For the better half of the past decade, I have navigated the corridors of leading international organizations, sat side by side with speakers and attendees of global conferences, and meticulously studied impact reports from a spectrum of organizations in the field of international development. While I have walked away feeling inspired, hopeful, and confident, one recurring question persists: What does that mean?
This sentiment is well captured by Megan Cossey in her 2014 article, "Five Examples of Development Jargon that Make Your Reader's Head Hurt." As I perused her work, I couldn't help but chuckle at a question in the comment section that reads:
"But what if you wanted to provide technical assistance to alternative cooperatives to build the capacity of rural stakeholders, empowering them to better catalyze locally produced chemical products and leveraging demand from urban consumers as the primary off-taker for an impactful experience that enhances productivity by keeping people from sleeping?"
This comment humorously underscores the complexity and sometimes obscure language used in development discourse, prompting reflection on the clarity and effectiveness of communication within the field.
For what seems like an eternity, the international development sector has been entangled in the allure of data storytelling, peppered with buzzwords and jargon. There is a love-hate relationship with these terms used to describe our "life-saving" work - we grapple with and critique them, yet invariably find ourselves reverting to the same language patterns. And while this form of data storytelling can be compelling, it has profound implications. Although it may seem straightforward to resort to terminology such as "empowering," "capacity building," "leveraging," or "catalyzing," the overuse of technical language can, in fact, perpetuate inequities, reinforce stereotypes, and exacerbate power imbalances. Rather than truly "empowering" the communities in which we work, we can distort realities and marginalize voices - the voices that perhaps matter the most. This highlights how growth rates, though celebrated in macroeconomic terms, may not translate into tangible improvements in individual well-being.
Let's consider poverty. In the context of poverty alleviation, development organizations often rely on technical indicators such as GDP growth or poverty rates to measure progress. But do these metrics really capture the multidimensional nature of poverty? Issues such as inequality, social exclusion, and the effects of climate change? Moreover, what does "growth" mean anyway - like actually? This reminds me of my internship at the Africa Progress Panel. During my onboarding period, I was handed some of the past progress reports to read. One poignant example stood out: it was an anecdote about a Senegalese taxi driver who said, "I can't eat growth." Growth rates remained abstract to him and did not translate into his perceived well-being.
The disconnect between these celebrated macroeconomic achievements and their tangible impact at the micro level was vividly illustrated by former President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, during a panel at the Graduate Institute in Geneva in 2017. He recounted an encounter he had with a former Ethiopian Prime Minister during the state of emergency. When he asked the Prime Minister about the situation in the country, the response was: "We were looking at the growth and GDP numbers, we forgot to look at the people."
By glossing over complex issues with technical language and buzzwords, development practitioners risk alienating stakeholders, obscuring structural inequalities, and reinforcing harmful stereotypes about marginalized communities. The excessive use of jargon creates a barrier to understanding, excluding those not fluent in development-speak and perpetuating a culture of exclusivity within the sector. We must recognize and act on the fact that words matter - language matters.
As writers and speakers, let's get specific. Let's refrain from using "technical assistance" to mask uncertainty about project details or outcomes. As Cossey rightfully reminds us, technical assistance could mean anything from donating computers and demonstrating how they are used to lending staff for a particular job or task. Let's get specific: which one is it? As a sector, let's (really) start centring on the voices and experiences of the communities in which we work so that we can challenge dominant narratives, disrupt power dynamics, and co-create more inclusive and equitable solutions. Let us remain vigilant against oversimplification, objectification, and paternalism.
So the next time you speak at a conference, ask yourself what you really mean when you say you are providing "capacity building"? When drafting your organization's annual report, reconsider whether you are "empowering" communities. What does that look like? Has the community told you they feel empowered? When discussing strategies with partners, rethink the use of "leveraging" philanthropic funds. As Cossey notes in her article, "If you do insist on using 'leverage' as a verb, however, do be sure to alternate it with its number one synonym, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "exploit."
Above all, the next time you are at an environmental conference and a speaker advocates for "integrating sustainable paradigms into mainstreaming practices across industries and policy frameworks," be prepared to ask: What does that mean?
Comments