Alternatives to the term "Global South"

General
1

Dear Forum,

We are working on a style guide for documents produced by OSHF, and we are looking for an alternatives to the term “Global South” to refer to regions other than Europe and North America. Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks,

Gabi

2 Likes
2

I am usually using LMIC (low and middle income countries), but I know the term also has issues.

Maybe it is like for “stakeholders” and one is best listing the people/countries one want to work with ?

1 Like
3

Maybe the Non Western Countries? However, that excludes Oceania.

1 Like
4

Hola
We had the same issue some time ago…

1 Like
5

I also find “global south” comes with too much baggage. I prefer “developing countries” to be more honest.

1 Like
6

This was discussed in the thread nanocastro linked to, but here are some possible terms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_majority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_World

2 Likes
7

In my view, Majority world/Global majority are the least problematic terms I’ve seen in use.

Developing countries, perhaps even more than Global South, stigmatizes the Global majority as backwards people trying to catch up to the advanced ones. It can be seen as part of a narrative that helps conceal that the latter built and keep building their wealth on the exploitation of the former and of the environment, and downplays the fact that parts of the majority world today are more “developed” than parts of the developed world.

Moreover, taking into account that, even within the developed countries, deprivation of rights is very strongly correlated with people of Majority world cultures, the term Global majority seems more meaningful to me than Majority world, as it emphasizes that it’s not only about geopolitical entities.

2 Likes
8

That said, all these terms are problematic, and so is splitting the world into geopolitical regions.

It all depends on the context of use, but often it is just better to be explicit about what peoples or political entities a document is talking about — and also whether it’s talking about peoples or political entities.

If used, the notion of Majority should serve to remind that the group is very large and very diverse, and one should be cautious to treat it as a bundle.

1 Like
9

Really enjoying this thread and this final note @solstag. My thinking was in line with yours - that perhaps it’s best practice to be as specific as your writing/audience allows, and to avoid catchall phrases where possible.

2 Likes
10

Personally, I have mixed opinions on the terms suggested.

“Global south” can probably be downright considered pejorative.

I do think there are good contexts when “LMIC” is directly applicable. Especially when discussing problems faced due to reduced funds.

“Developing” and “developed” seem to put countries on a linear scale, when every country getting the “developed” tag is unsustainable.

“Global majority”/“Majority world” being directly substituted for any of the above terms sounds like using “differently abled”/“special” for disabled individuals: euphemistic and still not addressing anything in particular (at least that’s my opinion without looking at the literature). However, this term still gives an opportunity to think outside national boundaries, and possibly include the unprivileged within otherwise “rich countries” (this term itself I’m OK with because in certain contexts it can be seen as a criticism).

Overall, I would probably choose a term based on the context, and possibly talk about the product/project/solution itself rather than where it is intended to be applied.

1 Like