Naming the world: Coming to terms with complexity

First world, third world; developed world, developing world; global North, global South; minority world, majority world. This terminology is constantly being debated and changed for various reasons, such as geographical inaccuracy and a questioning of the primacy that ‘first world’ implies. However, all these terms share an assumption that the world can be, or is, divided in two, which makes them problematic in any form. This article sets out why the two-worlds concept is not a useful way of understanding the world and argues that terminology which implies that the world can be clearly divided hinders global learning. It proposes that those working in global learning need to allow learners to develop a one-world concept which values all people and recognises inequality and injustice wherever it is found.