{"id":184,"date":"2025-05-26T16:40:01","date_gmt":"2025-05-26T16:40:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/?p=184"},"modified":"2025-05-26T16:40:01","modified_gmt":"2025-05-26T16:40:01","slug":"language-that-divides-and-language-that-connects","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/2025\/05\/26\/language-that-divides-and-language-that-connects\/","title":{"rendered":"Language That Divides and Language That Connects"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>With aid cuts, worsening climate crises, conflict and wars across the globe, it is fair to wonder; <em>why bother with language at all?<\/em> Isn\u2019t it a distraction from the real work? A change in vocabulary will not save lives or dismantle systems of oppression on its own; and too often, language reform becomes a cosmetic gesture, signaling progress without actually redistributing power. Swapping \u201cbeneficiary\u201d for \u201ccommunity member\u201d means little if decisions remain concentrated in Geneva, London, or New York. Critics of \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/postcolonialpolitics.org\/changing-words-changing-nothing-a-critical-look-at-humanitarian-terminology\/\">language policing<\/a>\u201d rightly warn against hollow word-swaps and performative progressivism. In a sector where resources are shrinking and the stakes are high, focusing on terminology can seem like the privilege of well-intentioned insiders even sidelining more urgent initiatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I hold that tension too. I\u2019ve questioned whether focusing on language is even my place, or if it is a distraction from avoiding the harder task of changing the sector. But again and again, I return to this: <a href=\"https:\/\/humanitarianaction.info\/article\/language-and-translation-humanitarian-coordination\"><strong>language is a mirror and a tool<\/strong><\/a>. It shapes how we relate to one another, whose knowledge we value, and how we perceive power. Ignoring language risks reinforcing the very hierarchies we claim to dismantle. This blog is not about semantics for their own sake; it is about <a href=\"https:\/\/rootsofdevelopment.org\/languages-role-in-shaping-aid-outcomes-why-words-matter-in-humanitarian-work\/\">recognising the deeper truths<\/a> our words either obscure or illuminate, and why aligning how we speak with what we believe still matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There are certain phrases we use in the humanitarian aid sector without thinking. For instance, words like \u201con the ground,\u201d \u201cbeneficiaries,\u201d \u201ccapacity building,\u201d or strings of acronyms like RLO, CBO, INGO. We have inherited this language from a professional culture shaped by funding cycles, reporting frameworks, and technical disciplines. They are familiar and we may console ourselves by saying \u2018everyone is using those words\u2019, but that\u2019s exactly why we need to assess our role in conforming to the norm by pausing, questioning, and truly listening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Recently, I came across someone describing the term \u201c<strong>on the ground<\/strong>\u201d as <a href=\"https:\/\/jpia.princeton.edu\/news\/do-what-i-say-not-what-i-do-decolonizing-language-international-development\">problematic<\/a>. I\u2019ll admit, I brushed it off at first. It seemed like over-policing language. But over time, I\u2019ve found myself pausing more often and thinking:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>What am I really saying when I use this phrase?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whose perspective does it center on?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>And who might it be excluding?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>I\u2019ve used this phrase countless times, without malice, and often without much thought. It seemed like harmless shorthand to refer to people or organisations doing work in communities, often in forced displacement settings. But as I\u2019ve listened more deeply to peers and partners, especially those with lived experience of forced displacement, I\u2019ve started to hear what\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com\/bitstream\/handle\/10546\/118173\/bk-deconstructing-development-buzzwords-010910-en.pdf\">underneath the phrase<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Who is &#8220;on the ground&#8221;?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Even if we might not admit it, when we say \u201con the ground,\u201d what are we implying? That someone else is <strong>above<\/strong>? That people doing work in their own communities are somehow different from \u201cus\u201d, the intermediaries, donors, planners, strategists, or international staff?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I have come to realise the phrase quietly reinforces a <a href=\"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/fordham-scholarship-online\/book\/58294\/chapter-abstract\/484441347?redirectedFrom=fulltext&amp;login=false\">hierarchy of distance:<\/a> a view from above, looking down. It turns lived realities into locations to be monitored, visited, or reported on, rather than acknowledged as the center of knowledge and decision-making. And often, it reflects the point of view of someone <strong>not<\/strong> \u201con the ground\u201d, someone observing from a distance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Language does more than describe, it shapes <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/S0305750X23002784\">how we allocate resources<\/a>, whose voices we prioritise, and whose knowledge we consider legitimate. When we use phrases like \u201cfield staff,\u201d \u201cimplementers,\u201d or \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/posts\/marina-kobzeva-solidarity_locallyled-humanitarian-localization-activity-7329125118599716864-d3jH\/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAokaGgBi1OqQ8eFrqPnKupkPW1RlMg_WCA\">local actors<\/a>,\u201d we risk unintentionally defining people by their proximity to power, or lack thereof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And then there\u2019s the jargon and acronyms that turn people into policy terms, or euphemisms that blur accountability. Terms like IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons), RLOs (Refugee-Led Organisations), FBOs (Faith-Based Organisations), or PSEA (Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse) and etc are useful for shorthand, but they also risk reducing people and lived experiences to technical categories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Euphemisms like \u201cLessons learned\u201d can sometimes replace actual accountability, implying reflection without change. \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/media.odi.org\/documents\/As_local_as_possible_as_international_as_necessary_understanding_capacity_and_comp.pdf\">Capacity building<\/a>\u201d subtly assumes that communities <a href=\"https:\/\/aidleap.org\/2013\/05\/18\/why-is-capacity-building-meaningless\/\">lack capacity<\/a>, instead of recognising already existing knowledge.