Two ideas to retire

Any words or phrases like “empower” or “capacity building” that can contain, assume, uphold, or cover up a giver/receiver dynamic and what have been severe and damaging power differentials in the international aid and philanthropy sector, are problematic for me as a Director of Communications.

It’s not about arguing semantics nor about people defending their intentions, because, no, words are not the same as practice.

But words reflect and become intentions, and intentions reflect and become changes.

It is time to retire not just these words, but the mindset and orientation that created them and are often still working underneath them. Here’s why:

Women have power. People in the Global South have power. We need to understand there are different forms of power at play in people’s lives, from the institutional and the positional to the personal and the collective. (Pssst, as bringers and representatives of financial resources, us global development and humanitarian and philanthropy folks have that kind of power.)

Thing is, throughout history – one marked by movements(!) that bring societal progress – power is rarely relinquished willingly by those who have it.

It’s time for all of us in the global aid ecosystem to recognize that if you “give” power to someone, by implication that also means you can take it away.

I’m not in the business of “giving” any one person power.

My focus is unleashing people power.

There’s seriously entrenched power dynamics in capacity building. Who says people in the Global South don’t have skills and knowledge and resources already?

And who defines what skills are necessary? The do-gooder sector prioritizes building capacity for financial absorption over capacity for improved service, advocacy, or organizational learning, i.e. do this or learn this in order to take part in the donors’ funding flows. (Yes, this is a glass ceiling.)

The sector also perpetuates the myth of “low capacity” to justify its own existence. The myth is derogatory and patronizing…at best.

What if whatever support we could offer was built upon the existing capacity found in grassroots groups – deep contextual knowledge, embeddedness within communities, resourcefulness, language and cultural skills, and the ability to operative in a responsive manner to local needs? (Found particularly in groups led by women, Indigenous peoples, youth, and queer/trans folks.) What if we build our support on the assumption that people from all walks of life are already and always developing, as part of a natural, ongoing process?

Whatever we are doing, we need funders, aid practitioners, social entrepreneurs, and the rest thinking carefully and differently about what it is to do justice to people’s own vast and vital efforts in the Global South, rather than putting our idea of “progress” ahead of people’s own ideas and plans for self-determination.

If we’re smart, we’ll stop looking for capacity to be built, and ask, what do people need to develop? Is it really technical assistance, oversight, inspection, and pejorative judgments from outsiders? What if we re-oriented so-called “capacity building” approaches to be rooted in what grassroots groups often require most of us – resources, allies, solidarity, respect, celebration, collaboration, and encouragement?

If I am to be a vital part of supporting grassroots-driven social transformation, I need to know how to build authentic, more equal partnerships and foster networks of learning an mutual support. How can we white folks and people from rich countries build OUR capacity for not just cultural competence, but cultural humility?

If there’s any capacity that remains to be built after decades(!) of development and humanitarian aid, perhaps it’s that of the so-called capacity builders. We can start with using words that focus on standing in solidarity with those demanding and determining a new future for their families and communities.

***

Do you have other buzzwords or catchphrases in our sector that irk you? Use Agnes Otzelberger over at The Good Jungle’s “bullsh#% test.” She explains:

You replace the subject/object of your phrase (e.g. ‘women’ in ‘women’s empowerment’ [or ‘youth’ in ‘capacity building’) with any other grouping of humans (gender, ethnicity, religious or other; it’s often particularly revealing when you substitute for a religious group, or the antithesis of your subject, in this case ‘men’). When the result sounds ridiculous, or feels weird, or wrong, you probably shouldn’t be using it. It should be possible to say what you’re saying about any human being, or else you’re probably saying something dehumanising or patronising.

***

Related Posts

Grassroots = No Brains?

“They” and the shaping impulse of America

The first assumption

Building a Fire: Thinking twice about how we look at organizational capacity assessment

Sustainability–some clarity please!

And while we’re talking jargon…how about “innovation”?

Friday’s Poetic Pause: “Capacity Gap”

8 Comments

  1. Folks have been chiming in on Twitter with two things: 1) What words do we use instead?, and 2) “I’ve been trying to ban these words in our organization.” Here’s been my response:

    1) Indeed, these terms are insidious, and now such an entrenched part of the aid lexicon. There’s nothing wrong with specificity, words like training, community meetings, organizing. We might need to give up the need/desire to be laconic and conceptual. We don’t always have to find the most efficient description for what are (or should be) long-term engagements, processes, and journeys. Words that reflect widgets of western “knowledge” dropped off by the aid delivery system just won’t do anymore.

    2) To be clear, I don’t call attention to these words for the purpose of “banning” them. Rather, I hope it invites deeper inquiry/reflection on how we use them and the intentions/patterns/history behind them. I’m afraid website/materials/documents scrubbing would literally whitewash the problem. I don’t want organizations to change language without changing policies and practices. Words can help alter reality, but we also have to do “the work” that goes into more equitable partnerships. That work is about reckoning & wrestling with the -isms – racial, gender, class inequalities – within ourselves, and within our teams and organizations. I won’t lie, this work is painful, but there is liberation for all in it, and beyond it, is the world we dream of.

    My wish is for every time someone goes to write or say “beneficiary” or “empowerment” or “capacity building,” they pause and think about the power at play, think “actually, who is driving this?”

    Words reflect our reality, and they can help change it, but let us not change our language without changing ourselves first.

  2. Pingback: A7: The Humanitarian Imperative

  3. Pingback: A7: The Humanitarian Imperative

  4. Pingback: Assignment 7: The Humanitarian Imperative

  5. Pingback: The Humanitarian Imperative

  6. Pingback: The Humanitarian Imperative: Real, but Ineffective

  7. Pingback: What capacities might we, as white people in international development, need to build in ourselves in order to commit to anti-racist practice? - MARY ANN CLEMENTS

  8. Pingback: How do you spot “empowered” women? - Thousand Currents

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.