Below are some common words/phrases (grouped by theme) that are often used within philanthropy comms. Click a tab to reveal an insight into how these words and phrases might ‘harm’ or ‘heal’ in a particular context.

Note: this tool is designed to provoke thought, not police thought. So please navigate with this in mind.

WORDBANK THEME ONE:

DUTY OVER HEROISM

  • Example: We enable women in South Sudan to make a living for themselves and provide for their families.

    To enable is to “give (someone) the authority or means to do something; make it possible for”...

    Using this often contributes to the idea that majority world people are only capable of doing when given the permission or agency from their Western counterparts.

    In short: it suggests that a person or group is incapable of doing ‘Y’ without ‘X’.

    In this case, the charity/donor would b ‘X’.

  • Example: We provide funding to grassroots arts organisations in Sierra Leone.

    The term "provide" implies the act of making something available for use or supplying it, carrying an implicit sense of ownership, suggesting that the provider has acquired, prepared, and given something entirely on their own. For instance, stating "we provide funding" implies that the funds are solely generated and granted by the organization.

    This framing overlooks the reality that the wealth accumulated by many Western organizations or charities often stems from the historical exploitation of underdeveloped countries.

    By using the term "provide," there is a risk of reinforcing a colonial mindset, perpetuating the White/Western savior narrative, and fostering a misleading sense of superiority.

    This isn’t to suggest that the word should never be used. Occasionally, it might be the most practical choice. It is important however to think of the connotations and choose an alternative where possible.

  • Example: We fight poverty in rural Cambodia.

    The term "fight" conveys an image of being on the frontline, in the trenches, battling the very issues experienced by those living through them. When we say "we fight hunger," it inadvertently suggests that the individuals facing starvation are not actively engaged in the struggle against hunger themselves.

    Ironically, this framing also implies a lack of agency among those on the ground who are, in reality, the true warriors in the fight against hunger. It unintentionally leaves room for readers to envision them as passive, waiting once again for the White/Western entities to champion their cause.

    This inadvertently contributes to a subtle but pervasive form of symbolic violence, reinforcing narratives that undermine the agency and resilience of the affected communities.

  • Example: Through our efforts, we tackle child exploitation in Congo.

    The term "tackle" implies dealing with a problem in a determined or efficient manner. While this is often an apt description of charitable work, there are instances where it may convey a sense of premature or undue certainty.

    Similar to the above, "Tackling" a problem can evoke heroic imagery, positioning the organization as the sole protagonist in the narrative, swooping in to vanquish the issue.

  • Example: We support women in South Sudan who are making an effort to provide for their families.

    To support means to “bear all or part of the weight of; hold up”. Or “give assistance to, especially financially”.

    Using the word ‘support’ allows the supported party to retain their agency/power.

    It acknowledges that the person or group are capable of doing ‘Y’, but that ‘X’ is simply offering assistance.

  • Example: We redistribute funds to grassroots arts organisations in Sierra Leone.

    The term "redistribute" means to "share among people or organizations in a different way from the way that it was previously shared." Utilizing this term removes any implication of ownership. Instead, it acknowledges the previous existence of the resource and suggests that it is merely being allocated differently, in this case, to contribute to a more equitable society.

    By choosing to use the term "redistribute," we shift the focus from a heroic, unilateral act of providing to a responsible, regenerative effort to ‘give back’. This not only fosters a more accurate representation, but also aligns with the goal of promoting fairness and addressing historical imbalances.

    Even if the language does not explicitly detail its rationale, the subtle shift in terminology remains beneficial in challenging and reframing traditional narratives.

  • We actively support those fighting hunger in rural Cambodia.

    By opting for the phrase 'actively support,' we intentionally take a step back, implicitly acknowledging the inherent, day-to-day battle that these individuals face as a part of their daily lives. This choice of language positions our role as a supportive figure rather than the central protagonist in the narrative.

    This step back encourages readers to contemplate the nuanced reality of the daily struggle on the ground. It invites them to envision the creative and resourceful efforts undertaken by these individuals to persist in their fight against hunger. This shift in perspective not only imparts a sense of identity but also recognizes the agency and resilience of those facing the challenges, fostering a narrative of empowerment.

