I think you, as well as a lot of people in this class and world, are confused about the definition of a third world country. One of my majors is political science, and for entire class periods, some of my professor have ranted about how people use the term third world incorrectly. The term was used during the Cold War to label countries based on alliances. Countries that were aligned with the United States or Western European nations were considered the First World. Countries that were aligned with the Soviet Union represented the Second World. Most Third World countries were located in Africa, Asia and South America. Because many Third World countries were poor, Third World became interchangeable with “underdeveloped.” We are no longer in the Cold War, therefore, the term Third World should never be used, and shouldn’t have been used for the past 20 years. I actually don’t understand how it could still be used unless some people think the Cold War is still going on and missed the collapse of the Soviet Union. For that reason, I have been unable to grasp the question “Is America becoming a Third World country” because these separate worlds do not exist any longer. I think the question is trying to ask if America will no longer be a superpower in the near future, and I would say no. At least in the short run, the United States will remain the most powerful country in the world. Taking a look at our debt, there is no denying that the Chinese are emerging as a strong country, but really, the only place that they strive is their economy. Their economy is already half of that of the United States and is projected to overtake it in the year 2018, according to BBC news. China is the main trading partner of many countries throughout the world. With this economic power, China will be able to force countries to do whatever it wants. So in the future, yes, I believe China will be the superpower, but it won’t happen for quite a long time. One of China’s weaknesses is its lack of military strength, but I think that will change soon. As of right now, the Chinese military is much smaller than that of the United States. I could see America as no longer the lone superpower, but I could not see it as a Third World country, or underdeveloped. Ultimately, the United States could become a United Kingdom-esque power, with historical prestige and economic power but without the world’s dominant military.

As discussed in former articles that we’ve read, it’s pretty evident and safe that the invention of the telegraph, the lining of the cable wires under the sea have, and the commercialism of radio completely changed the world of international communication, as this article also brings up (hence, now Janelle’s saying that there would be overlap all makes sense). This article, though quite lengthy, does a good job in explaining international communication through analyzing it’s change over time as well as analyzing how modern international communication is today. Madikiza and Bornman put it best by saying that “global communication is a continues state of ferment and evolution” to describe the fact that international communication is not something that stays the same – clearly we’re not still using telegraphs today. It is a constantly adapting and evolving system.

One thing that the article talked about that we also talked about today during lecture that seemed to cause a bit of a stir in the class was the theory of first, second, and third world countries. Some people thought that solely based off of the definition of a “third world” country, that America is slowly becoming one of those. In certain aspect, I could agree with that in that America is in a lot debt and is having to sell out to other countries and shut down electricity and heating in certain areas, as Janelle brought up in class. On the other hand, which I lean towards more, I still firmly believe that America is still a first world country. Now part of that might be based off the fact that when I think of a third world country I think of the Sarah McLachlan commercial that is going to ruin my day or those commercials that show evidently malnourished and desperate children in Africa. Here in America we are still very advanced in technology and education, not quite as much as China though. Still though I believe that America has always been a powerhouse and still remains to be in many aspects that still make us a first world country.

Another thing the article talks about that I wanted to reflect upon, which we also did in class today, is the idea of hegemony and the modernization theory. I personally don’t like the idea of hegemony. It kind of bugs me to think that one culture or people would think that they’re that much better than another that they have to go in and influence them to “make them better.” I understand the idea of helping another country modernize for the better, but I feel like this is another matter of definition – who defines what’s “better”? As described in class today, modernization affects a lot of cultures in that by modernizing them, you’re actually changing their culture. Also, the kid in me can’t help but to think of Pocahontas when it comes to this topic.

In the article, International communication: shifting paradigms, theories and foci of interest, by Lucky Madikiza and Elirea Bornman, the two authors primarily talk about the phenomenon of global communications being a result of technological advances and introduce many different theories that other researchers have studied or tried to conceptualize in the past, and for some even now. According to Madikiza and Bornman, global communication was first perceived only as a tool for modernization, a process of developed countries trying to “modernize” undeveloped, or third countries. Both authors illustrate two major effects of global communication: economic, which “played a major role in the increasing internationalization and liberalization of economic activities” (Madikiza and Bornman 14) and political, in which the “globalization of technology made it impossible for government to regulate and control the trans-border flow of information and communication” (15). Due to economic and political effects, global communication is “redefining the nature of power in international relations” (15).

