Beyond Buzzwords: Decolonizing Language in Humanitarian Aid and International Development

In the humanitarian and international development sectors, language is powerful. It shapes our perceptions, influences our actions, and can either perpetuate or dismantle systemic inequalities. One term that has recently caught my attention is "handholding," often used to describe the support provided to refugees or needy people at the early stages of their road to self-sufficiency.

Despite my efforts to persuade peers to stop using this term, it remains prevalent, especially among colleagues from the Global South who adopt it from their Northern counterparts. This term, intended to signify support and guidance, instead carries connotations that undermine the people we aim to empower. Many African cultures reserve "handholding" for children under five, who naturally resist it as they strive for independence. This term infantilizes adults seeking self-reliance and perpetuates a colonial mindset that skews power dynamics in favor of the "helper."

The persistence of such terminology in our sector is more than just a matter of semantics. It reflects more profound issues of white superiority and colonizing attitudes that still pervade humanitarian and development work. These buzzwords sneak into our discourse, subtly reinforcing a narrative where the Global North is the savior and the Global South is the passive recipient of aid.

The Power and Pitfalls of Buzzwords

Global humanitarian and development leaders, their spokespersons, and those who write their content face significant cross-cultural communication challenges. These change champions create confusion—and failure—with their word choice, clichés, metaphors, and similes—enough confusion to suggest they don't know what they mean or how to achieve transformational change.

It's especially problematic for those who don't speak or use English as their first language, let alone those who are functionally illiterate. Much of the social impact vocabulary doesn't translate well, and multiplying and layering these buzzwords risks reducing their value.

Buzzwords are hollow!

Somehow, we must understand that writing is about making the correct linguistic choices for specific situations. People who should know better need to remember that the best communication solves problems clarifies confusion and reveals processes.

Language serves as both a means and a method. Whether written or spoken, language is an artificial construct that encodes thoughts for external reading. The best communication has cleansed itself of subjective things.

However, social impact has co-opted the trendy engineering, business, sociology, and political vocabulary. Search engine optimization mandates the placement and repetition of keywords. Concerns about the politically correct treatment of colonial powers and/or marginalized populations only compound these problems.

On the Role of Metaphors

Metaphors assert comparisons between unlike things. Without using "like" or "as," the comparison carries the weight of assertion. Effective metaphors engage the reader's brain, drawing on known images to fully picture a new idea. But social media turns metaphors into facts.

It would help if you did not take, intend, or use metaphors literally. They are meant to enhance communication. However, overuse has left them thin and shallow, making them susceptible to abuse by the writer or meaninglessness to the reader.

• Nexus: 1660s, "bond, connection, interdependence between members of a sequence or group; means of communication," from the Latin nexus "that which ties or links together," from the past participle of nectere "to connect," from the PIE root *ned- "to bind, attach."
• Sun-setting: It's a charming image, a pleasant way to end the day, perhaps with a drink on a romantic beach. However, it also means things are over. Whether you like it or not, darkness is coming your way.
• Deep dives: Analysts have used deep dives to suggest the value of quick and deep immersion in analysis or investigation. Desert dwellers do not appreciate this metaphor, nor does it indicate the risk of diving too deep or resurfacing too quickly.
• Big picture: Offering a look at the big picture can be demeaning. It implies that your vision is superior and that others must adopt it. Additionally, those who present the big picture often overlook the specific needs of the people they are trying to help.

In the Not-So-Common Parlance

There's a certain arrogance toward specialists. They cultivate a jargon of its nature, a lingo attached only to their field. Among themselves, they banter for no one's amusement but their own.

Engineers, sociologists, economists, and other soft and hard sciences all use and share jargon. They all deal with complex systems, so they feel pressed to explain their work clearly. But they lose that clarity when they communicate outside their field. They create a vocabulary of shortcuts, abbreviations, and an infinite supply of annoying, incomprehensible acronyms. To share their meaning and intent, they use analogies that don't work or confuse readers more.

• Beneficiary: The word beneficiary can mean heir/heiress, inheritor, recipient, grantee, assignee, and more. The context determines the meaning. A social impact initiative is a chain of events that begins with a donor and ends with a recipient. The beneficiary suggests that the recipient is satisfied. It implies the donor is a benefactor. It enhances the donors' financial worth by fostering a sense of well-being. When naming those receiving aid, the beneficiary suggests a subservient position.
• Ideate: Software developers have commandeered ideate, and it has spread through design thinking like a pandemic. The trouble is that ideate means "to form a mental picture." Synonyms include conjure, imagine, or envision, which are more explicit. As used, it carries the negative values of daydreaming, fabricating, inventing, stargazing, or hallucinating. You see, it originated in psychiatry, a science that engineers would dismiss as soft and unscientific.
• Growth-Hacking: Marketing Millennials came up with this word picture. They describe it as an intensive dive into making startups proliferate, often focusing on digital marketing. It means nothing more than "focused, constructive collaboration." While Starbucks may expect it, implementation teams in low-economy cultures may need help understanding it.

Connecting Systems, Thinking, and Ecosystems

Referring to terms like systems thinking and open and closed socioeconomic ecosystems, I have witnessed how these buzzwords can infiltrate discussions and become repetitive mantras without anyone questioning their true meaning or practical application. People often praise systems thinking without considering its connection to systems dynamics modeling or the tools that can operationalize it, such as Vensim and others. This gap in understanding undermines the potential of these powerful frameworks to drive meaningful change.