    In emphasizing our supportive role, we contribute to a more inclusive and respectful representation that honors the local community's identity, agency, and power. This approach goes beyond mere assistance; it actively promotes symbolic healing by reframing the narrative surrounding the ongoing battle against hunger in Cambodia.

  • Example: Through our work, we address child exploitation in Congo.

    Addressing a problem means making some effort to understand, ameliorate, describe, or to suggest possible solutions to the particular problem. Using "address" shifts the focus away from heroic actions to a more solution-oriented mindset. It emphasizes a commitment to understanding and responding to the needs of the community, acknowledging that solutions may be complex and require collaboration.

    "Address" recognizes that communities often have their own ways of dealing with challenges. It implies a supportive role for the charity in working alongside communities, respecting their autonomy and local knowledge.

WORDBANK THEME TWO:

VULNERABILITY

  • Example: We understand the need to shift power from INGOs to local grassroots organisations in order to create a more equitable sector.

    While this seems innocent enough - and may well be - at times the phrase ‘we understand’ can also prematurely suggest that the company has fully understood a critical concept, subject or issue - implying that the learning journey has stopped.

    A huge part of the decolonial learning journey is actually unpacking the need to begin the journey to start with. To begin with such ‘certainty’ in the language risks tainting the journey with a fixed/authoritarian outset right from the get go.

    The decolonial journey is a radical invitation to let go of certainty and the need to find intellectual solid ground.

  • Example: We’re improving our collaboration with local partners.

    While the phrase "we're improving" may appear innocuous, it can inadvertently suggest a level of certainty that the organization may not have fully achieved. Claiming improvement implies a degree of assurance that the changes being implemented will unequivocally lead to positive outcomes

    How can an organisation truly be certain that their efforts are an improvement or will lead to an improvement? What are the benefits of leading with this level of certainty and what are the potential pitfalls?

    Again, this isn’t to suggest that the term should never be used. However some extra forethought would be useful when thinking of doing so.

  • Example: We successfully delivered an initiative addressing food wastage in West Africa.

    Similar to the above, the use of the term ‘successfully’ often implies an unnecessary degree of certainty and finality. What constitutes success, and for whom? While many organizations conduct evaluation exercises to gather feedback, such assessments may not adequately capture the nuanced nature of success in complex issues like food wastage.

    This tendency to emphasize authority and accomplishments is commonly accepted in the commercial world but finds less relevance in the not-for-profit landscape, particularly given the uneven power dynamics prevalent in international development.

    Shifting the focus away from notions of ‘success’ and ‘accomplishment’ toward a commitment to continuous growth and learning is essential. Embracing a mindset of ongoing improvement better aligns with the dynamic nature of the challenges we seek to address.

    Ultimately, all sectors could benefit from cultivating this energy, but the international development space may stand to gain the most from such a shift.

  • Example: "We know that access to education is a fundamental right for every child."

    "We know" implies a high level of certainty and understanding. It suggests that the organisation possesses a definitive understanding or knowledge about a particular subject or issue.

    This phrase can convey a sense of authority and assurance. It may suggest that the organisation has comprehensive knowledge or expertise on the matter.

    If an organisation is certain and authoritative about a statement, "we know" might be appropriate. However, if the organization is in a phase of exploration, collaboration, or ongoing learning, "we consider" may be more fitting.

  • Example: We support women in South Sudan who are making an effort to provide for their families.

    To support means to “bear all or part of the weight of; hold up”. Or “give assistance to, especially financially”.

    Using the word ‘support’ allows the supported party to retain their agency/power.

    It acknowledges that the person or group are capable of doing ‘Y’, but that ‘X’ is simply offering assistance.

  • Example: We’re actively reevaluating our approach to collaborating with local partners.

    Choosing the phrase 'we’re rethinking' rather than 'we're improving' reflects a commitment to honesty and humility. It communicates a sincere acknowledgment that the organization is in the process of exploring changes, without prematurely asserting solid improvements. This nuanced language signals an open-mindedness and an understanding that meaningful transformation involves an ongoing, adaptive journey.

    By stating 'we’re rethinking,' the organization fosters a culture of transparency and genuine self-reflection. It demonstrates an awareness that improvement is not a one-time declaration but a continuous, evolving process. This approach invites stakeholders to join in the journey, emphasizing collaboration and shared learning.

