example of this intentionally damaging narrative can be seen in the 1975 World Bank report issued on Lesotho. This report was used to justify development loans to the country that has just recently gained independence from Britain in 1966. The report describes Lesotho as follows:

Virtually untouched by modern economic development…Lesotho was, and still is, basically, a traditional subsistence peasant society. But rapid population growth resulting in extreme pressure on the land, deteriorating soil and declining agricultural yields led to a situation in which the country was no longer able to produce enough food for its people. Many able-bodied men were forced from the and in search of means to support their families, but the only employment opportunities [were] in South Africa. At present, an estimated 60% of the male labour force is away as migrant workers in South Africa…At independence, there was no economic infrastructure to speak of, industries were virtually non-existent.”^[10]