Opinion: Here are 6 expressions to stop using in global development

Localization is failing. If international humanitarian organizations want to transform power dynamics in the sector, change is needed in how they see and describe their work — starting with specific words and expressions. By critically examining and changing the language we use, we can begin to dismantle the subtle power imbalances that have long plagued global development. In 2016, some of the world’s biggest donors and humanitarian organizations signed the “Grand Bargain” — a pledge to shift more funding and decision-making toward people in countries where humanitarian programs take place. Signatories agreed to give 25% of their funding to national and subnational organizations in the countries where programs operate by 2020. But the rate was only 3.4% that year, which dropped to 1.8% in 2022. On Sept. 23, Sudhanshu S. Singh, founder and CEO of Humanitarian Aid International, published a paper on the topic. He argued that localization’s failures go far beyond funding distribution and are a symptom of colonial attitudes: “Localisation is not about giving another form to the coloniality of power but rather recognising its deep-rooted presence in the subconscious of actors throughout the sector — a mindset that has persisted not merely for decades but centuries.” The subconscious mindset that Singh refers to is tied to what we understand as unconscious biases. These are stereotypes and attitudes that shape our behavior without us being consciously aware of them. A 2015 World Bank report looked at the biases of international development workers. It said that staff members “are subtly and unconsciously influenced by their social environment, the mental models they have of the poor, and the limits of their cognitive bandwidth.” The study showed that development staff make incorrect assumptions about the people they support. They are also “likely to make decisions that favor certain groups over others.” However, these reports overlook the link between biases and communication. Professor Tessa Charlesworth, who led a study on that, has said: “implicitly-measured attitudes are revealed in and perhaps reinforced by language.” “If we want localization, we need to rethink our language.” --— Words matter. The language we use influences roles and relationships, power and decision-making, priorities, and policies. As Oxfam has pointed out: “Language has the power to reinforce or deconstruct systems of power that maintain poverty, inequality and suffering.” Yet humanitarian work is still scattered with vocabulary that reinforces harmful stereotypes and power imbalances. Here are six expressions that should be avoided: “Beneficiaries”: This word makes people passive recipients of international organizations’ support. It suggests people can’t make their own decisions or control their futures. And it assumes humanitarian work is always good and people always benefit from it. “Empower”: Phrases such as “We empower communities” imply people can’t be empowered without outside help. They portray international organizations as heroes and those they support as helpless. They also ignore structural inequalities and discrimination. The message is that people can gain rights and freedoms by changing themselves rather than challenging the systems and institutions that oppress them. “Giving people a voice”: This phrase assumes people don’t have a voice unless someone else gives them one. They can’t speak for themselves until humanitarian organizations allow them to. It also ignores international organizations’ role in silencing people by making decisions for them and ignoring their views. “Capacity building”: This concept describes a one-directional transfer of capacity, whatever that means, from the privileged to the less privileged. Based on their own values and priorities, international organizations decide there’s a capacity gap to fill and determine how. The term also reinforces the idea that the main contribution of partners in low- and middle-income countries is local knowledge. But partners also bring academic qualifications, technical expertise, and much more. “Local”: This word comes up frequently in phrases like “local partners” and “local communities” — as well as localization. But local to who? It describes places seen as different or foreign from the vantage point of people in high-income countries. The word also depicts something small in size. This portrays inferiority and being peripheral rather than important. “On the ground”: Perhaps the most condescending of them all. This phrase depicts long journeys on potholed roads in humid weather to places with names that sound exotic to European and North American ears. It is particularly jarring when contrasted with language such as “High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons” that decision-makers use to describe themselves. It has a close relationship with its sibling, “in the field.” Challenging our own biases If we want localization, we need to rethink our language. Some organizations have recognized that, but progress is slow. Mission statements and policy documents are still drenched in the words listed above that portray hierarchical relationships between international organizations and the people they support. We need to use language that shows we see people as equals. Rather than calling people beneficiaries, we can call them constituents, project participants, or simply people. Rather than saying we empower people, we can say we work with or support them. Rather than claiming we give people a voice, we should spend more time listening to them. Phrases such as “skills sharing” and “knowledge exchange” are more inclusive than “capacity building.” We don’t need the word “local” to talk about partners, communities, or people — we can usually just delete it or be specific about the location. And “on the ground?” This can be replaced with the names of cities, countries, or regions. And we need to reflect critically on our own worldviews and challenge our biases. Here are a few ways to do that: • Recognize our own biases. We all have them. Understanding that and identifying what they are is the first step to challenging them. • Challenge our assumptions. We need to question our implicit biases. This includes making sure our communication represents people as capable and relationships as equal. • Prioritize inclusive language. All organizations should discuss this as part of their work. Guidelines on language to use and avoid should be part of organizational communications strategies and style guides. • Seek diverse opinions and feedback. Involve the whole team and all partners in discussions about language and power dynamics. Seek external feedback. Listen and be open to change. • Commit to continuous learning. Stay informed about inclusive language and evolving practices in humanitarian communication.