    This language not only aligns with a flexible mindset but also sets the tone for a more authentic and accountable organizational culture. It communicates the organization’s dedication to responsiveness, ensuring that changes are thoughtful, informed, and in genuine collaboration with local partners. Ultimately, this choice of wording establishes a narrative of growth and adaptability, inviting stakeholders to engage in a dynamic process of positive change.

  • Example: We delivered an initiative dedicated to addressing food wastage in West Africa. or
    We wholeheartedly delivered an initiative dedicated to addressing food wastage in West Africa.

    This shift in language, focusing on commitment and approach, replaces the use of ‘successfully’ with a more heartfelt tone, emphasizing the organization's dedication to addressing the issue of food wastage.

    This approach underscores a commitment that goes beyond immediate outcomes, acknowledging that practical goals may evolve over time. The emphasis is placed on the enduring and devoted commitment to the cause, rather than a hasty pursuit of proving success. By leading with this focus on sustained dedication, the organization establishes a mindset that prioritizes ongoing improvement and learning, which is likely to lead to more meaningful and sustainable outcomes.

    This shift not only aligns with a more humble and continuous growth-oriented approach but also positions the organization as a partner in the journey, fostering a narrative that values dedication, collaboration, and the dynamic nature of the challenges at hand.

  • Example: "We consider access to education to be a fundamental right for every child."

    This phrasing avoids imposing a stance on the audience; instead, it presents an opinion for consideration. It invites the reader to understand the perspective and decide whether or not to embrace it as a guiding principle. This approach fosters a more inclusive discourse, allowing individuals to engage with the idea rather than having it presented as an unquestionable truth.

    This style of communication challenges the top-down approach often prevalent in the sector, advocating for a shift where Western-led organizations refrain from dictating the consensus on high-priority issues. "We view" suggests an open-minded and reflective stance, actively contemplating and evaluating the subject. This choice of language emphasizes humility and a readiness to incorporate diverse perspectives, promoting an environment of ongoing learning and collaboration.

WORDBANK THEME THREE:

GRATITUDE  AND

VALUE RECOGNITION

  • Example: We sought feedback from the beneficiaries to improve the way we carry out our work.

    Using the word beneficiary/beneficiaries can reduce the identity of those receiving funds to simply being a person in need.

  • One of the detrimental aspects of international development communications lies in how it portrays countries often labeled as 'undeveloped' or 'Eastern.' Frequently, images of children in distress become the sole representation of places like Namibia, Cambodia, and Ethiopia. However, these nations are rich with diverse cultures, histories, and accomplishments.

  • Using terms like 'frontline workers' has faced criticism for perpetuating an image associated with being in a warzone, while this criticism is not the focus here, this language runs the risk of inadvertently reducing individuals to the status of those involuntarily enlisted to carry out basic tasks.

    The individuals are often depicted as mere ‘labourers’, overlooking the multifaceted stories of those engaged in critical work.

  • Using the term 'participants' can inadvertently reinforce a hierarchical dynamic where the organization is positioned as the provider, and those involved are seen merely as recipients of these provisions.

    This framing overlooks the inherent value and contributions of the individuals categorized as 'participants,' diminishing their active role in the process.

  • Example: We sought feedback from the indigenous community in eastern Malawi to help us to rethink the way we carry out our work.

    Instead of referring to a beneficiary, where possible state who they are, specifically. The more specific you can be, the better. This gives them an identity beyond the beneficiary label.

  • Assigning them specific names allows people to encounter the entirety of these countries, moving beyond the narrow lens that often focuses solely on poverty.

    This approach contributes to the restoration of respect for these countries, countering the impact of years of symbolic violence. Such violence has manifested through the portrayal of these nations as undesirable destinations for travel or migration. By acknowledging the individual identities of Namibia, Cambodia, and Ethiopia, we challenge stereotypes and foster a more accurate and respectful understanding of these vibrant and multifaceted nations.

    In short, wherever possible, simply refer to a place using its name rather than its perceived economic status.