Systems thinking is about understanding the interconnectedness of various elements within a whole, recognizing patterns, and predicting outcomes. However, in reality, this often merely amounts to lip service. Similarly, open or closed socioeconomic ecosystems are complex structures requiring careful analysis and nuanced understanding—something buzzwords alone cannot convey.

The impact of AI and the democratization of knowledge is significant.

Today, systems thinking and systems dynamic modeling are no longer extended domains of a few experts. The advent of AI has democratized knowledge and skill acquisition. With minimal prompts, AI-driven language models enable average individuals to navigate complex jargon and operationalize terms like systems thinking and socioeconomic ecosystems. However, this democratization comes with a caution: the risk of oversimplification and misuse.

AI can bridge knowledge gaps and provide access to sophisticated tools like systems dynamics modeling, which are traditionally reserved for experts. This accessibility empowers more people to engage with complex systems, fostering a more inclusive and informed sector. However, we must use these tools thoughtfully to ensure that the depth and nuance of these concepts remain intact.

Localization and genuine empowerment

The push for localization, which USAID and other donors champion, is a significant step toward empowering local organizations. However, it must go beyond merely checking boxes. Absolute localization requires heavy investment in local organizations' institutional capacity development, systems infrastructure, policies, processes, and talent enablement.

This entails transferring resources and building robust systems that can sustain these efforts independently. It also entails ensuring that international NGOs (INGOs) refrain from creating shell NGOs or becoming subprime entities to circumvent localization requirements. The goal should be to foster genuine, equitable partnerships, not perpetuate dependency under a different guise.

Critics' issues, such as those in the Al Jazeera article on the colonial roots of humanitarian aid, Stanford's exploration of humanitarian efforts in Congo, and resources provided by The New Humanitarian and Yale Journal, emphasize the need for decolonizing aid. This process includes rethinking power dynamics, questioning agenda-setting, and ensuring that genuine local community needs and voices drive aid efforts.

Humor in the Humanitarian Sector

Let's face it: the humanitarian sector can be like an endless episode of "Buzzword Bingo." How many times can you hear "synergy," "stakeholder engagement," or "paradigm shift" before your eyes start to glaze over? We're all competing in a contest to see who can string together the most jargon in a single sentence.

But here's the kicker: While we're busy trying to sound smart, we might confuse the people we're trying to help. Picture this: a room of experts nodding as someone talks about "leveraging cross-sectoral synergies to optimize impact." Meanwhile, the person in the back row wonders if they wandered into a sci-fi convention by mistake.

On Choosing the Effective Word

Effective communication depends on selective crafting. Words have no objective meaning, especially in global exchange. Within a context, they are symbols presented with subjective intent and received with subjective perception. When you think about a traffic stop sign, the shape is almost universal. The stop word varies depending on the language region. In this case, the shape communicates with people familiar with traffic symbols. This complexity eludes the mindsets of many, even those with a genius for innovation and goodwill.

Engineers have developed languages for coding systems. These languages have governing sequences and syntax rules. They seek to frame a universally usable medium of exchange. And they have succeeded very well at this. However, these languages transmit formulaic sequences without ideation. (Oops, there's another fuzzword!)

Computer languages have advanced technology beyond human expectations but do not exchange ideas. Computer languages send messages to data users in the form of digits, which readers can use to extract information. Understanding occurs within a specific context, necessitating efficient conversion of the message into local languages developed within those contexts. For instance, translating a message from English to Sudanese-spoken Arabic requires a deeper understanding of the message's value and meaning within a specific village or region.

This complicates attempts to choose the effective word: fit for purpose, fit for context, fit in time, and fit for use (oops, there's another set of fuzzwords!). It demands mastery, conscientiousness, and conscience. Some helpful guidelines suggest:

• Use quantitative adjectives conveying number, size, weight, volume, and dimension.
• Avoid adverbs completely. All adverbs, by their nature, are judgmental.
• Reduce the use of vague, indefinite pronouns such as "some," "many," "few," etc.
• One-syllable words convey immediacy and power that are not present in multi-syllable words.
• Avoid importing vocabulary from foreign dictionaries.
• Show zero tolerance for clichés, aphorisms, and proverbs.

Prudent writers prohibit the use of weighted vocabulary. Ameliorative phrasing improves an argument by choosing words that enhance reality. Likewise, pejoration tilts the weight towards the cynical. Pejoration and amelioration manipulate language, diminishing the writer and disrespecting the reader. Low-income economies, for instance, are frequently the vestiges of imperialism and colonization. In those contexts, language takes on its own value system.

On the Language of Human Development

Social impact actors (notice the metaphor) have several problems. They must communicate in a relatively closed ecosystem (a metaphor) hosting multiple languages. They use jargon and argot specific to their world of humanitarian goodwill yet unknown to the marginalized (metaphor) recipients of their earnest generosity. The language of compliance and auditing practices constrains them.

Donors, UN agencies, NGOs, INGOs, nation-states, faith-based organizations, community-based benefactors, and more must find the means and methods to share information-loaded data despite the incredible physical, intellectual, social, and income disparity between development grantors and grantees. Not an easy task when enmeshed in buzzwords and jargon!