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Take the word \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/chapter\/10.1057\/978-1-349-94951-9_2\">empowerment<\/a>.\u201d It sounds positive, even harmless, but it quietly reinforces a troubling idea: that power is something we give to others, rather than something they already hold. When we say we\u2019re \u201cempowering people or communities,\u201d we often center ourselves as the actors, overlooking the leadership and knowledge that already exists. Using that kind of language can make it seem like we\u2019re helping, while actually covering up the real, deeper issues, like unfair systems or power imbalances, that we haven\u2019t addressed or changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We can\u2019t build inclusive systems using exclusionary language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Are We Over-Policing Words?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Of course, there\u2019s a risk on the other side too. Language evolves, and not everyone who says \u201con the ground\u201d for example, is reinforcing colonial power structures. There\u2019s a danger of shaming people for not using the \u201cright\u201d terms, or for speaking in ways that are familiar to them. Policing language without <a href=\"https:\/\/www.peacedirect.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/PD-Decolonising-Aid_Second-Edition.pdf\">building shared understanding<\/a> can alienate, not transform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A recent conversation made me pause and reflect on this tension more deeply. Someone asked me, quite genuinely, <em>what legitimacy do I have to question what people say in everyday interactions, or to dictate how they should be using certain terms?<\/em> I caught myself feeling triggered. At first, I wanted to defend my position, to explain that language matters, that words shape power. But the question stayed with me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It forced me to confront my own discomfort. Was I approaching this from a place of care or from a place of control? Was I inviting reflection, or unintentionally imposing a standard? The truth is, I don\u2019t want to dictate, I want to invite dialogue. But I also don\u2019t want to pretend language is neutral, or that I should stay silent to avoid discomfort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I\u2019m learning that it\u2019s not about having <em>legitimacy<\/em> as much as it is about taking <em>responsibility<\/em>. Not to police, but to participate.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So the goal isn\u2019t to make people feel bad for the words they use. It\u2019s to encourage awareness: <strong>Why do we use the language we use? Who does it serve? Who might it exclude?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What We Can Do Instead<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>We can start by being specific. For example, instead of \u201cpeople on the ground,\u201d we can name who we\u2019re talking about: <strong>refugee-led organisations<\/strong>, <strong>community leaders<\/strong>, <strong>women\u2019s groups in northern Uganda<\/strong>, or just simply<strong> our<\/strong> <strong>partners<\/strong>. We can speak from a place of proximity rather than distance, describing what people are doing, not where they stand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We can also invite others into our language. Rather than hiding behind acronyms or jargon, we can explain things in accessible terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And we can remain humble. <strong>Words will change<\/strong>. What feels thoughtful today may feel outdated in two years. What matters is our willingness to listen, learn, and evolve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>In the End, It\u2019s About Inclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Whatever the context may be, the words we choose should reflect the relationships we want to build with our partners: inclusive, respectful, equitable and grounded in mutual trust.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So no, I\u2019m not suggesting we create a blacklist of forbidden words. But I do think we should pay attention. Because language isn\u2019t neutral, it either builds bridges or reinforces walls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the end, it\u2019s not just about the words themselves, it\u2019s about what they signal, what they open up, and what they shut down. Language will always evolve, but if we let it, it can evolve toward connection rather than control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>With aid cuts, worsening climate crises, conflict and wars across the globe, it is fair to wonder; why bother with language at all? Isn\u2019t it a distraction from the real work? A change in vocabulary will not save lives or dismantle systems of oppression on its own; and too often, language reform becomes a cosmetic [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":186,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[29,28,14,10,27,20,25],"class_list":["post-184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blogs","tag-care","tag-frontline-responders","tag-human-relationships","tag-inclusion","tag-language","tag-refugees","tag-trust"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/IMG_0519.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=184"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":189,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184\/revisions\/189"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/186"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.wearecohere.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}