  • Referring to these individuals as 'local activists' introduces a more empowering and humanizing perspective. The term 'activist' implies agency, self-motivation, and a deeper narrative. It prompts questions about the individual's specific activism—what kind, and more importantly, why? By doing so, it sheds light on their motivations, hopes, dreams, and fears. This shift emphasizes the personal passion and sense of purpose that drives these individuals each day.

    Choosing the term 'local activists' not only acknowledges the varied identities and roles of these individuals but also reminds readers that their efforts are not simply a response to external forces. Instead, they are real people, motivated by their own passions and a profound sense of duty, playing a vital role in the collective pursuit of positive change.

    Note: Of course this terms should only be used where actually relevant.

  • Adopting the term 'knowledge holders/sharers' acknowledges the intrinsic value these individuals bring to the table. Whether engaged in a development program or contributing to a case study, these individuals are not passive participants but active contributors, sharing valuable insights, wisdom, and cultural nuances. This shift in language recognizes the reciprocal nature of the exchange, emphasizing that the organization benefits from the knowledge held by these individuals.

    Furthermore, using the term 'knowledge holders/sharers' promotes a fairer approach to engagement. It encourages a recognition of the time and expertise these individuals invest in the process, potentially leading to more equitable practices such as compensating them for their contributions.

    This language change fosters a mindset that respects and values the diverse expertise brought by individuals, promoting a more collaborative and inclusive approach in various initiatives.

  • Example: We are working to address the poverty crisis in rural Togo.

    Crisis is a term that implies an issue occurred spontaneously, akin to a natural disaster. This ignores the broader context and/or the role the West might have played in its creation. Even what might be perceived as 'natural disasters' can often be linked to the carbon impact of the Western world, unfairly affecting Eastern countries.

  • Example: We know that the foreign aid sector is falling short when it comes to forming equal partnerships.

    When addressing recurring issues within our working space, it's crucial to carefully consider whether describing the institution or sector as "falling short" accurately captures the situation or if "systematically failing" might provide a more precise depiction.

    The phrase "falling short" suggests that something is simply not meeting its inherent potential and might just need a nudge in the right direction to improve. While this framing is appropriate for situations where there is genuine underperformance, it falls short (pun intended) when dealing with institutions or sectors inherently flawed, possibly due to colonial roots.

  • Example: We acknowledge the complex history of the sector.

    When philanthropy uses the term "complex history," it's often a way to avoid talking about uncomfortable issues like racism and colonialism. Instead, we should use language that clearly labels the problem, such as "colonial history," and hold the philanthropy sector accountable for their actions. This is important in decolonizing philanthropy narratives.

  • The term "inequality" suggests that things are unequal but doesn't explain the root cause. This can reinforce the idea that inequality is just the way things are. While it's sometimes appropriate to use, it's important to check if it's masking the real issue.

    Instead, we should strive to get to the heart of the problem and use language that accurately describes the undesirable situation. This helps to bring attention to the underlying causes of inequality and encourages action to address them.

WORDBANK THEME FOUR:

DIRECT LANGUAGE

  • Example: We are working to address the consequences of economic instablility in rural Togo, with a focus on poverty.

    On the other hand, framing the situation as the "consequences of" or an "issue" cuts to the core of the matter, providing a more accurate portrayal while educating the audience about the larger problem.

    This language also challenges organizations and the sector as a whole to acknowledge their role in contributing to these challenges, fostering a sense of accountability. Shifting away from the crisis narrative minimizes the hero narrative, emphasizing a collective responsibility to address and rectify the root issues at play.

  • Example: We acknowledge that the foreign aid sector is systemically failing when it comes to forming equal partnerships.

    Referring to the institution or sector as "systematically failing" in the case bis more accurate. It acknowledges that the flaws are not accidental but deeply ingrained, often stemming from historical designs.

    This language shift emphasizes the need for transformative change within the institution or sector itself, recognizing that achieving different outcomes requires a fundamental shift in its structure and operations. It dispels the notion of a simple 'push in the right direction' and underscores the imperative for systemic change to address root issues effectively.

  • Example: We acknowledge the sector’s colonial roots.
    To decolonize philanthropy narratives, it's important to use language that clearly labels the issue, such as "colonial roots." This direct approach invites uncomfortable but necessary conversations and encourages the philanthropy sector to be honest and accountable.

