International development is infamous for its constant, jargony, changes in vocabulary. It’s not the third world, it’s the developing world. It’s not the bottom billion, it’s an ascending market. They’re not people living with AIDS (PLWA), they are people living with HIV (PLHIV). It seems ridiculous, because it kind of is, and we all get tired.
But I do believe in the power of words to shape the way we think. It’s easy to laugh at each new acronym update, but vocabulary does affect how we frame things. So there are a few words and phrases I never use, because I think they lead us in the wrong directions:
1) Beneficiaries – I never use this word unless I am contractually obligated to do so. I know that it serves a useful purpose as a standard term for the people a project serves, but I don’t like it. It implies that people are sitting around passively waiting for a savior to help them. No project works if they don’t have partners to make it work. Even handing out lollipops to children requires children who’ll take candy from strangers and parents who’ll permit it and get the children to the lollipop distribution site.
Your partners might be a community, a local government, or a community organization. But those people are not passively benefitting. They are helping make the project happen.
2) Individuals – This word is just a synonym for “people.” But it’s a cold, formal word that helps you forget that the individuals involved are actual human being people.
3) The Poor – Pretending that poor people are a homogenous collective is poor thinking, and dehumanizing. People fall in and out of poverty for a whole range of reasons, and they cope with poverty in different ways. Fighting poverty requires that we recognize that, and terms like “the poor” are a barrier. (That bring said, two great books – The Poor and Their Money, and Portfolios of the Poor – use the phrase.)
4) Africa – Okay, there are appropriate ways to use this proper noun. Like in a discussion of continental geography. Then there are all the other ways: lumping all the nations on the continent together, as though Senegal and Somalia are exactly the same; using “Africa” in the name of your tiny MONGO that works in one village in Uganda; getting confused and lumping China, Russia, and Africa together as though they are equivalent political units. Let’s stop.
How do you feel about using the term “locals”, or “the locals”? I personally prefer “nationals” but then I often wonder why the hell I care so much. As long as people get what we mean, right?
I know what you mean – “local,” especially “local staff” feels kind of dismissive. But national staff somehow implies that they run national-level programs which isn’t quite right either. And I don’t know why the word local would be pejorative…
“Caseload” is a word that I avoid, I think it’s worse than beneficiaries
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brigid Slipka, Tom Murphy, Krystle Lai, Eric Ritskes, Jane Reitsma and others. Jane Reitsma said: New blood and milk post: the words I don't use http://bit.ly/barW5j by @alanna_shaikh […]
‘africa’ is one of my pet peeves, whether you want to work or volunteer in ‘africa,’ go on a safari in ‘africa,’ or just really have always been passionate about all things ‘african.’
ew.
and yet, ‘africa’ is rather stylish and fashionable these days.
i will admit that there are instances where i can see where a panafrican perspective could lead to some interesting shifts in leadership, diplomacy, or economics. however, i am pretty sure that is not the intent of most of the people i hear talking about ‘africa.’
Come on, how can you do a list like this without “synergy”??
Your post came just in time. On reflection, I deleted my instinctive use of ‘beneficiaries’ in the paragraph I’m writing, and now one less major donor gets to hear the language they like to promote. Though I guess we all guilty of perpetuating it to some degree!
I have been told that “locals” in American English has a bit of a pejorative connotation because of the expression ‘local yokels’.
I’ve often had this difficulty with the word “beneficiaries”. It sounds so patronizing when writing it in a report or a proposal. I was advised to use “clients” instead, but that still didn’t sound quite right. What alternatives have you used?
Alanna,
As a linguistic nerd, I agree with what you wrote. Words can seem so trivial (but you understand what I mean), but they greatly influence how we frame our beliefs and how we understand things.
One phrase that irks me is “developing countries.” Reading material and listening to people speak, it seems that the difference between “developing countries” and “developed countries” is rapidly diminishing – so much so that there is quite a murky middle ground between the two poles.
I prefer the phrase “developing communities,” and I believe it more accurately frames the way we ought to think about development. If you’re interested in understanding my viewpoint more, check out this post I wrote on Dennis Whittle’s blog: http://denniswhittle.blogspot.com/2010/09/developing-communities-not-countries.html
I enjoy reading your posts. I find them interesting.
Sarah – for me, it’s contextual. Partner communities often conveys the messages, or project participants, or just naming the group and what we are doing with them. It’s a lot harder in emergency relief, where the word beneficiaries is standard and may in fact be contractually obligated.
Felipe – your comment made me think hard. On the one hand, I remember my first major overseas travel as an adult, and wondering how anyone could call the North African country I was in “developing” since it was clearly going nowhere. The term developing was farm more optimistic and dynamic than the situation actually was.
