Reimagining Development Language

This is a guest post by Dr. Moses Isooba, the Executive Director of the Uganda National NGO Forum, a civil society platform for governance and democracy influencing in Uganda

---

“Language is a critical part of a community’s identity and heritage. As we lose languages, we lose a part of our collective history and culture.”
– Anju Mary Paul, research lead at FirstVoices

In just seven years, the world will hit the deadline for Agenda 2030.

Many important challenges are often cited in discussions of how to meet this target, such as financing, or the need to strengthen multi-stakeholder engagement.

But another element is increasingly gaining attention as a key lever of SDG implementation: language, which sets the terms of engagement between development actors.

The main theater of SDG implementation is at the level of communities. Decolonising language is essential to any development intervention which seeks to involve communities as co-investors and not mere beneficiaries. 

Inequalities will remain if our language mirrors that of the people in power, and system change can only come if we apply the right language.

The problem with development language

The question of whether development language is colonial is complex, and in the public domain for continuous debate.

The imposition of European languages and cultures on colonized peoples has long been a component of colonialism. Colonial powers imposed their languages, often leading to the erosion of indigenous ones. Development language can be seen as a continuation of this legacy, as it often excludes indigenous and minority languages, reinforcing patterns of linguistic and cultural dominance.

It is problematic, for example, that development practitioners in Africa and Asia tend to work in only French or English, despite the wealth of tribal languages spoken. What happens when people do not understand the language development practitioners are using? The inability to communicate  undoubtedly has a negative impact on any SDG rollout, as it creates inequality between native and non-native language speakers. We need a language and lexicon that promotes inclusive communication.

Re-Imagining INGOs (RINGO)

What would this look like in practice? I am part of a group that has been attempting to find an answer.

Re-Imagining INGOs (RINGO) Social Lab (Rights CoLab) is a group of development practitioners reimagining INGOs through disruption, innovation and systematic thinking. Among its aims is to get rid of colonial, racist and pejorative jargon, idioms and terminology in the international aid complex and development sector. RINGO is also working to shift power in the development industry by enabling people to use local languages while communicating with INGOs and aid practitioners.

To achieve these objectives, RINGO used AI tools – specifically an intelligent website – to detect “red flagged” words, phrases and idioms. We then developed a “language grid” of problematic words, along with explanations for why they are problematic, and suggestions for replacements.

As we continue this work, RINGO understands that questions of language must be nuanced. We have heard reminders that words, idioms and phrases need to be contextualized, as it is possible for a word that is considered negative in one context to be acceptable in another. (And of course, even AI is skewed towards the English language.) Therefore, the grid is a work in progress.  

What are some words you can find on the grid? Terms such as “desk officer” and “in the field,” both of which are reminiscent of the colonial era. Also “country offices,” as international humanitarian organisations often call their offices in the Global South – suggesting outposts tying us to the colonial ship. For that matter, “Global South,” too, is problematic, as it tends to be used in reference to countries where the social indicators are depressingly poor. A term like “mission” recalls white saviorism, which also needs to be deconstructed.

The language grid is a powerful tool for development practitioners, who can use its find-and-replace function to craft more inclusive communications.

As the language grid expands, we continue to receive feedback that the need to replace certain words is more urgent now than ever before. And we have seen development practitioners take the initiative to do so.  

For example, some development partners are abandoning the term “Global South” and instead using “global majority.”  

Communities are now being referred to not as “beneficiaries” of development aid but as “co-investors,” a reframing that is redefining the way development is done. The “co-investment” terminology is an acknowledgement that while donors bring in money, communities too have their own assets, including money, skills, knowledge, relationships and networks. As community assets are deployed, community voice and power is triggered.  

As we move towards 2030, leveraging the power of language and lexicon will be crucial. 

As development practitioners, we need to understand how our use of certain phrases and terms – words like ‘poor countries’, ‘beneficiaries’ and ‘developing world’ – continue to mask an agenda of Western domination, reinforcing  rich/poor binaries. These terms establish a hierarchy in which the West is superior, the rest is inferior. This indicates a relationship between dominant and dominated, and raises serious questions about the whole aid industry.

If we truly want to achieve the SDGs, we have to rid development language of the old hints of colonialism, and create a new one in which damaging binaries and hierarchies have been dropped.