    By addressing the fundamental issues at the heart of the sector, we can make progress towards a more equitable and just future.

  • When the term "inequality" doesn't feel adequate but you're unsure how to directly label the issue, "systemic privilege" can be a helpful alternative. It shifts the focus from the idea of inequality being natural to recognizing that the imbalance is a result of systemic factors.

    This directs attention towards the root cause of the problem and highlights the need for structural change

WORDBANK THEME FOUR:

GENERAL DISCOURSE

  • Example: We connect activists from the Global South with mentors from the Global North.

    Using the terms "global north" and "global south" can be misleading as they create an arbitrary binary that places the western world above the eastern world.

    This binary is not only unhelpful but also harmful, as it reinforces the idea of western superiority. Additionally, the terms "north" and "south" hold no scientific basis. The orientation of the map we know today is actually a colonial construct.

    You can watch this short video to learn more about this and why a shift in language is so important here.

  • Example: As a developing country, India needs support with building better infrastructure.

    The term ‘developing’ country implies that the country is simply lagging behind in its development when compared with its (Western) counterparts. But again, this ignores the reality behind its current stage of ‘development’.

    In his classic book entitled "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa," Walter Rodney emphatically stated, "Africa is not underdeveloped; it was deliberately impoverished by imperialism."

    The continent suffered not only from the extraction of its human resources through various means but also from the exploitation of its raw materials.

    Rodney's perspective challenges the notion of 'developing countries,' asserting that these nations are, in fact, recovering from a state of underdevelopment imposed upon them by imperialism.

  • Example: Example: We support hard-to-reach women to access entreprenerial opportunities.

    The term "hard to reach" can inadvertently imply that certain groups have deliberately isolated themselves from society, painting a limited and potentially biased picture. While there may be instances where this is true, it often doesn't capture the full complexity of the situation. Additionally, viewing these groups as intentionally avoiding assistance can foster negative attitudes and biases, attributing their struggles solely to their own choices.

    There’s also a notable correlation between organizations using this term and those not adopting an inclusive "by and for" approach. This suggests a top-down methodology and an inherent divide.

    A honest question that should be asked when this term comes up, is why are we doing this work? If we are struggling to reach this group, are we best placed to be leading this work? Could we collaborate with or support another organization to better serve this community's needs?

    These questions encourage a reconsideration of approaches and partnerships to ensure the work is both effective and respectful of the community it aims to serve.

  • Example: We’re inviting minorities to apply for our Impact Fund.

    Referring to people of color as minorities can be problematic because the term assumes that white people are the norm or the majority, while people of color are the exception or the minority. This can perpetuate the idea of white superiority and marginalize people of color.

    In reality, in different contrexts, those referred to as ‘minority’ are the majority and belong to the ‘global majority’ on the world stage.

  • Example: We connect activists from Majaority World countries with activists from Minority World countries.

  • Example: As a recovering country, India needs support with building better infrastructure.

    The term 'recovering country' represents a powerful reframing, urging the Western world to confront its historical actions and assume accountability. The term 'recovering country,' signals resilience and communicates that, while the journey toward progress is ongoing, the nation is far from incapacitated.

    This shift in language sparks a recognition of shared history and responsibility, fostering a more nuanced and empathetic understanding of the journey these nations are undertaking.

  • Example: We support marginalised women to access entreprenerial opportunities.

    The term marginalized is a powerful alternative to "hard to reach" because it recognizes that certain groups have been pushed to the edges of society due to systemic barriers and discrimination. It acknowledges that these groups face obstacles that are beyond their control, rather than implying that they are simply difficult to find or engage with.

    By using the term marginalized, we can shift the conversation away from inadvertently blaming these groups for their lack of engagement, and instead focus on addressing the root causes of their exclusion. This can help to create a more equitable and inclusive approach to community engagement and service provision.

  • Example: We’re inviting Global Majority artists to apply for our Impact Fund.

    The terms Global Majority and Local Minority offer more accurate and restorative ways of describing social dynamics than referring to people of color as minorities.

    While people of color may be in the numerical minority in certain local contexts, they are actually part of the global majority. By using these terms, we can shift our perspective and reduce harmful stereotypes that portray people of color as outsiders or different.