الجنوب العالمي، ذلك القوس الشاسع من العالم الممتد من أمريكا اللاتينية إلى جنوب شرق آسيا وجزر المحيط الهادئ. وطبعًا يشمل عالمنا العربي.
يشير مصطلح «الجنوب العالمي» إلى البلدان التي غالبًا ما يتم وصفها بأنها «نامية» أو «أقل نموًا» أو «غير متطورة».
يعتبر الجنوب العالمي أعلى في نسبة الفقر وعدم المساواة في الدخل، وظروفه المعيشية قاسية مقارنة بـ«الشمال العالمي».
استخدم مصطلح «الجنوب العالمي» لأول مرة في عام 1969 من قبل الناشط السياسي كارل أوجليسباي، الذي زعم أن الحرب في فيتنام تمثّل تاريخًا من «هيمنة الشمال على الجنوب العالمي».
قبل سقوط الاتحاد السوفييتي في عام 1991، كان يشار إلى هذه الدول عادة باسم «العالم الثالث».
لقد تم انتقاد ثنائية الشرق/الغرب وتصنيف الدول على أنها متقدّمة/نامية لأنها تؤدي إلى إدامة الصور النمطية وتفضيل المثل الغربية.
لكن هل استبدال هذه التصنيفات بمصطلح جديد يغير من الأمر شيئًا؟
لا أفهم الهوس الغربي بتصنيفنا. إن كانت النتيجة واحدة.
إن هؤلاء السياسيين والمحللين يضعون نصف البشرية في سلة واحدة، لا ينطوي المصطلح على عيوب تحليلية عميقة فحسب، بل يُمثّل أيضًا عقبة أمام التفاعل الجاد مع العالم غير الغربي، ولن تزول هذه الفكرة/ الوهم عن عالم جماعي غير غربي وهو عالم كبير جدًا، وشديد التباين.
لماذا لا يكونون أكثر دقة ويضيفون قليًلا من الكلمات لمصطلحاتهم فإذا كانوا يقصدون أفقر عشرين دولة في العالم، فلماذا لا يقولون: الدول العشرين الفقيرة في العالم، وليس دول الجنوب العالمي. وإذا كانوا يقصدون الدول المتخلفة تكنولوجيًا، فلماذا لا يقولون ذلك وليس دول العالم الثالث. أما إذا كانوا يقصدون القوى الاستعمارية السابقة الغنية من أوروبا الغربية، فلماذا يقولون «دول الشمال العالمي».
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
The Global South, that vast arc of the world stretching from Latin America to Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands. And of course, it includes our Arab world.
The term "Global South" refers to countries that are often described as "developing," "less developed," or "underdeveloped."
The Global South is considered to have higher rates of poverty and income inequality, and its living conditions are harsh compared to the "Global North."
The term "Global South" was first used in 1969 by political activist Carl Oglesby, who claimed that the war in Vietnam represented a history of "the North's dominance over the Global South."
Before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, these countries were typically referred to as the "Third World."
The binary of East/West and the classification of countries as developed/developing have been criticized for perpetuating stereotypes and favoring Western ideals.
But does replacing these classifications with a new term change anything?
I do not understand the Western obsession with classifying us. If the outcome is the same.
These politicians and analysts put half of humanity in one basket; the term not only carries deep analytical flaws but also represents an obstacle to serious engagement with the non-Western world, and this idea/the illusion of a collective non-Western world will not disappear, as it is a very large and highly diverse world.
Why can't they be more precise and add a few words to their terms? If they mean the twenty poorest countries in the world, why don't they say: the twenty poor countries in the world, instead of the Global South? And if they mean technologically backward countries, why don't they say that instead of Third World countries? As for if they mean the wealthy former colonial powers from Western Europe, why do they say "Global North"?
The term "Global South" refers to countries that are often described as "developing," "less developed," or "underdeveloped."
The Global South is considered to have higher rates of poverty and income inequality, and its living conditions are harsh compared to the "Global North."
The term "Global South" was first used in 1969 by political activist Carl Oglesby, who claimed that the war in Vietnam represented a history of "the North's dominance over the Global South."
Before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, these countries were typically referred to as the "Third World."
The binary of East/West and the classification of countries as developed/developing have been criticized for perpetuating stereotypes and favoring Western ideals.
But does replacing these classifications with a new term change anything?
I do not understand the Western obsession with classifying us. If the outcome is the same.
These politicians and analysts put half of humanity in one basket; the term not only carries deep analytical flaws but also represents an obstacle to serious engagement with the non-Western world, and this idea/the illusion of a collective non-Western world will not disappear, as it is a very large and highly diverse world.
Why can't they be more precise and add a few words to their terms? If they mean the twenty poorest countries in the world, why don't they say: the twenty poor countries in the world, instead of the Global South? And if they mean technologically backward countries, why don't they say that instead of Third World countries? As for if they mean the wealthy former colonial powers from Western Europe, why do they say "Global North"?