On the other hand, considering what we know about global poverty distribution, and how many poor people live in middle-income countries, you’re 100% right.
As a researcher studying health and development projects, I use beneficiaries, but I qualify it with “intended beneficiaries.” Maybe that makes me a bad guy according to this list, but in situations where the communities aren’t being queried about the projects in advance, it’s hard for me to consider calling them “partner communities.”
I’m generally with you on the power of words, but I don’t think dropping certain terms is the right response (except maybe for #4 – “Africa”). All terms have a variety of connotations, especially across cultures, even when we theoretically speak the same language (as Michael pointed out with “locals”). These connotations even change over time. If we drop one term in favor of another, chances are good that we’ll eventually find something wrong with the new term. So maybe a better response is to be careful about how we use all terms? Constantly checking ourselves, adding qualifiers, asking others for clarification? Just my 2 cents.
Dear Alanna, fascinating post. Maybe we could use words like “southern practitioner” or “partners”, “friends abroad”, “impoverished people” and “the specific name of the African country”. We have to be wary about the words we choose. Words can be passionate, powerful, persuasive, or dry, offensive, and unimpressive. We can create good stories, or great stories.
We can capitalize on opportunities if we choose our words wisely or we can ruin an opportunity if we say the wrong thing. What do you think are some challenges and opportunities words pose to NGOs, in our ever-changing world?
Dear Alanna,
Your post mirrored some of my dilemmas very aptly. I constantly struggle in my work, between simplifying/un-spooling jargon and using appropriate words and phrases. I believe the language we use is often indicative of our attitudes and eventually translates into our actions as well.
I am particularly disturbed by the continued usage of the terms ‘field’ or ‘field work’ to describe engagements with communities. Its almost as if people and their homes are places you visit to practice your theoretical knowledge. Yet, its continues to be used to describe many a research methodology or consultant’s itineraries. This, I believe, then translates to the way people engage with people when they actually visit them.
I know I’m fighting a losing battle with this one, but I try as hard as possible to avoid “development”. If you really try to nail down what people mean by the word, it’s something like “bring about good things that we like” but completely elides anything specific that could be used to hold “development” agencies to account.
I also have a loathing of the phrase “the poor” – and I’m so glad to see it being called out. To me it paints these people as different and less, and destined to remain so forever.
It reminds me of the debate around “the disabled” or “disabled people” – now referred to as “people with disabilities” – a recognition that they are people first and foremost.
Just realised that your previous post was about the use of words in aid too…
I had noticed that too. It’s possible I am a little obsessed with language.
If that obsession with language continues to deliver such terrific writing, then hurray for obsessions, I’d say.
I disagree on “the poor.” We have a (variety) of classifications for who is and isn’t poor (currently it is whether or not you live on less than $1.25 PPP a day). If you are under this threshold then you are `poor’.
If you want to refer to more than one person living below a poverty line, you can either refer to them as “people living below the poverty line” or “the poor.”
There is only a connotation of `otherness’ when people make statements reinforcing it (i.e. “the poor behave very, very differently than we do”). Otherwise, it’s a classification – you can argue with its crudeness, but I don’t see the phrase as being particularly problematic. Poor people are different from us, they live below the poverty line, and we don’t.
I see your point, Matt, but isn’t it also very reductive – poor people are different from us, but they are also different from each other.
Great discussion. Regarding use of the word poor, like you, I don’t like it as a noun (as in “the poor”) but I have no problem with it as an adjective (“poor people.”) That’s telling the truth in a direct manner, and there are, as Matt points out, actual definitions for poor.
This reaction likely stems from my training as a journalist when I learned to try and avoid unnecessary euphemisms, for instance you’ll never see a man “passed away” in a newspaper article. He “died.” But I also learned to to refer to “the homeless” but rather “homeless people.” Or I once received a stern lecture form a man in a wheel chair asked me never to write “the disabled” but instead “people with disabilities” because people come first.
Since no one else has, I’ll mention “individuals.” I much prefer individuals to people because it is too easy to pretend there is an aggregate entity called “people” or “society” that has one set of purposes and circumstances. Individuals reminds us of their individuality – individual preferences, individual situations, individual goals. It’s the same reason it’s better to refer to Mali or to the cowtown in Mali than to Africa.
I would add the word “save” to that list.
I have trouble finding a substitute for “the poor” or “the poorest” though (say, in a heterogenous city where there exist rather clear upper/middle/lower strata). “Low-income”?
