The directionless logic of language

[alias_sqbr]

So I'm reading this book "Stuffed and Starved" about global issues with food and stuff. I'm a few pages in and he says "most farmers have few options, especially those in the Global South (the term I use in this book to refer to the world's poorer countries)."

And I am completely thrown out of the book and have to stop reading. The global south? So, what, Australia is a poor country now while all our neighbours to the north are rich? Did he just assume none of his readers were from this side of the planet? I understand semi-redefining words that have ambiguous meanings which almost say what you want them to (the other option being making up totally new words that people will forget the meanings of) but south isn't ambiguous! It's a neat geographical division!

Well, except for "The Deep South" etc. So I guess it's a relative term.

But it's not like people make generalisations about The East and The West that..oh wait. Huh. And those seem totally natural to me, despite being much more ambiguous (West of where?) and making even less sense (Nigeria is exactly as "West" as Germany, after all)

Language is funny innit? :) (I still don't like the term but I'm sure I'll get used to it)

Comments

[purrdence.livejournal.com]

Of course, everyone in the North, like Russia, live like kings.

[alias_sqbr]

Trufax!

[evil-megz.livejournal.com]

PRETTY sure there are more people starving north of the equator than south of it, perhaps even in terms of proportion of the total population.

Or is he using "South" to mean lower/lesser/'downhill'? metaphorically rather than geographically? Pairing it with "global" really does imply he means the Southern Hemisphere, though. Maybe he's just TERRIBLE at creating new analogous terms.

Seriously what is wrong with just saying "poorer countries" ?

[alias_sqbr]

I can see the use of having a specific term, it makes it easier to make generalisations etc. I'm just not sure I like that term.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

He is rather tripping over his own feet there. There are plenty of places north of the equator with food entitlement issues.

What's wrong with first, second and third world anyway? It neatly encapsulates some complex concepts. And North/South implies it's a bipartite division not a tripartite one.

Nomenclature aside, is the book any good?

One of the (numerous) depressing things about the global economic crisis is that important things like organic and ethical farming are already starting to suffer as consumers look for ways to reduce their household bills. This makes me so sad because organics especially were just really starting to break into the mainstream.

[alias_sqbr]

I haven't read enough to say yet!

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

'South' is an old geographical term, kinda used as a replacement for developing or what's considered third world. Never really meant literal south, but if you look at a map drawing a rough line between developing and developed countries, it pretty much is a line that divides north and south, then loops around to cover Australia and New Zealand.

I'm amused. I suspect you being thrown by South reminds me of when I got thrown by you limited all racial discussion saying at an academic level Racism is considered to be only power plus privilege. Which was a what the fuck moment for me, we rarely cover in geography as something that simple.

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

I have an article on this, and possibly a chapter in a textbook, but I think they're in a box in the shed and you know, bugger digging that shit up.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah semantics is like that: once you're used to a term it makes perfect sense and you stop noticing how odd it is, but when you first encounter it you're like "What? That's not what that word means!!" :) Which is why I think it's important for people introducing new or unusual terminology not to be all "Nuh-uh, it's your definition that's wrong!" but to just say "Well, you can define it how you like, but in this context I'm using it to mean.."

[sanguinity]

I tripped on that, too, for similar reasons. Then had to back off, for similar reasons -- "the West" doesn't make any sense, either, I'm just used to it.

I haven't been able to quite find out why it's a preferred term in anti-colonialism circles (I've had it show up in some of my other reading, such as essays in INCITE!s The Color of Violence). It's obviously preferable to "the third world" and "the developing world" (both of which are value laden), but why is North/South preferable to East/West? Unless it's a way of avoiding the orientalism of the phrase "the East" (which never included Africa or South America, anyway), and the Western-centrism of "the non-Western world."

What does "the Deep South" sound like to you? Do you parse it globally instead of nationally?

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, I can see why you'd want a new term, and I'm sure I'll get used to it.

"The deep south" means America to me, but remembering that (northern hemisphere) example, I then thought of "up north" and "down south" as local terms in Australia etc.

[nixwilliams.livejournal.com]

i've seen 'global north' and 'global south' quite a few times in academic contexts. it makes me lol. but, like you say, no more than 'western' and 'eastern'.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, all jargon is funny when you first encounter it, any time I talk about how my Phd was on "simple matrix groups" I have to remember those words mean something very different to your average person :)

[nixwilliams.livejournal.com]

so, small groups of stupid fans of the keanu reeves movie?

[alias_sqbr]

I'm now trying to think of a good explanation for "black box matrix recognition of sporadic simple groups" which is the full description of my topic. HMM. Neo invents a box which, in the matrix, allows you to find scattered outbreaks of clumps of stupid people...

Also: Am totally digging the links you've been sending me! Thanks! I thought about sending some back but was paralyzed by indecision :)

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

I think, as terms, it's that they're arbitrary and sort of meaningless, but express a concept that's otherwise very difficult to encapsulate briefly, especially in value-neutral terminology.

[alias_sqbr]

Mm, thinking about it it's almost impossible to invent new jargon which both gets across your meaning in any way and doesn't have any unwanted associations/meanings.

(I wrote this comment like 12 hours ago and then lost it till now)
EDIT: But forgot to preview *slaps forehead*

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Which is why East/West, especially, maintains its place as much as it does. "Global South" is more problematic because, whoa, does THAT have certain assumptions if you are, frex, including an American audience.

[alias_sqbr]

And very different ones if you're Australian :)

[sweet-adelheid.livejournal.com]

Here via various routes related to RaceFail and 50books_poc

I detest the term "global south". I've heard it for years in post-colonialism and globalisation studies, and it gets used a lot in Ecumenical circles as well. It makes no more sense than "Western World", and explicitly cuts out Australia, New Zealand and South Africa into the bargain. (I think most people would like to cut out the White populations of those three countries and keep the non-White and particularly the indigenous populations, but they've found that to be tricky. Then again, post-colonial studies really don't know what to do with the continuing-colonial countries...)

... and I'll stop soapboxing in your LJ now...

[alias_sqbr]

Heh. Hello! I've been having quite a few people popping in as a result of that recently, I keep feeling like I should metaphorically clean the carpets and put out some flowers :)