Written by Sarika Bansal, Jan 5, 2017
We started The Development Set a year ago with a simple premise: to publish unexpected stories about health, international development, and social impact — and to make you productively uncomfortable in the process.
The name of the publication is borrowed from a 1976 poem of the same name. In it, the author, Ross Coggins, satirizes the well-intentioned but navel-gazing culture of development professionals. “The language of the Development Set / Stretches the English alphabet / We use swell words like ‘epigenetic’ / ‘Micro,’ ‘macro, and ‘logarithmetic.’”
The name “The Development Set” serves as a constant reminder that we can do better. And, in my humble opinion, we’ve proven that several times over in 2016, with feature stories and essays that have constantly pushed boundaries. But a new year gives the opportunity for a fresh start and self-improvement, so here goes.
Language and imagery matter. As such, as the editor of The Development Set, I resolve to not use the following 17 clichés or tropes in our stories this year.
Huge shout-out to my Facebook friends and Twitter followers for helping me generate this list. And as with any resolution, I ask all of you to keep me accountable.
1.“On the ground.” Someone once told me that this phrase exists to differentiate perspectives from ivory towers. But to me, it feels more commonly used as a lazy, somewhat self-righteous substitute for “parachuting into a developing nation.” I get countless pitches from writers who tell me they’re “on the ground in [insert country in Africa, Asia, or Latin America].” A question: When they return home, do they not walk on the ground?
Related, people talk about the research they are conducting “in the field.” Are they researching the growth patterns of organic wheat? Or the nighttime behaviors of field mice?
2. “Empowerment.” This is one of those words that has great intentions — who doesn’t want to, say, empower women? — but has lost its edge with overuse. It will also forever remind me of a photo I once saw taken by an NGO in rural India, in which several women gathered around a poster that said, “Thanks to [name redacted] workshop, we are EMPOWERED.”
First, I’m not sure the women in the photo read English. Second, empowerment isn’t like a light switch; it’s a long and messy process, and it certainly won’t be completed in a workshop.
3. “Income-generating activity.” Because for some reason poor people can’t just have a job. (Credit to Abigail Higgins for writing this one. Also see “livelihood opportunities.”)
4. Photos of children chasing after a Jeep. There’s something about this particular photographic choice that, to me, reinforces the White Savior narrative.
5. “Capacity building.” Luckily, the no-jargon rule of The Development Set has prevented me from publishing anything with this cringe-worthy phrase, but let’s include it here as a reminder to not allow it in 2017. (For those of you who aren’t familiar with the phrase, the WHO defines it as “the development and strengthening of human and institutional resources.” Whatever that means.)
6. “Global citizen.” Ever noticed how most people who give themselves this epithet are white and citizens of countries with powerful passports? Until people begin referring to Syrian refugees as global citizens, we’re avoiding the term altogether.
7. Villages vs. Towns. Several months ago, I received a draft that started with, “In towns across Europe and villages in Africa….” What distinguishes a town from a village? And why “across” Europe but “in” Africa? On a related note, I implore writers to think twice before using loaded terms like “tribe.”
8. Photos of Maasai warriors with cell phones. What a pithy way to convey the ways in which traditional cultures are adapting to the 21st century. #ict4d (Credit to Anjali Sanghvi for this one.)
9. Stories that focus more on the “do-gooder” than the actual work being done. I love profiles of impressive people who have effected tremendous social change. But I don’t love stories that serve as glorified hero worship, or that treat the worthiness of someone’s work as evidence of the work’s success.
In other words: you’re welcome to pitch me a story about your friend who quit her cushy job at a bank to work on malnutrition in Bolivia. I’m interested in her personal story — but I probably care more about whether her work is actually making a difference. (Credit to Solutions Journalism Network for focusing on this distinction.)
10. “Do-gooder.” Let’s not turn powerful individuals who work on social change into teachers’ pets.
11. “Do good and do well.” Such a grammatically awkward way to talk about a for-profit organization with a social mission.
12. “Giving voice to the voiceless.” Yes, one of the intentions of The Development Set is to publish underreported stories that will increase visibility of historically marginalized populations. But the word “voiceless” at best reminds me of Ariel in The Little Mermaid — and at worst, feels condescending.
13. “Liaising with key local stakeholders.” Jargon police here. As with most jargon, this can be solved through specificity. Instead of “stakeholder,” tell me who matters when a decision is being made. And when you say “liaise,” do you mean you’re having a conversation?
14. “Silver bullet.” There are none, and certainly not in the complicated world of social impact. I commit to never rhetorically asking in a headline whether an innovation is a silver bullet. The answer is no.
15. Stories in which black/brown people are used as flat, colorful characters. I’m reminded here of a famous essay in Granta, “How to Write about Africa”:
Among your characters you must always include The Starving African, who wanders the refugee camp nearly naked, and waits for the benevolence of the West. Her children have flies on their eyelids and pot bellies, and her breasts are flat and empty. She must look utterly helpless. She can have no past, no history; such diversions ruin the dramatic moment. Moans are good. She must never say anything about herself in the dialogue except to speak of her (unspeakable) suffering. Also be sure to include a warm and motherly woman who has a rolling laugh and who is concerned for your well-being. Just call her Mama.
On the other hand, too many “experts” quoted in health/development stories are dripping with privilege, especially compared to the quintessential Starving African. I implore writers to think about the people you’re choosing to interview for your stories, and the ways in which you plan to use them. You may also want to check the list of Aspen New Voices and Global Health Corps fellows for experts from Africa and Asia.
16. “Beneficiaries.” Wayan Vota has written about the inherent problems with this term: “The definition of the term “beneficiary” means a person who derives advantage from something, usually a will, trust or other financial instrument. The implication is that this recipient is a passive recipient of largesse. And somehow, we have adopted this term in development. That the people we are working with should be passive recipients of our financial gifts.”
17. “Third world.” This term originated during the Cold War to define countries that were neither aligned with NATO nor the Communist Bloc. It’s now used as shorthand for “non-industrialized” countries — though according to its definition, it also includes neutral countries like Switzerland. Like several of the other phrases in this list, “third world” also feels quite paternalistic.
But I’m not sure how to replace it. We typically use “developing country” in TDS, but recognize that there’s an increasingly false divide between “developed” and “developing” countries. I’ve had crystal-clear Skype connections in Tanzania and Thailand, while I’ve struggled with public transportation to New York City’s JFK airport.