One standard term in India I had so much trouble adjusting to: “backwards.” It feels so very wrong to me as an American to call regions “backwards” or people “backwards”, but they’re actual definitions termed by the government, and people refer to themselves that way…
To clarify, I have no issue with the word “poor” – my distaste is at its use as a noun / category. Please say “people living in poverty” or “people living below the poverty line” or at least “poor people”. The important thing is the acknowledgement of them as people first, before any descriptors get applied.
I understand your feelings about the baggage that comes with certain words (and the silly euphemisms that also are employed), but would disagree with your specific selection of terms. However, I think these are all symptoms of a bigger problem, namely that international aid and development is innately patronising, and thus its very hard to find language which does not reflect this to some extent.
When Anglo-Saxons talk about ‘Africa’ rather than a particular African country, usually they are being lazy or ignorant or referring to some imagined mishmash of safaris and Zulu dancing and traditionally built women.
So it is with some trepidation that I shall proceed to generalise about Africa and Africans.
It seems to me that Africans – educated Africans, anyway – talk a lot about Africa. More than Asians talk about Asia, or Europeans about Europe. The African identity is powerful. Pan-Africanism is a living force. Africans themselves subscribe to certain stereotypes about Africa – the notion of African values, for example. There is a sense of a shared continental history that you don’t find in any Asian country (well, none that I have been to.)
So is it OK for Africans to write and talk about Africa? Or are they falling victim to the same colonial stereotypes?
Not colonial stereotypes, probably, but stereotypes in general. I doubt that an average Angolan can say anything more sensible about Ethiopia than I can as a European living in Australia — probably less, because I did live and work in the country for a year.
Er – not to nitpick, but isn’t it reasonable to have separate words for people living with AIDS and HIV? These are distinct conditions, after all, and they create very different needs. (A PLHIV can probably walk a few miles to pick up meds, for example – probably not a good idea for a PLWA, so the latter needs a mechanism to get the meds to him/her).
For me it’s not “Africa”, but “the Africans” because we also never say “the Europeans”. But we = ppl from Europe. Don’t know about the US.
Another evil candidate that qualifies for a weekly round of BS Bingo: “stakeholders”.
[…] who are on the receiving end of your ‘interventions’ are ‘beneficiaries.’ The word is ‘contested,’ for lots of very good reasons. Heck, the relationship is contested, for all sorts of […]
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mackenzie Berg, Mackenzie Berg. Mackenzie Berg said: Great posts about the [often hegemonic/Othering] power of words in devlpmt by @alanna_shaikh | http://bit.ly/fL369e and http://bit.ly/huGAl8 […]
[…] aid worker probably has their own bugaboos. (See posts by Alanna Shaikh and Daniela Papi on theirs.) These come and go as the aid lexicon shifts and changes with the […]
I think this blog makes a lot of really good points that people often over look or simply ignore when using these words in conversation. To me the two that are the biggest problem are Africa and The Poor. It’s so easy in conversation for people just to refer to Africa in the context of going there to help or talking about problems within Africa. And although this is a simple use of the term I think contexts like this are what have led many to group all of the countries within Africa into one. Africa is a very large and diverse continent with people of all groups and statuses and to group this vast area all into one simple word is really devaluing all that is there. On the area of The Poor, I feel that this is probably the worst used. People use this term very easily and it’s not something that should be used even at all. There are assumptions that have been built around the term The Poor. Assumptions such as that you have no job, the house, live on the street, and beg for money. These are crazy assumptions that have been ground into our thinking. I completely agree that in order to really help those in poverty we have to move away from grouping those people all into one category. Different people are in this situation for different reasons and with these need different things. By making one large group we are ignoring the separate needs of people and assuming that one solution works for all.
[…] aid worker probably has their own bugaboos. (See posts by Alanna Shaikh and Daniela Papi on theirs.) These come and go as the aid lexicon shifts and changes with the […]
[…] organization exists to promote the well-being and rights of the ultimate beneficiaries (or, if you don’t like the connotations of that term, partners). The strategic planning processes, staff hiring criteria, log-frames — all of […]
[…] topic, actually) and John Edwin Mason (via Africa is a Country). (By the way, I totally endorse the view that “Africa” is a hollow term unless you're talking about tectonic plates…, and don't usually use it. But I have to cite these good bloggers. From here on, […]
instead Beneficiaries i like to use Process Partners.
[…] aid worker probably has their own bugaboos. (See posts by Alanna Shaikh and Daniela Papi on theirs.) These come and go as the aid lexicon shifts and changes with the […]
[…] aid worker probably has their own bugaboos. (See posts by Alanna Shaikh and Daniela Papi on theirs.) These come and go as the aid lexicon shifts and changes with the […]