Then, Madikiza and Bornman introduce a process called the “free flow of information.” Free flow principle has two sides: one side dealing with Western liberalism and capitalism, which asks of “free,” unrestrained access of information and the other side, which is based on the Marxists and calls for greater state regulation. Because of its two opposing characteristics, the free flow of information principle remains a controversial issue in international communication; the authors support this by giving examples each from the US, the Soviet Union, and then the third countries.

There are about ten theories or concepts that Madikiza and Bornman lists: modernization theory; dependency theory; structural theory; world-system theory; hegemony; political economy; critical theory; public sphere; cultural studies; information society; and globalization. The overall structure of illustrating the theories/concepts are that for the theories they first define it, explain which country utilizes it, then give the advantages then the disadvantages; for concepts such as hegemony, political economy or cultural studies they define it or try to define it and then make connections with how it is used in defining or supporting a theory, how it effects the political, economical and/or cultural aspect of a country, and how it relates to international communication.

After their long lists of different types of theories and the characteristics that follow, the two authors conclude their article in a very concise way, in which I really loved how they phrased what a good theory should be like: “good theory should lay the foundation for quality empirical research and provide a basis not only for explaining global communication processes and their effects, but also for making predictions with regard to future tendencies and proactive policy formulation” (41). I was very fond of this paragraph because I personally have not seen many articles or authors that conclude their assert by giving their definition of what a good example would be; in this case, a good theory. Also, I did not find much to disagree on with this article because most of the part was very straightforward, as it only explained theories, their characteristics and their relations or effects to global communication or international communication. However, what did surprise me was when I read about public sphere. I had to reread that part only several times because it was something that we all consider to be so natural and familiar, that I never thought public sphere would actually be one of the important concepts or theories that would effect forms of communication. Also, I think Habermas’ perception of public sphere, more specifically, national consciousness, being a modern form of social solidarity was a very revolutionary thought . Who would have thought that something we do daily, gather altogether and discuss about a social topic or have a debate on a certain issue, would be scrutinized in a deeper level and seen in a broader picture and relating it to an international scale and therefore being called as a theory? Just to think of this was very surprising and revolutionary that I wanted to praise and research more about Habermas. Moreover, he even goes further by giving a solution for the problems that might occur from globalization, such as forming a global political unit or cosmopolitan government. This made me think once more how important critical thinking actually is and how we need more people who think revolutionary like Habermas.

The reading the week, “International Communications: Shifting Paradigms, Theories ad Foci of Interest”, talked about the fallacy of global and international communications and the fact that there is actually a difference between them. This is was news to me, because in our daily lives, we use global, world, and international communications as all having the same definition. Global and World communications involve the whole world, while international can be between two countries or more, but do not need to have the whole world. I think the reason they are so easily interchanged is because today, most information comes from the first or even second world countries and trickle down to the third after they have been filtered through the more highly developed countries.
The article discusses how, with the theory of imperialism, the third world countries do not even receive news on their neighboring countries, because this new is not provided to them by the Northern Countries.
The article explains the definition of a first, second, and third world countries and how global communications has been effected by these separations. The article made us readers question if America is becoming a third world country. Going along with the class discussion of it today, I can agree and disagree with this statement. Looking back on our own history, America could be considered in a state of poverty from what where we have come from. On the other hand, there is no comparison to what is happening here to what area of India and Africa look like. I feel like believing that we are becoming a third world country by the definitions in this article is a bit dramatic. There is a current internet trend call “First World Problems” there are scenarios that are so mundane, like having a charger on the other side of the room while your computer is about to die, but the picture in the meme is someone crying. I find these to be hysterical, but also important to our discussion today. It’s not like we don’t have running water, or live in mud huts or something. Yes our Real Estate market is down the toilet and our unemployment rate is high, but for who’s standards? OURS. In Kenya, the unemployment rate is forty percent, while, in comparison, the United States unemployment is a little under eight percent. Here’s a few “First World Problems” memes, I love these things.