"Empowerment" Decoded and Other Doublespeak

Having worked in various NGOs, I am quite familiar with the argot of empowerment. It's one of those words that is both catchy and vague, making it the perfect addition to grant proposals, websites, and mission statements. And yet, language conceals as much as it reveals. And NGOese is a misleading and often deceptive dialect. Below, I have created a short and very incomplete list (in no particularly order) of some popular words, their common usage - and their hidden meanings...

1. Empowerment (v): to give power or authority to; to give ability to

Usage: Empowerment is the golden child of NGO-speak. It is used especially for educational projects aimed at vulnerable or marginalized groups (women, youth, minorities, etc). These projects claim to give power back to individuals by giving them the skills and knowledge to take charge of their destinies, and contribute to positive change in their communities.

Decoded: Empowerment is a gatekeeper word. By this I mean that the NGOs who use it act as gatekeepers on the type, extent, and accessibility of the "power" they are giving back to "the people." Empowerment projects are almost by definition asymmetrical. They start from the assumption that the recipient individuals are in some way lacking in the tools to succeed in 21st century society. Even if this is true, there is often little honest dialogue with the aid recipients themselves. Moreover, NGOs who preach empowerment very often are the worst offenders when it comes to empowering their own staff and contributors.

2. Capacity-Building: (v) developing the abilities of people, organizations, and institutions to overcome obstacles to their own growth and self-realization

Usage: Related to empowerment, but with a slightly more technical note, capacity-building is used to describe projects that "teach a man to fish." In other words, these projects serve the goals of empowerment, i.e. giving people the knowledge and tools to be critical thinkers and doers.

Decoded: Like all NGOese, this phrase could be applied to almost anything and have some relevance. This makes it highly suspect because it is so hard to pin down. Giving a girl a camera and telling her to take photos of her life? Capacity-building. Providing micro-loans to poor women to open their own stores? Capacity-building. Creating a network of organizations that fight hate crimes? Capacity-building. What is rarely discussed - or in many cases shoddily executed - is the level of training, knowledge, and guidance this "capacity-building" entails. And what about follow-up? Will the girl with the camera be given new batteries when the old ones die? Will the woman with the micro-loan be schooled in the complexities of loan repayment? Will the NGO network be anything more than just a list on a website?

3. Inclusion: (n) the act of including; being enclosed

Usage: The process of inclusion is always aimed at the marginalized - people in some way on the outside of so-called mainstream society. In policy circles, inclusion is meant as an antidote to both assimilation on the one hand, and exclusion on the other.

Decoded: First it was "assimilation," then it was "integration." Now the new buzz word for cultural melding is "inclusion."  It is a friendly word, but one that can, again, be applied to a huge swath of policies and projects. And it is hard to figure out if inclusion really differs from integration in any measurable way. I think policymakers would like us to believe that inclusion promotes cultural heritage, diversity, etc. while at the same time ensuring the equality and recognition of all citizens. That would be wonderful - if inclusion policies worked. But do they? More importantly, do inclusion policies actually take into account the real-life experiences, perspectives, and arguments of the "marginalized"? How many decision-makers actually know or have spoken with the people they are writing policies for? Until this happens, I remain sceptical that any kind of meaningful inclusion can take place.

4. Sustainability: (n) the ability to be supported, upheld or confirmed; the quality of not being harmful to the environment

Usage: Originally a term used in the environmental movement, now "sustainability" is de rigour in almost all socially-conscious NGOs. It is used to describe the self-perpetuating life cycle of a project or organization. A project is sustainable if it can replicate itself into the future despite limited resources. In the best case scenario, sustainable projects contain the mechanism for their own funding and growth.

Decoded: If you write the word "sustainable" on a grant application, basically you are promising the funder that its money will not be wasted. Until, that is, you actually get your hands on the money, in which case, all bets are off. I hate to be so cynical about this, but honestly, how many projects really make good on the promise of continued existence and expansion? And the charity/aid model only makes things worse. How can small NGOs claim to be sustainable when they rely on the personal whims and economic imperatives of individuals, foundations, and governments? Even in the best funding scenario, too many organizations are dependent on a strong leader who often does not share expertise, contacts, or responsibilities freely. This means that even if perpetual funds are secured, institutional knowledge is not passed on. And in my book, no mentorship = no sustainability.

There are many other words to be wary of:

Collaboration
Partnerships
Innovation
Cross-sectoral
Cultural
Measurable Impact
Etc.

All these words are reaching for ideals - which is good. Language and the world it describes should have a dimension of idealism, otherwise what are we striving for? At the same time, I am concerned that words like these are easily applied to "others", and very rarely to ourselves. While I am growing skillful at crafting language that fits the mold that grant-makers and donors require, I feel that a new paradigm of honesty and self-reflection is called for.

Do we really know what it takes to include even a single person in an existing structure, for example including a new employee in a team, or a new student in a school? Do we really want to change the nature of aid from dependency to sustainability - or is dependency secretly accepted, making it so much harder to root out? Are we strong enough and confident enough to empower the people who surround us every day, which would mean sharing and compromising more, and discovering what unique capacities they want to develop?

People often preach what they are most in need of themselves. In the case of empowerment, capacity-building, inclusion, and sustainability, I would say to NGOs: Doctor, heal thyself.