Editorial

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. Others, for example the Bolivian writer Alfonso Gumucio-Dagron, argue that the term ‘Third World’ can be claimed as ‘part of a political identity, rather than an academic definition. … There are enormous boundaries and gaps between industrialized countries and Third World countries. To call the latter “developing countries” is wrong: many are actually going backwards. For me, the best way to distinguish “us” from “them” is to keep “Third World” for us and “hegemonic powers” for them’ (posted on Drum Beat Chat at http://forums.comminit.com/viewtopic.php?p = 191999&sid = b17f045fd823df13f00f2b0886d3e6a3&style = 2, retrieved 3 September 2007). Eckl and Weber (2007:18) argue that ‘more often than not, the phrase [“North–South divide”] has boiled down to a synonym for all kinds of inequalities and conflicts in international relations’; they add: ‘Language matters: words create and shape our understanding of the world, and we base our judgements and decisions on them. … Moreover, once the idea of a “North–South divide” is no longer taken for granted, new questions for researchers emerge and new options for policy makers and activists come to the fore.’