Bukan Sekadar Utara dan Selatan: Kajian Kritis terhadap Binaritas dalam Wacana Global North-South

Beyond North and South: A Critical Study of Binarism in Global North-South Discourse

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46918/emik.v9i1.3148

Keywords:

North-South Studies, Post-Colonialism, Deconstruction

Abstract

The study of international development politics initially had a status quo which was studied by categorizing countries between the North (“Global North”) and the South (“Global South”). Therefore, previous studies have focused more on using the concepts of Global North and Global South as a framework to describe global development inequality.  

This article critiques the hierarchical ontology and epistemology prevalent in Global North and Global South studies in international development, which have been widely adopted but fail to capture the complexity of contemporary global relations adequately. This research employs a qualitative, literature-based methodology, drawing on critical scholarship in postcolonialism, development studies, and international relations. Through interpretive analysis and literature review, the study deconstructs dominant narratives surrounding the North–South divide and evaluates their theoretical and empirical limitations.  

The findings reveal several key contributions to socio-political North–South studies. First, the article demonstrates that the binary classification fails to account for internal heterogeneity and dynamic transformations within states, as evidenced by cases such as Cina, which challenges conventional developmental hierarchies. Second, the study introduces a deconstructive framework inspired by Derridean thought, showing that the North–South dichotomy is not a neutral analytical tool, but a politically constructed discourse embedded with epistemic bias. Third, the incorporation of postcolonial perspectives, such as the “upside-down world map” and bottom-up approaches, offers a novel way to reconceptualize global relations beyond rigid geographical determinism. These findings advance the field by proposing that development should be understood as a multidimensional and context-specific process shaped by historical, sociological, and transnational factors, rather than fixed binary categories. Ultimately, this article contributes to the growing urgencies for a more reflexive, pluralistic, and decolonized framework in global development and international relations scholarship.

Author Biography

  • Aswin Ariyanto Azis, Universitas Brawijaya

    Assistant Professor for Department of International Relations, University of Brawijaya

References

Afua Twum-Danso Imoh. (2024). Challenging Global North-Global South Binaries: Implications for Childhood Studies. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-96-3_89-1

Al Majalla. (2025). US industrial growth outpaced by China. Majalla.com. https://en.majalla.com/node/325470/infographics/us-industrial-growth-outpaced-china

Bell, K. (2021). The role of government in the economy: An Islamic perspective (Working Paper No. 143). Institute for New Economic Thinking. https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Bell-Paper.pdf

Carnegie. (2023, August 15). The Term “Global South” Is Surging. It Should Be Retired. Carnegieendowment.org. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/08/the-term-global-south-is-surging-it-should-be-retired?lang=en

Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Allen & Unwin. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003117346/southern-theory-raewyn-connell

Derrida, J. (1944). Of Grammatology. Internet Archive; John Hopkins University Press. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.124704

Gillespie, T., & Mitlin, D. (2023). GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN STUDIES: tactics for thinking beyond the North–South binary. Environment and Urbanization, 35(2), 095624782311720-095624782311720. https://doi.org/10.1177/09562478231172057

Ginelli, Z. (2019, May 31). Postcolonial Geography. Zoltán Ginelli. https://zoltanginelli.com/postcolonial-geography/

Haug, S., Braveboy-Wagner, J., & Maihold, G. (2021). The “Global South” in the study of world politics: examining a meta category. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1948831

Ito, K. (2024). Global GrassRoots Movements of People with Psychosocial Disabilities in East Asia. The International Journal of Disability and Social Justice, 4(1), 99–116. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/48774419

McEwan, C. (2009). Postcolonialism and Development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887387

Naughton, B. (2010). China’s Distinctive System: can it be a model for others? Journal of Contemporary China, 19(65), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670561003666079

Odeh, L. (2010). A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL NORTH AND GLOBAL SOUTH ECONOMIES. In Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa (Vol. 12, Issue 3). https://jsd-africa.com/Jsda/V12No3_Summer2010_A/PDF/A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20Global%20North%20and%20Global%20South%20Economies%20(Odeh).pdf

Palma, P., Barrella, R., João Pedro Gouveia, & José Carlos Romero. (2024). Comparative analysis of energy poverty definition and measurement in Portugal and Spain. Utilities Policy, 90, 101770–101770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2024.101770

PIIE. (2021, September 8). What Is the “Washington Consensus?” Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/realtime-economic-issues-watch/what-washington-consensus

Roberts, M. (2015). China: three models of development. https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/china-paper-july-2015.pdf

Rothstein, R. L. (1990). LIMITS AND POSSIBILITIES OF WEAK THEORY: INTERPRETING NORTHSOUTH. Journal of International Affairs, 44(1), 159–181. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/24357229

Santos, B. de S. (2018). The end of the cognitive empire: The coming of age of epistemologies of the South. Duke University Press. https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/2470/The-End-of-the-Cognitive-EmpireThe-Coming-of-Age

Spencer, J. (1997). Post-Colonialism and the Political Imagination. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034362

Triuzli, I. (2025). Strength and Weaknesses of the South-South Learning Exchange. Nih.gov. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11259588/pdf/gatesopenres-7-16705.pdf

UNU. (2020, March 13). A snapshot of poverty and inequality in Asia. UNU-WIDER. https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/snapshot-poverty-and-inequality-asia

Viterna, J., & Robertson, C. (2015). New Directions for the Sociology of Development. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043426

Walleri, R. D. (1978). The Political Economy Literature on North-South Relations: Alternative Approaches and Empirical Evidence. International Studies Quarterly, 22(4), 587. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600168

Wallerstein, I. (2011). The World System Theory. In The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, With a New Prologue.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-29

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Bukan Sekadar Utara dan Selatan: Kajian Kritis terhadap Binaritas dalam Wacana Global North-South: Beyond North and South: A Critical Study of Binarism in Global North-South Discourse. (2026). Emik : Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial, 9(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.46918/emik.v9i1.3148