Phrases I am no longer using in International Development
I stumbled across an online post a few months ago that made me stop in my tracks. The post was asking for donations to feed and shelter orphaned children in an African country. I was intrigued and clicked on the link to find out more. The organiser went on to state that by donating you will “help save souls''. How exactly does a $50 donation translate into saving souls? The entire page reeked of white saviourism. It even went as far as saying “you will also have the opportunity to see and speak with the children if you like”. This deeply upset me and my first thought was whether these orphaned children are being safeguarded if anyone who donates can see and speak with them on a whim? I messaged the creator of the post expressing my disapproval with such charged language and the inappropriate photographs of children used in the post. Needless to say, there was deafening silence.
There are many phrases thrown around in the international development sector that I wince at whenever I hear them. These words are tied up in white saviourism and white superiority and have serious consequences for black and brown people.
One of the most common words used flippantly in the sector is “field”. You may hear a headquarter based INGO staff say “I’m going to visit one of our field projects.” Sir/Ma’am: what field are you referring to? International development projects are based in actual communities- however rural they may seem to those of us not from the country or region. They are located in sovereign countries where people live and work. The projects are not based in fields. When one says “field”, we imagine a far-flung place. Far in relation to where? To the West. When we use the term “field” we are centering the Western world and unfortunately the phrase has caught on even within Low and Middle Income Countries where the projects are being implemented.
Another phrase I’d like to banish is “capacity building”. When we use this phrase, we are usually referring to staff and people living in LMIC who need their “capacity built”. Now I’m not disputing that there are instances where specialty training is required, but rarely do we use the phrase “capacity building” for people living and working in HIC. I feel “capacity building” again plays into white superiority complex where black and brown people must be taught or trained to find solutions to their problems, as if the knowledge isn’t there already. The knowledge and innovation is there, we just don’t care as much to learn from certain demographics.
I’ve long had an issue with the word “beneficiaries”. It feels so passive as if people in LMICs are solely waiting for a handout to lead healthier, more productive lives. The excerpt below is from an article by Renee Ho and it perfectly captures my sentiments on whether aid is always considered good.
“To be a beneficiary implies a relational weakness to the benefactor. It also implies that what she receives is bene or good. Descriptively, “beneficiary” partially works: in the current system of aid and philanthropy beneficiaries are, in fact, largely disempowered; at the same time, however, it’s questionable that what they’re receiving is all that bene.”
I myself have been guilty of using the phrase “Global North and South” in the past. I’ve recently transitioned to using Low and Middle Income Countries (LMIC) and High Income Countries (HIC) in more recent articles. I recently came across a tweet that made me pause. The truth is “LMIC” does not accurately reflect the violent history of colonialism and exploitation that has ultimately shaped “LMICs”. That being said I’m not sure the sector is ready or willing to adopt these terms – especially “former coloniser” despite its accuracy.
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is another term that gets under my skin. Up to 48 countries in Africa have been lumped together as SSA. This article by Max de Haldevang gives some great insight into its origins:
“The term (SSA) spread as a replacement for the racially-tinged phrases “Tropical Africa” and “Black Africa” that were used until around the 1950s”. Interestingly, “the African Union barely uses the term, instead referring to regional organisations like the East African Community and the Economic Community of West African States as its “building blocks”. African governments and even academics also have to fall into line, since aid organizations use it to assign funds. People are often forced into unhappy or at least sometimes awkward complicity with those systems of naming, in order to just get funding.”
The global health and international development sector have their origins in colonialism. This is undisputed. The sector was built to be neo-colonialist and we can clearly see the power dynamics, with “former colonisers” calling the shots in many “global” initiatives and partnerships with countries across Africa, Asia and South America. Angela Bruce Raeburn, my fellow Caribbean woman and founder/principal consultant of DiverseDev accurately points out in a recent article “We are not here by accident. Development work comes because of colonialism.”
The language we use matters. How we speak about our black and brown colleagues matters. How we speak about the black and brown people we are serving through our projects matters. How we speak about the systems we are working to improve matters.
In recent years we’ve seen how empowering or disempowering language can be. For example, we are now hyper aware of addressing someone by their preferred pronouns. As we’ve raised our consciousness and have become more intentional in how we address and refer to people and certain topics, I sincerely hope the sector rethinks some of these harmful phrases that have become commonplace in our work. Above all, I hope we can bring some much needed humanity and dignity to the people we are supposedly working in service of.