The Real Offence: Not the Word, but Who Gets to Choose It
Any term coined or imposed under conditions of unequal authority will reproduce that inequality, regardless of intent or tone.
Written By: Dr Bryan Theunissen
The term “Global South” is now ubiquitous in international discourse. Yet for many it provokes a persistent sense of irritation—not because it is overtly harsh, but because it is profoundly patronising. The offence lies not in the word’s tone, but in the authority it asserts: the presumption that one group has the right to categorise and define another without consent.
Naming is not a neutral linguistic act. It is a tool of governance. To classify is to sort, prioritise, and discipline populations according to the classifier’s interests, assumptions, and worldview. Labels determine how problems are framed, which voices are amplified, and which claims are treated as legitimate.
The origin of “Global South” illustrates this dynamic. The term was coined in 1969 by Carl Oglesby, an American activist associated with the New Left, in an essay critiquing U.S. imperialism during the Vietnam War. It was intended as a moral and geopolitical counterpoint to the “Global North” of wealthy, industrialised nations. After the Cold War, it gained wider currency as a supposedly neutral replacement for “Third World.” Yet this origin story underscores the core problem: the label did not emerge from the people it describes, but from external observers—Western intellectual and policy circles—seeking a less overtly judgmental vocabulary.
Historically, openly contemptuous labels at least made their power relations explicit. They did not pretend to benevolence. The point is not that such labels were preferable, but that they did not cloak domination in moral virtue. Modern euphemisms such as “Global South” do exactly that. They collapse vast diversity—entire continents, cultures, economies, and histories—into a single moral category defined primarily by its difference from, and implied subordination to, the “North.”
This external imposition serves several functions. First, it flattens internal differences and obscures historical agency. Second, it grants the namers a false ethical halo: by choosing a “kind” term, they claim moral seriousness while retaining control over narratives, standards, and gatekeeping institutions. Third, it licenses condescension. Once framed as compassionate, the label becomes morally armoured; objections can be dismissed as ingratitude, oversensitivity, or a failure to appreciate good intentions.
Most insidiously, a patronising label demands gratitude. It inverts the power relationship. Those being categorised are expected not only to accept the definition but to thank the definers for their sensitivity.
The problem does not end with external imposition. Leaders from larger states commonly grouped under the label—such as Brazil, India, or China—frequently adopt and deploy “Global South” to position themselves as spokespeople for a supposed collective. In global forums, the term is used to critique Western dominance and argue for greater institutional voice. Coalition-building for strategic purposes is legitimate. Claiming the authority to define a permanent collective identity for others is not. When larger actors presume to speak for smaller nations or dissenting individuals, they reproduce the same hierarchical logic at a different scale.
Any term coined or imposed under conditions of unequal authority will reproduce that inequality, regardless of intent or tone. Searching for a “better word”—“majority world,” “emerging economies,” or similar alternatives—merely applies fresh varnish to the same structure. The problem is not lexical; it is political.
Genuine equality requires something more demanding: the relinquishing of unilateral naming power. It requires that groups name themselves, without external observers or internal elites presuming the right to speak for all. Moral credit must be earned through the redistribution of definitional authority, not through the continual refinement of euphemisms.
Until that presumption is abandoned—whether imposed from North or South—every new label will remain decorative cover for an enduring power imbalance. The refusal to cede the power to name is the real offence. Everything else is misdirection .
Bryan Theunissen is a South African doctor with a stubborn streak of optimism.
Neat opinion!